Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-15-1992 9 ~ . + . ~ . . ~ . . Regular Meetinq - October 15, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 15, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The - mesting 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 5UBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Re ort and related project 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 was a continuation of the October 12th meeting and that the Commission had received several letters from the public regarding the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan documents. Ms. Gillarde indicated that for the last six meetings, the public has had an opportunity to comment on the eastern Dublin project. This would be the last meeting for oral testimony on the 5pecific Plan, General Plan Amendment and EIR as well as written comments on the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment portion of the project. She noted that the written comment period for the Draft EIR had been extended by the City Council to October 29th at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Gillarde indicated that after the close of the public hearing, the Commission will begin their deliberations, starting with the Draft EIR. The purpose of the discussions on the Draft EIR was to examine the adequacy of the document. She recommended that the Commission focus their discussions on this aspect of the Draft EIR. Ms. Gillarde discussed CEQA guidelines on the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report. The EIR should provide sufficient analysis to inform the decision makers about the environmental consequences of a project. The analysis does not have to be exhaustive, but provide the critical known information about specific issues. Ms. Gillarde stated that the staff report acknowledged eight letters received on the Draft EIR. A letter from the Pilots to Protect the Livermore Airport was also received and distributed to the Commission. Since the writing of the staff report, Staff had received three additional letters which will be delivered to the Commission at a later date. 5taff will prepare responses to all of the comments Regular Meeting PCM-1992-164 October 15, 1992 [10-15minJ . ; . ! ~ received and these responses will be available at the November 16th meeting. Ms. Gillarde indicated the staff report reviews the Draft EIR by chapter and gives a broad framework of issues on the Draft EIR; however, the discussion this evening is not limited to these issues. She noted that the September 21st staff report outlined the significant environmental impacts which will remain significant after mitigations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will have to be written for these impacts. Ms. Gillarde indicated that Staff was available to answer any questions or give clarifications on the issues to the Commission. The Commission needed to indicate, by straw vote, any requested changes to the Draft EIR. A letter from Libby Silver regarding the process had been distributed to the Commission. The Commission discussed the closing of the written comment period. For the record, the closing date for public comments was October 15th at 5:00 p.m. However, the Commission allowed comments to be received at tonight's meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had also received written comments from the Dublin San Ramon Services District and City of Livermore. Cm. Zika asked if there was any additional public testimony on the Draft EIR, General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. He requested the public to indicate their name and try to limit their comments to five minutes. Tom Lindenmeyer, East Bay Regional Park District, indicated that he will be giving a summary of his written comments on the Draft EIR. He indicated that the discussion in the Draft EIR regarding parks and recreation should be expanded to include discussions on regional parks, i.e., Shadow Cliff and Del Valle. These parks cannot meet the current demand in the summer months. The impacts should include the cumulative demands as well as indirect effects, such as demand for water. There could be too much water stored at De1 Valle for the demand which could cause flooding in the winter months and the draw in summer could affect the marina and boat launch areas. If there is an increase in ground water supplies, the lake level at Shadow Cliffs could be drawn down below the design levels. Mr. Lindenmeyer indicated that the section regarding storm drainage system should be rewritten. The district's board would probably not permit the channelization of Tassajara Creek through its property. There would be a loss of rigarian forest, heritage size oak trees, and wildlife habitats. He suggested the City consider other mitigation other than channeling the creek, including storm water design restrictions on development, detention basin or modified flood control projects. Mr. Lindenmeyer stated that the biological resources should include an "eco tone" or "edge" between two different types of habitat. He noted that riparian areas should have six such areas because these sites are Regular Meeting PCM-1992-165 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ~ + ~ ~ extremely valuable to wildlife, such as shelter and food. The discussion should point out that there is no landscape plan for a trapezoidal flood control channel. He indicated he would be turning in his written comments at tonight's meeting. Cm. North asked for clarification on the district not allowing the channelization of Tassajara Creek. Mr. Lindenmeyer stated that it is extremely unlikely that the board would vote to allow a channelization of a creek through one of the district's parklands to accommodate development in the watershed. However, this is a board decision. Andrea McKenzie expressed concern with the ruxal residential Iand use designation for large portions of the General Plan and Specific Plan areas. The Specific Plan indicates that these lands would be in permanent open space and the park district might be responsible for the maintenance of these areas. She felt that it would be difficult for a public agency to take responsibility for small remnant parcels of open space left over after rural residential development. These areas might be the responsibility of homeowners associations or the City, which may not be capable of providing the necessary maintenance or required mitigation measures for these areas. Ms. McKenzie noted that the Specific Plan did not have any mechanisms or requirements for regulating development on the lands designated rural residential. The district recommended that the Specific Plan clarify the purpose and function of open space and discuss mechanisms for open space, acquisition, operation, maintenance and dedication. The district recommended the land use map identify the difference between private rural residential land, private open space, regional public open space and local public open space. The purpose and function of each should be clearly stated. Ms. McKenzie noted the Specific Plan identifies the park district as a potential agency to manage the Tassajara Creek trail corridor. She recommended that any plans for this area be acceptable to the park district. Ms. McKenzie indicated the Specific Plan should discuss in more detail the road extensions as they affect public open space, trails, and wildlife corridors, as well as evaluate alternate road alignments and widths. She pointed out that the Specific Plan should address additional staging areas for public access. Ms. McKenzie commented that the location of infrastructure for water and sewer pipelines, etc. should be included in the 5ite Development Review process. The district urges that the Specific Plan implementation program include preparation of open space and vegetation management plans which is critical in the rural residential areas. Cm. Zika asked if the park district would consider managing the dedicated open space for the regional park system, if the open space was within the district's standards. He indicated that, in the past, Regular Meeting PCM-1992-166 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ~ . ~ ~ representatives from the park district were hesitant on taking on ridgeland property for park usage. They had mentioned there was no money to maintain the area and the City would have to come up with the funding. Ms. McKenzie explained that the district was in the process of annexing a whole new territory which is new ground for the district. The district will have to come up with a master plan for this area or revise the existing plan to include the new territory. Eastern Dublin is one of these areas. Western Dublin is currently within the existing master plan. She indicated that Bob Doyle's previous comments referred to the development footprints and impacts of grading which might affect the district's acceptance of the area. Ms. McKenzie indicated that someone will~ have to maintain the ridgeland property. The district is trying to work with the City to help shape the open space which would be much easier to manage and maintain. The district's Measure AA funds do not cover the management of this property and is looking for a source of funding to help the long-term maintenance and operation of these lands. Carolyn Morgan reminded the Commission that the Draft EIR should be sent to the Corps of Army Engineers since there are wetlands within the site; the Airport Protection Area should be mentioned in the document; and the Draft EIR does not mention the maps from the State Department of Mines and Geology which indicated a possible earthguake fault along the foothills in the Specific Plan area. Ms. Morgan had suggestions on how to mitigate several impacts shown in the Draft EIR. These included traffic (level of service F), TWA sewer project and financing of development. She pointed out on the wall map that development should be concentra~ed west of Fallon Road along the Yara Yara Ranch area and felt that the project should be moved out of Doolan Canyon. By cutting back on pocket development along Doolan Canyon, the City would be able to eliminate the traffic, sewer and financing impacts shown in the Draft EIR. She urged the Commission to consider these suggestions. Cm. North asked Staff if these suggestions were considered, would the EIR need to be rewritten. Ms. Gillarde indicated that alternatives had been considered in the Draft EIR. Staff would need to compare the suggested changes in density to the alternatives to see if additional EIR analysis would be needed. Cm. Zika asked Staff if the 5pecific Plan area could have phased development. Ms. Gillarde commented that a phasing plan could be set up. The EIR would not have to be rewritten. Marjorie LaBar stated that the Draft EIR was inadequate and subject to legal challenge. She felt that if the Commission took Ms. Morgan's suggestions, which would eliminate some of the impacts of the project, Regular Meeting PCM-1992-167 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] . . • ~ ~ the City would be in a better position. She indicated that the alternative analysis needed additional studies. The analysis does not look at enough alternatives. She suggested the City work closer with the County to connect their property with the urban center of the project. Tassajara Road may need to be realigned. Ms. LaBar reiterated that development in the northeastern area is driving the infrastructure costs up. This area also has the highest habitat value, endangered species, critical wetlands, mitigation impacts. The City should work closely with the park district, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Fish and Game to enact a well designed open space buffer between the county lines. Ms. LaBar stated that the Draft EIR did not adequately address the freeway mitigation problems and endangered species issues. She urged the Commission to take a slower look at the project, cut back on development, and work with DSRSD on using the existing expanded sewer capacity and reclaimed water. 5he had concerns with demineralizing the water and felt that the TWA project should be avoided. She commented that Dublin should expand in a reasonable rational way without over extending the ability to bond. Jim Stedman indicated that he had given oral comments in several previous meetings and had submitted written comments showing detailed recommended changes to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. He felt that the changes could be made in the time allotted before the Council adopted the plan. The EIR would not need to be revised. Mr. Stedman reiterated that the Specific Plan had a rigid and inflexible design and the result would be a very harsh town center area. He suggested that the Commission carefully evaluate his comments and recommend to the City Council the changes requested. Bobbi Foscalina concurred with Carolyn Morgan and Marjorie LaBar. She felt that the project was too ambitious and not easily financed. The plan should be scaled down to mitigate the impacts. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Specific Plan, and General Plan Amendment. He stated that the deadline for written comments on the Draft EIR was October 29th at 5:00 p.m. He indicated that the Commission would now begin discussion on the Draft EIR. Cm. North indicated that the Commission had received several letters recently and at tonight's meeting and he had not had a chance to review all of the correspondence. He suggested that the Commission review the Draft EIR; however not make any recommendations or straw votes until there was sufficient time to review all of the correspondence received. Cm. Barnes concurred with Cm. North. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-168 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ' ~ ~ Cm. Rafanelli indicated that the Commission would probably be receiving more letters on the Draft EIR since the deadline was October 29th. Cm. North felt that he would be able to make recommendations at the next scheduled meeting. There was a lot of information received in the last couple of days that needed to be reviewed. Ms. Gillarde explained that the Commission would not be making any decisions at tonight's meeting. Staff was asking that discussions begin on the Draft EIR by chapters and if there were any questions from the Commission, Staff could respond to them. Cm. Zika had concerns about going through the Draft EIR by each chapter at tonight's meeting and then again at the next meeting. Cm. Barnes thought that it would be helpful if the Commission could discuss the Draft EIR as a group. Mr. Tong felt that it would be helpful to Staff if the Commission could indicate some of the questions they might have. Staff could then note and review these questions. Cm. North indicated that several comments have been made that the Draft EIR was inadequate. He requested that the City Attorney clarify the Commission's and Council's role in certifying that the EIR is adequate or not. Cm. Zika's understanding was that the Commission was to review the Draft EIR and make a judgment as to whether it is adequate in identifying the environmental impacts and identifies those that can or cannot be mitigated. The Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Council either approves or disapproves the certification of the EIR. Ms. Silver indicated that Cm. Zika was correct. The Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council whether or not the EIR is adequate. If the City Council determines the EIR is adequate, the Council certifies that the EIR is adequate. After the EIR has been certified and a project has been approved, an individual could challenge the adequacy of the EIR by filing a lawsuit. At that time, a judge will determine if an EIR is adequate, Ms. Silver further explained that the EIR has to identify 1) the environmental impacts and how significant the impacts are; 2) mitigation measures and if they mitigate the impacts to a particular level of insignificance; 3) alternatives; and 4) cumulative impacts. The City Council is the final decision maker on this particular EIR because it involves a General Plan Amendment. There are some projects that the Commission would determine if the environmental review is adequate, such as a Conditional Use Permit, unless it is appealed to the City Council. Cm. Burnham indicated that, for example, if there was a traffic mitigation to widen the freeway, the EIR does not care who would pay Regular Meeting PCM-1992-169 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ~ ' ~ ~ for the mitigations or whether the widening is feasible. It just identifies what the mitigation is. Ms. Silver clarified that the EIR is an informational document. The purpose of CEQA is to provide information to the decisian makers. The EIR is to inform the Commission and Council of environmental information on the project. The EIR might find that there are environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. The Commission can recommend a project with unmitigated significant environmental impacts. The Council cannot approve that project unless it makes a statement of overriding considerations. For example, there are other considerations that override the environmental impacts. Ms. Silver further clarified that the EIR needs to show that the mitigation measures are feasible so that it can mitigate the impact. For example, if a mitigation was identified to widen I-580 to 20 lanes, this might not be feasible because the right of way is not available, or funding is not available, etc. The Commission needs to make a reasonable judgment that the mitigations are feasible. Cm. Barnes asked Staff to clarify "critical known information". Ms. Gillarde clarified that the analysis does not have to be exhaustive but provide critical known information about the specific issues. This statement is shown in the staff report on page 2, paragraph 2b. The Commission took a break. Everyone was present upon,returning. Cm. Zika started out with Chapter #1 - Introduction. The Commission had no comments. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission had any comments on Chapter #2. Cm. North asked if the open space designation includes in its amount of acreage the rural residential area. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the primary purpose of this designation is to keep large areas of land undeveloped. The density is one unit per 100 acres. The primary purpose is to have open space for habitat and resource protection. Cm. Zika asked if there were any comments on Chapter #3. Cm. North commented on section 3.1.13, mitigation 3.1/1.0. He was concerned whether this mitigation was feasible because the Army was evasive about their future plans for Camp Parks. Mr. Tong stated that Staff had been meeting with the local commander of Camp Parks and commander of the Presidio. He indicated that Staff has established a cooperative effort with the Army in terms with the any land uses for the Camp Parks area. Cm. Zika asked if the Army had a five-year plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-170 ~ctober 15, 1992 [10-15min] : : ~ i Mr. Tong indicated they had a master plan which includes significant reactivation of the Camp Parks facility. There were plans to have a military hospital and armory on site with plans on demolishing the existing buildings. There was a future meeting planned to formalize a land swap. Cm. Rafanelli referred to section 3.1.10 and had concerns that the Airport Protection Zone is shown as not applicable. He felt that the airport was an asset to the community and should not be ignored. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff agreed that there was a need for a reasonable airport protection area. Staff had reviewed a report that was prepared by City of Livermore regarding their proposed protection zone. There was no justification from a factual standpoint for the proposed zone. Staff has met with representatives from the City of Livermore and Airport Land Use Commission to discuss the proposal and alternatives. Staff is actively involved with reviewing the proposal. Mr. Tong stated that at this time the Eastern Dublin project does reflect the adopted Airport Land Use Commission regulations. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the master plan had growth projections for the airport. Mr. Tong indicated there were some projections in the report through the year 2011, as well as noise and safety standards. Based on the Staff's reading of the document, these standards do not justify the airport protection area. It would justify a much smaller area. Staff would review the final proposal from the City of Livermore. Cm. Burnham asked if there were any other agency other than Livermore that set guidelines for airport protection zones. Mr. Tong believed that both the Federal and State agencies set noise and safety standards. The report prepared by consultants does not show justification for the proposed protection zone. Ms. Silver noted that there were regulations within the California Public Utilities Code provide for an airport land use commission. The commission can adopt a land use plan and the City of Dublin is subject to that plan. However, the City of Dublin is not subject to a plan that is adopted by the City of Livermare. If the Airport Land Use Commission adopts City of Livermore's plan, then the City of Dublin is governed by that plan, unless the City Council votes by a 4/5 majority to overrule the plan. Cm. North referred to a letter from the Pilots to Protect Livermore Airport which stated that our Draft EIR did not mention the airport protection plan which is now in the hands of the Airport Land Use Commission. He asked for clarification if the City had to comply with the protection zone. Mr. Tong clarified that if the Airport Land Use Commission adopted the plan, the City of Dublin would have to abide by those regulations. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-171 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ~ ~ Cm. North questioned if the airport protection zone should be covered under the Draft EIR. Cm. Zika commented that the airport protection zone was just a proposal and had not been officially adopted yet. Ms. Gillarde referred to page 3.1-10 which mentioned the airport protection zone, how the zone is proposed and suggested buffer area. It also states that the restrictions are not applicable since the Airport Land Use Commission has not adopted the plan. Cm. North referred to section 3.1.28 and had concerns with the four- lane town center roadway. There were no plans for expansion and felt this would cause a bottleneck effect. He asked Staff if he should discuss these concerns under the land use or traffic chapter of the Draft EIR. Mr. Tong felt these issues were interrelated; however he thought it would be more of a traffic concern. Cm. Zika continued on to Section 3.2 - Population, Housing and Employment and ask for Commissioner's comments. Cm. North referred to 3.2-5, second bullet; business park designation on Santa Rita property and asked if the City could make this land use determination. Mr. Tong explained that this was an existing policy in the current General Plan. This had been requested by the County. Currently, Staff and the County have been renegotiating the mutual agreement and the revised land uses are shown in the Specific Plan. Cm. Rafanelli referred to 3.2-4 indicating that the employment figures were based on the last 10-year projections. He felt that these figures might not be accurate with the current economic situation. Cm. Zika continued onto section 3.3 - traffic. Cm. North was concerned with the 4-lane road concept surrounding the Town Center. People will be taking the shortest way home and felt that the bottleneck effect on Tassajara Road was not facing reality. He referred to 3.3.28; M3.3/14 and indicated that with all of the additional projects being proposed within the Tri-Valley area, there will be major traffic congestion within the Town Center. Cm. Zika asked Staff what the thinking was behind the proposed lanes on Tassajara Road. Mr. Tong explained that the concept, which evolved through previous workshops, would have a Town Center that accommodated both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. There could be a cohesive development on both sides of Tassajara Road. The dilemma is a significant amount of traffic that is anticipated with outside developments that might prefer this north/southbound route on Tassajara Road. If we sought to accommodate this traffic, the road would need to be 6 lanes. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-172 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ~ ' ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked if we were trying to discourage traffic by using a bottleneck effect. Mr. Tong felt that Staff and the Consultant might need to look at other alternatives or re-analyze the road system through the Town Center. However; it was felt that development on both sides of Tassajara Road would not be cohesive if there were 6 lanes of roadway. The Commission and Staff reviewed the maps on traffic counts for the Town Center/Tassajara Road area. The figures showed a reduction of 50,000 vehicles north of Dublin Boulevard on Tassajara Road. The Commission felt this might be an error. Mr. Tong indicating that Staff's senior engineer would be invited to attend the next meeting to discuss the traffic figures. Cm. Zika requested information on how much traffic was considered commute traffic at peak hours going through to other developed areas, such as Dougherty Valley. Mr. Tong thought that the traffic consultant had mentioned previously that 23~ of the traffic was Eastern Dublin traffic and 77~ was due to outside development. Staff would have to confirm these figures. Cm. North referred to Table 3.3-E and requested information on maximum peak hour traffic volumes. He felt there were several accidents already occurring on I-580 at peak hours. Mr. Hammond clarified the traffic figures for the four lanes on Tassajara between Gleason and Dublin Boulevard. The 11,200 figure represented traffic at the year 2010 without the proposed project and the figure below it represented traffic with the project. The difference was about 12,000 which represented project traffic within that area. The rest would be gass-through traffic. Cm. North indicated the table showed 62,000 between Dublin Boulevard and I-580. Mr. Hammond explained this figure included both ways from Dublin Boulevard as well as down Tassajara. Traffic was feeding from three different directions. He indicated that Dublin Boulevard was proposed as a parallel road to the freeway and a reliever route for peak hour traffic. Cm. North had concerns with the number of lanes versus traffic figures shown on Table 3.3-B. Mr. Hammond indicating that the number of lanes was predicated upon the traffic projections, not the other way around. The impacts are identified within Table 3.3-10. Cm. North had concerns that the daily trip calculations between Santa Rita Road and Dublin Boulevard and between the transit spine and Dublin Boulevard were not reasonabie figures. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-173 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] . ~ ~ Cm. Barnes concurred that there seemed to be an error in the calculations and requested verification on the traffic figures. Mr. Tong indicated that the City's traffic engineer; and possibly the consultant's traffic expert would be invited to the next meeting. Cm. North referred to page 3.3-9 and asked if coordinating with City of Pleasanton and Caltrans was a sufficient amount of agencies. Should we work with Tri-Valley Transportation Council or any other agency that might be involved with widening the freeway and interchanges. Mr. Tong stated that it is proposed to coordinate our efforts with various agencies, which would include TVTC and CMA as well as City of Pleasanton and Caltrans. Staff would be reviewing the comments raised and there might be additional research required. Cm. North had concerns with City of Pleasanton's letter concerning mitigation measures on traffic improvements. Cm. Zika asked if the freeway improvements would be funded by Caltrans, State or Federal monies. Would the project itself create the funding? We need to make some type of presumption of who will be paying for these improvements before we can recommend that the Draft EIR is adequate. The word "coordinate" is too general. If the project has to pay for the improvements, would this make the proposal infeasible or cost prohibitive? Cm. North referred to 3.3.-22, mitigation 3-3/4. He noted that the project was required to pay for its proportionate share of the I-580 improvements. What if the County or other surrounding cities do not contribute their fair share? Does the City of Dublin then have to pay for all of the improvements? If so, then the impacts would not be less than significant as shown in mitiqation 3-3/4. The Draft EIR does not indicate what would happen if the other agencies do not contribute their proportionate share for improvements. Mr. Tong concurred that these questions needed to be addressed. They have been raised by other agencies and speakers and Staff will have to get together with the traffic consultants and engineers to review and respond to these questions at a future meeting. Cm. North requested clarification from the consultants on sections 3.3-16 through 3.3-19. He was uneasy with the issues and was not sure if the information was accurate. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North. These issues seemed farfetched. The word "shall" was too general. He did not feel that it was fair for the property owners to be stuck with the burden of funding all of the improvements. Cm. North referred to a statement made by the Assistant City Attorney in the local newspaper which stated that whoever creates the problem should pay for the changes. These would mean that Caltrans would need Regular Mesting PCM-1992-174 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] . : ~ ~ to pay for their proposed flyover and exit ramps. He agreed with these assumptions. Cm. Zika asked if the developer could pay for a proportion of the improvements by floating Mello-Roos bonds. Ms. 5ilver explained that the City could form a Mello-Roos district. She clarified that a Mello-Roos district would impose a special tax. It is not an assessment district. The Draft EIR refers to several financing mechanisms; one of which could be a Mello-Roos district. There have been comments about a proposed Mello-Roos district, which is not true. The EIR merely identifies several options of financing. Cm. Zika asked if the City forms a Mello-Roos district within this project and this project goes belly-up, what happens to the existing property owners of Dublin? Would the existing property owners have to pay for the bonds? Ms. Silver further explained that a special tax is levied only on the property within the Mello-Roos district. The City's general fund is not obligated. Other properties within the city are not obligated to pay. If an assessment district was formed, and a number af property owners were delinquent, this might affect the City's credit rating for issuing bonds in the future. Cm. North asked for further clarification. Who would pay for the bonds if the property owners could not pay for them. Ms. Silver indicated that the City would be obligated to bring an action to foreclose on the bonds, which would foreclose the property. If the property owner does not pay, the property would be sold and the City would receive the amount to pay aff the bonds. Cm. Zika asked who pays for the attorney fees. Ms. Silver indicated the property owner was responsible for paying all fees incurred. She referred the Commission to the financing section of the Draft EIR which explained the standard regulations of issuing bonds. Mr. Tong commented that the City Council would be holding an infrastructure financing warkshop and the Commission would be invited to attend. The purpose of the workshop is to evaluate and learn about the various techniques available for financing infrastructure. Cm. Zika continued on to Chapter #3.4 - Community Services and Facilities. Cm. North asked if the County's budget res~rictions would impact Dublin's police department. Mr. Ambrose indicated no, the police department was under contract. However, there might be changes in personnel. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-175 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] : : ~ ~ Cm. North asked if there would be an additional police station in the Eastern Dublin area. Mr. Ambrose explained that it was common to have one police station. There would be changes in the method of patrolling the area. Cm. North asked about the hiring and training of additional fireman. Mr. Tong indicated that this issue would need to be worked out prior to any construction which is a number of years away. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority would have a certain number of personnel in place at that time. There will be a need for additional equipment. Cm. North had concerns with up-front infrastructure costs. Mr. Ambrose commented there would be a capital impact fee which was charged to the developers based on the number of units and squaxe footage of commercial areas. Most of the development would be governed by development agreements with conditions requiring funding up front. He referred to the North Pleasanton Improvement District which funded the Hacienda interchange by the Hacienda Business Park. Cm. Rafanelli asked who would ultimately decide the school district boundaries if the local agencies could not agree on its jurisdiction. Mr. Ambrose explained that this decision would first go through the County and then to the State Board of Education. It was common for the districts to follow city boundaries. Cm. Barnes asked if the Dublin School District has responded to this issue. Mr. Tong indicated yes, Staff has met with the School District and have reviewed the plans. The District would be submitting comments. Cm. North referred to page 3.4-14 regarding parks and recreation and requested that he give comments at a later date. Cm. Zika asked if the open space and rural residential areas being counted twice. Ms. Gillarde indicated no, these areas are only counted once. Cm. North indicated a letter was received tonight regarding the Williamson Act; however he had not had time to review the letter. Cm. North referred to 3.4-24 and asked for clarification on electrieal services. Mr. Hammond indicated that the impact was growth inducing; not that P.G.&E could not provide services. Cm. Barnes had concerns with cost of additional electrical lines. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-176 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] , ~ i Mr. Hammond indicated that these costs would be borne by the developer. Cm. Zika continued on to Chapter 3.5 - Storrn Drainage. Cm. North noted for the record that Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has indicated a commitment to have the new development pay for their water services. However, the board could, in the future, change their policies. They have not done this in the past. He referred to 3.5-3 regarding the wastewater system. It stated "exclusive of Doolan Canyon". He asked if this meant Doolan Canyon was not involved with this system or the study did not include this area. Ms. Gillarde explained that the study was done just for the Specific Plan area and the wastewater system was designed only for the Specific Plan area. At the appropriate time, additional studies would have to be done for the Doolan Canyon area, which meant there would possibly be further environmental review for this area. Cm. North felt comfortable with the water availability. The City won't allow a project to be developed without adequate water supplies and sewage capacities. Cm. North noted there were discrepancies in the figures from Zone 7 and DSRSD in section 3.5-14. Mr. Michalczyk of DSRSD explained that the figures were based on average service amounts. The City of Dublin's figures were calculated at an average of 165-170 gallons per day per person. These figures show both commercial and residential usage. The calculations probably should be separated out by single-family dwelling units versus square footage of commercial area since the water usage is different. Cm. Zika continued on to Sectian 3.6 - Soils, Geology and Seismicity. Cm. Zika asked if there were any earthquake faults in the Eastern Dublin area. Mr. Hammond commented that there had been earlier studies showing potential for faults; however there were no significant identification of faults in the area. Mr. Tong asked DSRSD's representative what the standard calculations were for water usage per dwelling unit per year. Mr. Michalczyk responded that normally the averaqe consumption of water was about 125-135 gallons per day per person. The calculations were based on three people within the household. This figure, 125 x 3, amounts to approximately 1/2 acre foot of water per household per year. This is averaging out commercial areas as well. Cm. North referred to 3.5-20 and noted that the City would not allow building/grading permits without a"will serve" letter from DSRSD. Cm. Zika continued with section 3.6. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-177 October 15, 1992 (10-15min] . , ~ ~ Cm. Burnham asked if there was a soils report from a certain agency that was missing from the Draft EIR. Cm. Zika noted this was a survey from the Department of Mines and Geology. Mr. Hammond indicated that he still needed to research this issue and would come back to the Commission at a later date. Cm. Zika continued on to Section #3.7 - Biological Resources. He asked if the Draft EIR had been sent to the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Gillarde commented that there was a mailing list of over 300 people and notice was sent indicating that the Draft EIR was available. It is not a requirement, by law, to send an EIR to the Corps of Engineers. We did not send them a copy and we did not receive a request from them for a copy. The only copies that are required to be sent are ten copies to the Office of Planning and Research and they distribute to various state agencies. Cm. North asked if the park district did not allow the channeling of Tassajara Creek, were there other options available? Cm. Barnes asked if this was the district's dscision to make. Mr. Hammond believed that it was not proposed to have channelization of Tassajara Creek. There might be a need at some point for channelization; however there is no intent in the plan to do this. Mr. Tong indicated this concern may be mute in that par,t of the land swap involved substantial amount of the park district's land in the area. Their holdings may be reduced and may not affect the creek area. Cm. North referred to policy 6-12 on page 3.7-11, MM3.7/9.0. Carolyn Morgan indicated that channelization was shown in the Specific Plan, Figure 9.4, page 134. Mr. Hammond referred to page 128, second column, last paragraph in the Specific Plan defines channelization. Its deals with drainage fees paid to Zone 7 and reimbursements. There is no reference to channelization itself. Cm. North said there would be improvements to the channels. Mr. Hammond indicated yes, that is what the fees were being collected for. The improvements were necessary. There were flooding concerns by the freeway. Cm. Zika moved on to section 3.8 - Visual Resources. No comments were received. Cm. Zika moved onto cultural resources, section 3.9. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-178 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] ' ' ~ ~ Cm. North questioned if the City's permit issuing policies cover tlie developer looking out for historical resources. Ms. Gillarde and Mr. Tong explained this would be part of the specific site conditions of approval. Cm. Zika moved on to section 3.10 - Noise. Cm. Zika had concerns with the extension of the airport buffer zone. Cm. North referred to page 3.10-3 and did not believe that the noise level of the freeway with the project would only increase 1 db. Mr. Hammond would check these figures with iche noise consultant. Cm. Barnes asked if soundwalls would be used as noise barriers. Mr. Hammond explained some of the various styles of barriers that could be used besides soundwalls, such as fences or earth berms. Cm. North commented that along Tassajara Road the noise level was indicated to increase 1-3 db and Doolan Road would increase 7-15 db. This did not seem accurate. There would be a lot more traffic on Tassajara Road. Mr. Hammond explained that the differences were due to low background levels. Increases in noise levels in areas with low background levels are greater. He would have all of the figures checked. Mr. Hammond clarified the noise level from the airport. Livermore Airport has to develop a master plan to project future and existing flight patterns and noise contours. The 60 db contour does not exfiend north of the freeway. This is one of the reasons way it is not considered a significant impact. Cm. North referred to 3.10-4, IM 3.10/D. He indicated the City had no jurisdiction on the Army property. We could not impose mitigation measures on Camp Parks. Mr. Hammond indicated that the mitigation measures would be imposed on the development surrounding the Camp Parks site. The Army is in the process of updating their master plan and is looking at expanding their operations. This expansion could affect development on the west side of Tassajara Road. Each project coming in would need to be evaluated to make sure there were no conflicts with the Army's plans. Cm. North requested the noise consultant be asked if he was referring to "db rn" or "db in". There was a significant difference in the levels of db. Cm. Zika continued on to Section 3.11 - Air Quality. Cm. North questioned if comments on the Western Dublin project had been included in this Draft EIR. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-179 October 15, 1992 [10-15min] : , ~ ~ Staff indicated yes. Cm. Zika moved on to Section 3.12 - Fiscal Considerations. Cm. Zika requested additional clarification on the fiscal impacts of the project. He asked at what point would the City break even on the residential or with both residential and commercial. What were the time frames when the funding was collected and when certain infrastructure had to be constructed. He was uncomfortable with the facts shown. Ms. Silver referred the Commissian to the Specific Plan's chapter on fiscal analysis. Cm. North and Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. Zika. Cm. North asked if the same techniques were used in Eastern Dublin as in the Western Dublin analysis. Mr. Tong indicated yes, the economic consultant will be redoing some of the figures. There will be some assumptions in terms of absorption of residential and commercial uses. Cm. Zika moved on to Chapter #4 - Alternative Analysis. Cm. North felt that he needed additional time to study letters received regarding this chapter. No further comments were received. Cm. Zika indicated that the Commission would continue these discussion at the next scheduled ' meeting on October 21st at 7:00 p.m. Cm. North asked if Staff had a list of all the significant impacts that could not be mitigated. Ms. Gillarde referred Cm. North to the September 21st staff report which listed under each topic the impacts that remained significant after mitigations are implemented. Ms. Gillarde indicated that at the October 21st meeting, as outlined in the schedule, the Commission would finish their discussion on the Draft EIR and then talk about the General Plan Amendment. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to October 21st at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~,~tr-~ C-1 F -~~lannin Commissi Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-180 October 15, 1992 [10-15minJ