Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-12-1992 • ~ • Regular Meetinq - October 12, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 12, 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, 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 project implementation includinq Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the Citv of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon 5ervices District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika indicated that public testimony would start with Chapter #6 of the Specific Plan; however the City Attorney had information to share before starting the meeting. Ms. Libby Silver summarized the provisions of CEQA that were applicable to traffic impacts and distributed a memo,to the Commission. The memo categorized the different traffic mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Cm. Zika indicated that he had listened to the tapes for the October lst meeting. Cm. Rafanelli indicated that he had listened to the tapes for the October 6th meeting. Ms. Brenda Gillarde presented a staff report detailing Chapters #6 through #11 of the Specific Plan. The chapters detailed the open space system; community design guidelines; infrastructure of sewer, water, storm drainage; financing; implementation; and resource management. Ms. Gillarde talked about the plan integrating the natural environment with the built elements which will create a livable community. The plan describes an open space network that provides habitat resource protection, recreation opportunities and protection for the public. She indicated that Tassajara Creek was a primary resource with sensitive vegetation, freshwater marshes, and wildlife habitats and the plan's policies were to preserve these diminishing habitats. Arroyo Willow, another sensitive vegetation habitat, would be preserved along Fallon Road. She referred to Figure 6.1 which showed various freshwater marshes in the Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-155 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] , ~ • • Ms. Gillarde described the trail corridor along Tassajara Creek that would be linked to the regional trail system which connects up to Mt. Diablo. She pointed to the intermittent drainage areas on the wall map which would link together the various parks and open space areas. These drainage areas can be enhanced and will have trails along side of them. Ms. Gillarde indicated on the wall map where there would be rural residential land uses which would preserve additional open space for the Specific Plan. The units would either be clustered or transferred off the area to maintain the open space areas. This open space could be used for natural habitats, forging and nesting and would create buffer areas around more dense development. Ms. Gillarde indicated the Specific Plan discussed the historie and prehistoric cultural resources and artifacts were found in both of these groups. There were policies that required detailed studies prior to construction and if artifacts were uncovered all construction would halt and the items would need to be examined and documented. Another component of the resource management section of the Specific Plan was the visual resources which dealt with ridgelines and ridgelands. Ms. Gillarde clarified that a ridgeline was considerecl to form the horizon when viewed from one or more existing scenic corridors. A ridgeland is an area in which two story development would obstruct or extend above this ridgeline. She referred to Figure 6.3 where there were two types of visually sensitive ridgelands and pointed several areas out on the wall map. Ms. Gillarde further discussed Chapter 6 and steep slopes. The Specific Plan contains policies guiding development for public safety in these areas. Ms. Gillarde discussed the community design chapter of the Specific Plan. The guidelines are intended to provide a framework for the appearance and character of the Specific Plan area. She noted that the Specific Plan will not develop all at one time and there was a need for overall guidelines for cohesive and harmonious development. The chapter addressed the building site and layout, circulation system, parking and open space for each subarea. Ms. Gillarde described the various subareas densities and design characteristics from the wall map. These included guidelines for the Town Center commercial area, transit spine, residential areas, village centers, retail centers, and gateways (entryways) to the eastern Dublin site. She indicated that detailed street standards and guidelines which have been adopted by the City of Dublin are incorporated into the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde talked about Chapter #8 which detailed community services such as police, fire, schools, libraries and solid waste. She noted there was detailed information in the Staff Report on how the figures for how many schools were needed had been calculated. She indicated there would not be the need for an additional police station in eastern Dublin; however there will be additional service for the area. There will be two fire stations within the Specific Plan and the P?_an addresses wildland fire hazards with measures and programs that need to be implemented. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-156 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] . ~ ~ • Ms. Gillarde discussed Chapter #9 which entailed infrastructure such as water, wastewater, storm drainage with conceptual plans developed for each type of service. These systems will only accommodate the Specific Plan area with the exception of the water system which is designed to accommodate other developing projects. The water system is consistent with DSRSD's master plan for this portion of their service district. Recycled water is strongly encouraged with layotzt for an entire recycling water system and DSRSD is in full support of establishing this system. Ms. Gillarde talked about financing of the project (Chapter #10) which explains the various improvements for the development and how they would be financed. The funding for infrastructure will occur in many different ways and this chapter clearly explains the different mechanisms used for financing which includes impact fees, up front developer fees, bonds, etc. A fiscal analysis had been prepared and this project appears to qualify for bonds and other mechanisms used for financing. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the last chapter explained how the project would be implemented - adoption of the plan and certification of the EIR, annexation, prezoning, preparation of services, etc. Cm. Zika proceeded with the public testimony starting with Chapter #6 of the Specific Plan. He reminded everyone to limit their discussions to approximately five minutes and state your name for the record. Marjorie LaBar referred to policy 6.2.1 and indicated there were no guarantees for contiguous open space. The maps were not consistent. Figure 6.1 shows the entire northeastern corner as park land and in other areas this area is designated as rural residential. Unless there are deed restrictions on the property designated as rural residential, this land cannot be considered open space. She had concerns with buffering the urban/suburban sections of the plan. This plan will not prevent wildland fires and vandalism. There was a need for open space buffers between the urban uses and open land. This would be a good place for public facilities. She indicated the plan did discourage development of backyards against open space areas and she was in agreement with this policy. Ms. LaBar referred to policy 6.2.6. She had concerns with homeowner associations being responsible for leftover open space areas. Development should be designed to avoid this wasted space. Regarding action plan 6B-D, she felt that strict guidelines should be set up before development occurs. She referred to policy 6.11 and was in agreement that native landscaping should be used. She suggested that the City contact the California Native Plan Society to receive information on preferred landscaping ideas. Ms. LaBar commented the policy 6.13 should be looked at as a whole and had concerns with pesticides and herbicide runoff into the water sources. She referred to policy 6.15 and indicated that the current use of the land is a bonafide beneficial use of the property. The City should not be speculators. Referring to 6.17, she indicated that Regular Meeting PCM-1992-157 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] : • i there were kit fox in the area and the studies were not adequate. With policy 6.18 through 6.20, she felt that City needed to work closely with other agencies, including U.S. Fish and Game. Ms. LaBar indicated that programs 6K-0 should be implemented now, not looked at in a piece by piece fashion. She referred to policies 6.3.8 through 6.4 and had concerns with development on 30~ slopes. Stick to the policies of not developing in these areas. She encouraged density transfer as shown in policy 6S in order to remove development from the northern portion of the site. This project is far too spread out and she encouraged the City to work closely with the County and the City of Pleasanton to move the density closer to the freeway area. She had concerns with policy 6.40-42 where development on slopes was mentioned. Referring to Policy 6.4.2, she indicated that the City should be addressing the airport protection zone regarding noise levels. Carolyn Morgan commented that there should be no pocket open space; only contiguous open space (Policy 6.2.6). It is difficult to maintain. She referred to policy 6.15 and indicated there should be no exceptions granted for development near habitat areas. In policy 6.17, the words "wherever possible" should be deleted. She indicated that policy 6.19 needed to be implemented. This policy would benefit the wildlife habitat if developed correctly. She had concerns with mitigation measures in section 6.3-1 and 6.3-2. The State was in its seventh drought year. With a couple of wet years, revegetation will occur naturally and the wildlife habitat, wetlands and stream corridors will increase. Sections of the plan do not allow for a normal weather pattern. Ms. Morgan indicated that another policy needed to be added that should read "...urban sideyards and rearyards will not abut open space areas. Buffers, such as roadways or trails will be used to separate open space from development...". This will prevent people from using the open space as a dumping ground and cut down on vandalism. Ranchettes could also be used for buffers. She referred to policy 6.29-31 and indicated these were good policies if the City has strict guidelines. She indicated policy 6.36 should be changed to read "...in areas of steep topography, structures will not be allowed". A policy of no soundwalls is needed under the visual resource section. They are unattractive. Ms. Morgan referred to policy 6.4 on page 71-72 and indicated she could not understand the verbage. She thought some language might have been left out. Referring to policy 6.40, she indicated that "reducing impacts to insignificant" was not strict enough. Development should not be allowed in unstable soil areas. She indicated that in policy 6.42 the words "generally" should be removed and "development of 30~ slopes will not be allowed" should be added. She referred to Figure 6.1 and indicated that the map is inconsistent with the map on the wall and Figure 2b in the EIR. John Anderson referred to page 62 and indicated that policy 6.2.5 was missing. He commented on the open space and rural residential land use designations. He referred to Table 4.1 and compared percentages Regular Meeting PCM-1992-158 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] . . ' ~ of open space with rural residential. He indicated that rural residential should not be considered open space. He referred to policy 6.2.4 and indicated open space was for "resource protection and public safety". The rural residential cannot be considered open space and felt there was a conflict of interest. He indicated that utilizing homeowners associations for open space management was not logical. He quoted policy 6.2.4 which read "...it is preferable that the undeveloped rural residential lands be managed and maintained by an agency with experience in open space management." Homeowners do not have this type of experience and lacks the support needed. He referred to policy 6.7 and indicated that open space should be classified as non-developable land prior to project approval. There should not be any contradictions. He had concerns with the manmade underpass and asked what the impacts on wildlife would be (policy 6.19). Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #7 - Community Design Marjorie LaBar reiterated that the transit spine within the Town Center should not allow traffic at all, except for deliveries. The streets to the north and south should be one way streets. This would allow sufficient traffic circulation and create a pedestrian oriented center. She referred to policy 7.12 and indicated a need for safe access to the parks by children as well as older people. Ms. LaBar indicated that the traditional Town Center concept made a lot of sense, especially with the use of front porches and neighborhood involvement. There was a need for back porch or balcony areas for privacy. 5he referred to policy 7.4-5 and indicated there should be no backyards facing the open space areas. Referring to policy 7.6, she felt that buffers were needed into the rural areas. She suggested that density transfers be looked at to remove the development from the sensitive areas and move it toward the commercial centers. She noted that safe bike parking was needed in the commercial areas and employment centers. Carolyn Morgan referred to policy 7.1.1. She felt that the plan was creating the perception that Dublin's downtown area was located in Eastern Dublin, instead of the existing downtown section. She had concerns with parking. Reducing parking would create congestion and people will not use public transportation if it does not run frequently. A trolly would be beneficial with one-way streets. She felt that hedges used for landscaping would create additional vandalism. Hedges make it difficult for the police to patrol the area. Ms. Morgan referred to policy 7.1.2 and indicated that the 60 foot setback and parking in front of the buildings would create a "tenement" look to the area. Parking should be underground or behind the buildings with landscaping in the front areas. The plan notes that parking structures in residential areas should not dominate the street frontage. This is inconsistent with the setback and parking requirements of policy 7.1.2. Additional open space can be created by putting parking underground or multi-story parking structures in the downtown center or BART station. She was concerned with parks being Regular Meeting PCM-1992-159 October 12, 1992 (10-12min] placed on school grounds. These parks cannot be used while school is in session and felt that parks and schools should be separated. Jim Stedman had concerns with the grid pattern in the residential areas, specifically the Town Center area. He felt that the grid pattern will result in an old fashioned 1850 style tenement housing on repetitious small blocks with emphasis on streets and sidewalks . The rigid requirements of the plan needed to have more flexible design criteria. He had concerns with the minimum landscaping allowed and traffic disbursement into the residential neighborhoods . He indicated that the streets dominate the areas with a minimum of private open space and felt that this plan was similar to New York housing. He felt the plan needed more modern designs - emphasizing flexibility in size and shape of neighborhoods, with amenities enhancing private landscaped areas, personal security, controlled entries, varying setbacks and orientation, and diversity in architectural design. Mr. Stedman made comments throughout Chapter #7, starting with pages 79, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, and 110 . He had concerns with Figures 7 . 1, 7 . 8, 7 . 10, 7 . 13, 7 . 16, 7 . 17, 7 .22, 7 .23, and 7 . 24, reiterating his comments of previous meetings . He indicated his support of the Town Center concept; however strongly discouraged the rigidity of the plan and recommended the introduction of flexibility into the Town Center area and indicated written comments would be given to Staff. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #8 - Community Services and Facilities Marjorie LaBar referred to policy 8 . 1 and recommended that phasing be applied to development everywhere in the project for all infrastructure. The City needed to make sure services can be provided. She referred to policy 8 .2 and requested that a separate fee be collected that would go directly to the police department to enforce the rural areas. Referring to policy 8 . 3, she suggested that roofing sprinklers be required within the wildland areas . Ms . LaBar referred to Program 8F and asked how much money was needed and who would be paying the fees. Referring to Program 8H, she requested there be no backyards fronting open space. Regarding Program 8I, she felt that homeowners association should not be used and the City needed to decide up front how much it would cost and who would be paying for the maintenance. Ms . LaBar referred to Policy 8 .4 and indicated the community needed a composting area. Referring to Policy 8 .5, she asked if PG&E had been consulted after the growth projections were made. She asked who would pay for the additional services if needed later. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #9 - Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage and asked for public testimony. Carolyn Morgan referred to policy 9 . 1 and asked if all water zones would be constructed at one time. What would the cost be and who pays for this? If the developers choose not to hook up to DSRSD, will the City require the developers to guarantee adequate water supply and how many years would this guarantee be good for? Who will pay for the Regular Meeting PCM-1992-160 October 12, 1992 [ 10-12min] . . ~ ~ subdivisions to be hooked up at a later date? She indicated that this should not be the responsibility of the homeowners. She asked where the extra water will come from? Ms. Morgan referred to Appendix 6-2, 6-3 and Table A-3 and asked if Zone 7 was under figuring the water demand for the eastern Dublin area. DSRSD's and Zone 7 figures were different. She indicated that Los Banos Reservoir may not be constructed. The figures used for water sources shown on page A6-3 were inaccurate. Will Zone 7 have to pay for the reservoir's construction? How much will the water from this reservoir going to cost? Referring to A6-6, she indicated the phasing plan did not coordinate with phasing shown on A6-9. She noted that zone phasing would constitute sprawl. She asked if the existing residents would be put on water rationing so construction in eastern Dublin could occur? This has not been discussed under conservation chapters. She asked if developers would be required to prove there was a substantive source of water before building permits were granted? She suggested that the City require the developer to show that there would be at least 50 years of water available for the area. Ms. Morgan stated that if new water sources were at higher prices than the current residents are paying, how would the cost be borne? Who will pay for the higher cost of water that is used on public facilities? She referred to Table A-5 and indicated these figures were at today's prices. If new sources were found, what would the hookup charge be to DSRSD and Zone 7? She asked if the current residents in eastern Dublin would be able to remain on septic tanks or will they be required to hook up to a sewer system? Ms. Morgan referred to Appendix A6-13 and asked why there was a need to expand the sewage treatment plant. TWA will transport untreated sewage. There was no identified transportation system for treated sewage. What is the cost to Dublin for improving the existing CCSD piping system.? What is the cost to expanding the treatment plant in Martinez? What is the cost for the TWA pipeline? What is the per acre cost of the reclaimed water? How many homes will have to be constructed and sold each year to pay for the new wastewater system? Ms. Morgan referred to Appendix A6-18 and asked why the cost shown will stay the same when TWA is built? What is existing capacity in the CCSD trunk line? How much capacity will TWA use in that trunk line? Who will pay for a new CCSD sewer line when demand exceeds capacity? What percentage of TWA users be responsible when a new pipeline has to be built? Ms. Morgan referred to Appendix A6-19 and asked how the cities will share the cost of TWA if all the surrounding cities do not participate? She referred back to Appendix A6-18 and asked what the total cost of the TWA project after adding land acquisitions, operating expenses, expansions and maintenance? She indicated that once the TWA pipeline is built, someone will have to pay for it. She referred to Table A-6 which showed a project population of 29,031. She indicated this figure was different than what is shown in the EIR. The difference needed to be addressed. She felt that the recyclable water system should be enlarged or have the project scaled down so Regular Meeting PCM-1992-161 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] ~ ~ • that the TWA project would not have to be built. She referred to the EIR, IM 3-5/6 and indicated the pipeline capacity figures were different that what was shown in the Specific Plan. She referred to A-9 and felt that the cost figures should be accurate. She indicated that if all of the noted pipelines were developed to their capacities, the quality of life for the eastern Dublin area will be destroyed. Marjorie LaBar commented that each development should be required to assure a 50-year supply of water. There was a need for a long term plan with such an unstable water pattern. She was concerned with the water quality after treatment of wastewater and felt that the cost factors needed to be addressed. Ms. LaBar referred to section 9.2.1 and indicated that efforts to eliminate lawns in the median strips were needed. In section 9.3.2, strict standards should be used in filtering runoff from landscaping areas to control pollutants into the storm drains. She referred to Table 9-1 and indicated that Dublin residents might have to pay for the overall costs of the water distribution system. John Anderson referred to section 9.1.2. The ABAG figures indicated there were be limited water supplies to meet the demand of the population figures given by ABAG (265,600}. Where will the 265,600 residents get their water? What formulas are used to calculate the supply-demand figures? Mr. Anderson referred to section 9.3.1 and 9.3.2. He asked how will the channel improvements to Tassajara Creek be done in order to avoid damage to wildlife habitats? Where will the detention facilities for storm drainage be located? Bert Michalcyk, DSRSD commented on the recycled water issues and indicated language would be added to strengthen requirements. There would be conditions of approval in connection with the annexation of the project into the services district; conservation of water quality; drought assurance, etc. Written comments would address all of these concerns. Mr. Michalyck indicated that work continues on the plan for the TWA export project. He was in support of an action program requiring "will serve" conditions and the cost being borne by the new development. Zone 7 would annex the areas and has indicated there could be a shortage of water. Studies show 9-14 years. There will be appropriate planning; a resource acquisition program would be developed. He indicated even a 50-year supply might not be adequate and cost of water might be high. This cost would be borne by the future customers. He noted that 12,500 acre/feet of water was adequate. He indicated that the sewage issues needed to be resolved and would work with the County. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #10 - Financing. Marjorie LaBar had concerns with the per unit cost of infrastructure, and types of bonds used to pay for these costs. She referred to page 145 and asked what the status was on the legal challenge connected Regular Meeting PCM-1992-162 October 12, 1992 [10-12min] . ~ ~ with SB308. She asked what the cost of hookups and improvements would be and had indicated there was no financing available for the major freeway connections and additional lane construction. Ms. Morgan had concerns with item 10.2 and asked how many years would there be a shortfall in revenues and who pays for infrastructure during this time period. Who will be responsible for maintenance of the slide-prone soils? She referred to section 10.3 and had concerns regarding Mello-Roos assessment districts. She asked what would a reasonable cost be to land owners in Doolan Canyon? She felt that people who do not want to develop, should not have to pay for improvements. She noted that there were problems with Mello-Roos districts in the City of Antioch. She referred to section 10.5 and felt there would be an excessive burden on homeowners. She indicated that Table 10.2 shows a cost spread over 17 years and asked who pays for the infrastructure if 750 homes per year were not built and sold? Who will buy the bonds? She felt that the project should be scaleci down. John Anderson referred to Table 10.3 and had concerns with the cost of infrastructure along Tassajara Road. Revenues will start when the homes are built. What happens if homes do not sell? Are there any safeguards for infrastructure financing? Are there any guarantees to minimize impacts? Cm. Zika went onto Chapter #11 - Implementation Marjorie LaBar had concerns regardinq section 11.2.8 and indicated that tentative maps should be consistent with Specific Plan. In section 11.2.10, she suggested that "should" be replaced with the word "must". Referring to section 11.2.13, she indicated that a master development agreement should be reviewed in a public hearing. Ms. LaBar had concerns with section 11.3.3 and asked where the money was coming from and how much would be needed. Referring to section 11.3.4, she asked what risks were involved for both eastern and western Dublin if bonds were pooled. In regards to section 11.4.5, Ms. LaBar felt that the EIR was inadequate and should be looked at only as a program EIR. Additional EIR studies at the time of development should be implemented. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to October 15th at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' 1 nin ommissi Chairperson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-163 October 12, 1992 [10-12min]