Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-29-1992 , _ . ~ ~ . Regular Meeting - 5eptember 29, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 29, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Rafanelli. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli 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 City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika indicated that this hearing had been continued from the September 23rd meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that the City`Council had taken action at their last meeting that affected the meeting schedule for the Eastern Dublin project. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council sent a letter to Staff requesting a 45-day extension on the review period of the Draft EIR. The Council denied this request; however, it did approve a 2-1/2 week extension which extends the written comment review period on the Draft EIR to October 29, 1992 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Tong indicated that the Council had cancelled their October 12th meeting and created a special meeting for budget review on October 22nd. Staff had prepared a revised schedule for the Commission's review. Staff and the Commission reviewed the revised schedule for the Eastern Dublin meetings. Various changes were noted and an updated schedule will be completed by Staff. Ms. Foscalina requested clarification on the difference between a public hearing and a public meeting. Was there a difference between the closing of oral comments and written comments? Cm. Zika explained that the oral comment period would be closed on October 15th and the written comment period had been extended to October 29th at 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-134 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . . , . ~ . Mr. Tong further explained that both the written and oral comment period for the Draft General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would close on October 15th. Ms. Gillarde discussed the format for tonight's meeting and reiterated that tonight's hearing would continue to review the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Discussion would begin with Chapter #5 - Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage and it was hoped that review of the Draft EIR would be completed at this meeting. She requested that page numbers be referenced when commenting on the Draft EIR so that Staff could respond appropriately. A matrix would be used to help with the comment process. She asked that comments be submitted in writing which would help Staff respond quickly. Cm. Zika reminded the audience that their comments were limited to five minutes. He asked if there was any comments for Chapter 3.5 Mr. Bert Michalczyk of Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) appreciated the time extension for written comments on the Draft EIR. He introduced Georgeen Vonheeder and Tom McCormick who were board members for DSRSD. He described the service district's role in the planning process of the Eastern Dublin project, as defined under CEQA, once the EIR was certified. Mr. Michalczyk felt that the EIR was conservative in its impacts; however he had some concerns regarding wastewater storage in the tri- valley area and recommended this issue be addressed in the Draft EIR. Ne reiterated the district's four policies: stabilize water supply; service new development; coordinate with Zone 7; and insure customers of adequate service. Mr. Michalczyk indicated that DSRSD was currently evaluating supply resources and felt that water sources would be made available for the project. There was a sufficient water supply for the early part of the development, up to 1997-98 calendar years. Eastern Dublin was a long range project and the district was working on solving water shortages on a long term basis. Mr. Michalczyk stated that there was a Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) meeting scheduled for next month and TWA would be making comments on the Draft EIR. DSRSD could not initiate a"will serve° letter currently; however they were moving in that direction. Ms. Marjorie LaBar had concerns with water shortages/supply. She asked where was the water coming from and who would be paying for the water supply needed for the Eastern Dublin praject. Zone 7 could not get its water allotments from the State. The EIR shows that the Los Banos reservoir would be built; however, the State has put this project on hold. Ms. LaBar had concerns with ground water recharge and felt that there would be too much water drawn and asked how were these wells to be recharged. She felt that the fringe basin was going dry and would not be able to supply water to the area. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-135 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . . . ~ ~ • Ms. LaBar referred to page 3.5-15 and indicated that the Doolan Ranch area had been excluded in the figures for water and sewage supply and suggested that these figures be redone. Ms. LaBar suggested that the Draft EIR look at a 50 year water supply. She felt that if the development was completed in pieces, there was the possibility that the water supply would run dry and no additional development could be approved. No one is showing a sure source of water and guarantees should be made before development occurs. Ms. Morgan had questions regarding wastewater system improvements. She referred to page 3.5-3 and asked: why was Doolan Canyon and City of San Ramon excluded in the wastewater collection system figures and will DSRSD serve the Dougherty Valley project with wastewater collection as well as fresh water. There seemed to be a conflict on if a computer model has or has not been used for the proposed system. She asked if DSRSD has collected enough money to expand the treatment plants; and if not, who will be paying for the expansion. Can development occur before the plant is expanded and how long will it take to expand? Is Pleasanton part of the expansion plans? How many additional residents and housing units does 36 million gallons a day of treatment capacity equal in the DSRSD service area? Ms. Morgan referred to page 3.5-4 and indicated it was difficult to understand the terminology and correlation regarding acre feet versus gallons. She referred to IM 3.5/B and asked if the figure of 5.6 mgd included Doolan Canyon. What is the estimated units and wastewater flow for poolan Canyon? She referred to IM 3.5/B-C and felt that the system could be considered a significant growth inducing impact. She referred to IM 3.5/G and asked how many dwelling units and people could be developed with 61 mgd per day of sewage capacity. She referred to IM 3.5-0 and felt that a groundwater basin map should be included in the EIR to show their locations. Ms. Morgan asked what the per unit hookup cost would be for the existing DSRSD service area versus potential hookup cost when TWA is built. What is the cost of treatment? What is the cost to buy into the Central and Contra Costa Sanitation District? What is the cost to buy the right-of-way for the TWA pipeline and storage facilities? What is the capital cost of materials, maintenance and operation? If bonds are to be used to buy into TWA, identify how the interest is to be paid for the above items. Identify the source and interest payments. How many units have to be built and sold each year to make the bond payments? Who pays if the units are not built or sold? Will the City's bond ratings be affected? Will buy-in with TWA cause DSRSD to raise its rates to existing Dublin residents? Will Dublin participate in TWA without the other tri-valley cities and at what cost? If TWA is not built, identify source of sewage treatment, costs, etc. Ms. Morgan referred to maps 3.5B-3.5E and indicated that they do not include any areas outside the Specific Plan and why this is so. Reference was made to page 3.5-15 and asked if Zone 7 and DSRSD were requesting the existing Dublin residents to conserve water. Will Zone 7 coordinate the water supply with DSRSD when pulling from groundwater Regular Meeting PCM-1992-136 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . . _ ~ ~ ~ wells? Is there a system to recharge to groundwater basin? Does DSRSD have its own treatment plant? If not, who will treat D5RSD's groundwater? If developers are able to dig their own wells, will they pay to recharge them? Mr. John Anderson was concerned that the EIR did not specify an "active" control system which means that the water requests would need to be made first before looking for water sources. An active control system would be able to monitor the systems far in advance and forecast what was needed in the future. There seemed to be a 300,000 gallon per day shortage without buildout of Eastern Dublin. The Livermore area will be 25 million gallons per day short. Zone 7 claims that they would run short 8,000 acre feet by 1995 according to ABAG. He suggested a regional committee or organization be coordinated to look at an active control system, supply and demand of water sources and supplies. Doug Abbott referred to page 3.5-13 and Table 3.5-32 and noted the residential consumption rates were different and hoped there was an explanation for the discrepancy. Bob Patterson commented that DSR5D's representative had indicated that there were other water sources available and rates would increase and these costs would be spread out over several years. It was his understanding that rates would not be increased for existing residents of Dublin. He noted that there would be excess water if the rates were increased because people would not be able to afford to buy water. Vince Wong, Zone 7, complimented Staff and the consultants on the fine job they had done on addressing the water issues in the Draft EIR. He indicated he was prepared to work with Staff to respond to the public's comments and was available tonight to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Mr. Michalczyk offered to meet with anyone from the public at the DSRSD offices to assist in answering any of the public's questions. The questions are good ones, some which have very precise answers, some that are more complex. He commented that he would be working with Staff and the consultants in responding to the comments presented before the Commission. Margaret Tracy presented a letter from EBMUD which had been addressed to the City of San Ramon regarding their pougherty Valley project. She stated from the letter that if the Draft EIR does not specify the source of water it is legally deficient. She asked where the potable water would be coming from? Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.6 - Soils, Geology, and Seismicity and asked for public testimony. Ms. LaBar questioned why documents from the California Department of Mines and Geology and the California Water Quality Department were not cited or used in the Draft EIR. These documents concerns slide potential and instability of the land in the Eastern Dublin area. The Regular Meeting PCM-1992-137 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] ~ i • • water department had previously proposed a dam in this area; however they backed out because the area was not sufficiently stable. She was concerned the City would be looking at liability claims once homes were built in these areas. Ms. LaBar had concerns regarding slide repair areas. She felt this issue is not being addressed and felt that if the City stayed out of these areas, there would be no need to repair the area and the topography would not have to be changed. Ms. Morgan concurred with Ms. LaBar and indicated the maps have been available since the Notice of Preparation was completed. She referred to page 3.6-4 where it showed Cottonwood Creek as being intermittent and indicating that this stream had water in it all year round. This stream feeds the fresh water marsh at the mouth of the canyon. She distributed pictures to the Commission showing that there was water in this stream. Ms. Morgan referred to Mitigation #3.6-3 and asked how much of the potentially unstable areas would be graded? Where is it deemed necessary to remove the land slide areas? Will the developer be able to remove the whole hill area? She referred to Mitigation #3-6.9 and 3-6.10 and had concerns with development being proposed on the potential landslide areas. Are these areas considered safe in an area with a history of land slides? Is the City liable once the developer is gone? Is cluster development safe on landslide areas? She felt the Commission should take a field trip into these unsafe areas before making a decision on this project. Ms. Foscalina requested that the maps from the State be identified in the Draft EIR; they were very informative. She referred to a situation in the Blackhawk area where one of the homes had cracks and slumping problems. The home is only six years old and within the drought years. The City will be liable once the developer is gone. She mentioned the County was dealing with lawsuits regarding the Pleasanton Ridge because of a similar situation. Mr. Anderson felt that Chapter 3.6 was well written; however it is lacking an evaluation of what would happen if several disasters happened at one time. The document should consider all interactions together; it was very rare that a single action would occur. He suggested that the Army Corp of Engineers be contacted for a possible model source of data. Mr. Patterson indicated that the Eastern Dublin area was naturally a swamp area and has witnessed in the past area flooding and overflow to the highway. He asked if the drainage would be adequate for extra heavy rain that will eventually occur? Is the drainage adequate for the other side of the highway also? Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.7 - Biological Resources and asked for public comment. Ms. LaBar had concerns with the special species studies and felt that the Draft EIR was inadequate in its studies of the kit fox, golden Regular Meeting PCM-1992-138 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . , , ~ . eagle, ground squirrel, and salamander habitats. She asked why the Army Corp of Engineers did not receive a copy of the EIR since they do research on endangered species. She felt there was a lack of coordination with other agencies when studying the natural habitats and the photographic studies were inadeguate. There have been daylight sitings of kitfox in the areas and she reminded everyone that if species were found while developing the land, the project would stop dead and could take up to two years to resolve the issues. She indicated that several species work together and urged an integrated look at the mitigation plan. Mr. Anderson referred to page 3.7-8 which stated that surveys of special status invertebrates had not been completed. He asked if these surveys were to be completed before the Final EIR or after with conditions requiring such studies to be completed. There were four species that were either endangered or threatened that would come under these studies. Ms. Morgan referred to Map #3.7-A and indicated that it showed the area close to the mouth of Cottonwood Creek to be freshwater marsh. She indicated that she had spoken to the Army Corps of Engineer and they felt that they should receive a copy of the Draft EIR. She felt that the studies completed in 1989 should be redone since they were processed at the wrong time of the year. There were sitings of kit fox, salamander, golden eagle, western pound turtle in the Doolan Canyon area and urged that the studies be reexamined. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.8 - Visual Resources Ms. Foscalina commented that the EIR states the mitigation of the visual resources; however the Planning Commission and City Council needed to make a decision on what was important to them, not the developer. The developer would take the easy way out. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.9 - Cultural Resources Mr. Anderson indicated that studies back in 1985 had discovered surface artifacts and that ARS Archaeologists speculated the sites were used for an Indian vegetable resource gathering site. He questioned if the site would be studied using a backhoe prior to EIR approval. Ms. LaBar had concerns with the noise studies in relation to Camp Parks and Alameda County Sheriff's Department firing range. Most of the complaints are coming from the firing range, not Camp Parks and additional noise studies were needed. She noted the upper corner of the Camp Parks area as being a economic resource. She indicated she would make additional comments in writing. Ms. Morgan referred to IM 3.10.C and indicated her concerns with the noise caused by the Livermore Airport. She indicated there were very few residents that lived in the proposed airport zone north of I-580; however, a gentlemen who does live in that vicinity has been complaining about the noise since 1950. She felt that the City should Regular Meeting PCM-1992-139 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . . . , ~ • hold off on their development plans until the airport commission has completed their studies. The Commission took a 10-minute break. Upon returning, Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.11 - Air Quality. Mr. Harvey Scudder indicated there were no adequate standards for pollutants, auto exhaust, and air quality. There was too much exhaust already and there would be an enormous impact when the level of service decreased, with cars waiting on the freeway. There would be a slow process in making people walk versus using automobiles and felt we were not ready for this transition. He was concerned with people's health, photochemical smog. There was a need to look at these concern on a regional basis and felt there was a need to be more sensitive to quality of air. Ms. LaBar referred to Table 3.11-3 on page 3.11-9 and indicated that contribution from the I-580 freeway is not shown, only the ramps. It is difficult to imagine what the impacts of the congested freeway will have on the proposed development. Was the Dougherty Valley development taken into consideration? The table does not show impacts on the downtown Dublin area and suggested the figures consider Dublin Boulevard through San Ramon Road, with the three major intersections in between these streets, as well as Tassajara all the way up to the county line. She felt the table show enough of the impacts that could be felt outside of the immediate planning area. Mr. Abbott referred to page 3.11-5 and observed that the mitigations shown were very generalized and there should be real mitigations which would establish clear, quantitative connections between permit approvals and air quality or traffic congestion. Ms. Morgan had concerns with the ozone and air quality standards. There have been more adverse days this year than any year before and it will continue to get worse. She felt it was time for someone to address this issue before we can see the air but not be able to breath it. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.12 - Fiscal Considerations and asked for public comments. Ms. LaBar had concerns with "Mello-Roos" and other impact fees. Would this system be used? How many units would need to be sold to cover the initial cost of needed infrastructure? How much development has to occur to insure that there are revenues to pay back bonds? She urged the City to review what happened to other cities when the recession hit. Where does TWA fit into this? Are these costs absorbed by new residents? How many dwelling units will it take? The City is committed to having development pay for itself. How is this development to be financed? She indicated there was not enough information in the EIR and felt there was a need for more review. She asked if something went wrong, what would happen to the City's bond rating? She was concerned the City will weaken its tax base and credit standing. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-140 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] . , ~ ~ Ms. Morgan concurred with Ms. LaBar. She asked where the funds would be coming from to pay for the bonds? If they were coming from the general fund, the existing residents of Dublin would be paying far Eastern Dublin development. She felt this information needed to be clarified. Ms. Foscalina had concerns with how assessment districts were setup. She felt that fees should be charged per unit, not by footage. This format benefits the developer and the residents would lose. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 4.0 - Alternative Analysis and asked for public testimony. Ms. Labor asked if anyone had consulted the County regarding their "Santa Rita" property. She indicated it was difficult to analyze the alternatives without solid figures for this site. She wanted to see alternative discussions that would keep the denser downtown development, the commercial development along the freeway frontage, and limitations on most of the development up Tassajara and the proposed rural residential areas. These areas might cut out a lot of the infrastructure costs. Ms. Morgan concurred with Ms. LaBar and felt this would be a better alternative. She felt the City has a responsibility to create a plan that will not impact all aspects - water, sewage shortages, reduced air quality, lack of mobility on roads. Bigger does not always mean better and felt that the City should cut down the size and their expectations and reserve the area for the existing residents. Cm. Zika continued to Chapter 5.0 - CEQA - Mandated Considerations and asked for public input. Ms. LaBar referred to page 5.0-3 and 5.0-4 and felt the cumulative impacts on the freeways did not have any real mitigations, for example, Caltrans had no funds to constructs additional freeway lanes. This creates an unavoidable significant impact. She referred to page 5.0-5 and felt there should be more detail on buffer zones for fire safety, i.e., how these buffer zones are to be approached and who will pay for their upkeep. Ms. LaBar referred to page 5.0-7/8 - Water Impacts. She asked what would happen if Zone 7 does not get enough water from the State and the State does not have the funds to build Los Banos or expand Del Valle. Is the City going to need to pay for portions of this water? Ms. LaBar had concerns with the groundwater recharge shown on page 5.0-9 and asked where the water would be coming from once the groundwater is depleted. Where were the real mitigations? There were no direct policies regarding groundwater recharge. Ms. LaBar referred to page 5.0-12 and had concerns with biological impacts, with loss of foraging or the lack of maintenance on these areas. There are no unifying mitigation principles. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-141 September 29, 1992 [9-29min] + ~ ~ ~ • Ms. LaBar indicated that the growth inducing impacts have not been addressed and suggested that further alternative analysis be done. She had concerns with the Williamson Act contracts where too much pressure was being put on people to cancel their agreements. She indicated that some farm operations can conflict with development and this issue needs to be addressed. Ms. LaBar indicated she would have written responses to other CEQA mandated issues. Ms. Morgan felt that the impacts in the Draft EIR have not been adequately addressed. There is no such thing as an unavoidable significant impact; the impact can be addressed by not building the project and should be readdressed. Cm. Zika continued the public hearing on the Draft General Plan Amendment to October 1, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _ P`anning ommi sion airperson ZJ'~' Y~ C~~~~~' V V` Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-142 September 29, 1992 [9-29min]