Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-23-1992 ti . ~ : ^ ~ ~ ~ Reqular Meetinq - September 23, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 23, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, 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 Dub;lin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika indicated that this hearing had been continued from the September 21st meeting, that Cm. Barnes would be arriving late and Cm. Rafanelli was absent. He indicated that before we start discussions on Eastern Dublin, Carolyn Morgan had information to present to the Commission. Ms. Morgan indicated that the pressure the Commission has felt was important to expedite this project does not exist and probably never did. The Commission has been mislead. A letter from LAFCO dated June 3, 1992 addressed to Mayor Brown in Livermore and Mayor Snyder of Dublin addressed this issue. The letter stated that the outside date in which they would hear the Sphere of Influence application regarding the Doolan Canyon area would be May 1993, even if only one City is ready to proceed. The letter further stated that if both cities are in agreement the application can be heard prior to or after the May 1993 date. Ms. Morgan indicated that she had been in contact with LAFCO personnel and was informed that there is no deadline. She was also told that LAFCO was a reactionary commission, whereby they would only take action in response to a request from the city. At this time there is not a request from either city. She spoke with Staff from City of Livermore and they indicated they were willing to postpone the application. Ms. Morgan indicated that Dublin Planning Commission's reasoning for the rushed time table was because of LAFCO's deadline which does not exist. She felt that the City of Dublin should be able to extend the comment period and public hearings on the Draft EIR for Eastern Dublin. Considering that the City of Dublin has limited copies of the Regular Meeting PCM-1992-118 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] 9 • = ' ~ . : . . . . document available for the public, many individuals are unable to obtain a copy. With only one copy at the library that can be checked out, a longer,response time would give more people a chance to read, comprehend and make informed comments on the DRAFT EIR. CEQA law allows a 90 day comment period. This wauld give the public until November 25, 1992 or ten more weeks, to understand and respond to the Eastern Dublin project. She requested that Dublin give the public this November 25, 1992 deadline. Mr. Tong explained the facts behind the LAFCO proceedings on Eastern Dublin. He indicated that it was well known that the City of Dublin and City of Livermore have been disputing over the Sphere of Influence boundary lines regardinq the Doolan Canyon area and other portions of the planning area for a number of years. About a year ago, at the request of the City of Livermore, LAFCO established a one year deadline (May 1993) as a hearing date in order for the respective cities to submit their information regarding the Sphere of Influence. The City felt at that time, that this was a reasonable amount of time. If a deadline was not established, one or the other city could drag, this issue out forever. Both cities concurred with this time frame. The City thought it reasonable and necessary so that a decision is ultimately made. Mr. Tong indicated that it was unfair for everyone involved to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in Staff resources, consultant costs, time and energy in debating whose Sphere of Influence this area should belong to. The City of Dublin is processing its Eastern Dublin plan consistent with LAFCO's established timeline. As was explained at the last meeting, the City anticipates that the Commission will need September and October to process its portion of the plans. The City Council will have November and December, which are peak holiday periods. Even with some buffer time of several weeks, it does not leave a whole lot of time to complete our request and information in order to submit the application to LAFCO by the end of February to meet the May 1993 hearing deadline. He reiterated that the LAFCO board had established the May 1993 deadline. Unless otherwise changed, Staff recommends that we do whatever we can to meet this deadline. Cm. Zika asked the Commission if they would like to propose a change in the deadlines. The Commission indicated no. Cm. Zika continued the public hearing on Item 3.4 - Traffic. Ms. Gillarde indicated that Mike Aronson, the traffic consultant, wanted to make additional comments to make on the traffic issues. Mr. Aronson asked if the Commission had any questions/concerns that he could be addressed. Cm. Zika indicated that Table 3.3-9 in the DEIR showed a gridlock situation in the year 2010 with or without the Eastern Dublin plan and asked the traffic consultant to clarify this information. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-119 September 23, 1992 (9-23min] i ~ ~ Mr. Aronson explained the cumulative traffic impacts. The Eastern Dublin plan would generate an additional 23~ of the cumulative traffic in the area. Without the Eastern Dublin project, there would still be an increase in traffic of 77~. Cm. Zika felt that this would exceed the City's current level of service policies. Ms. Gillarde believed that the current City policies allowed local intersections to operate at a level of service D within the City limits. This does not apply to freeway segments. Mr. Aronson explained that level of service "D" meant up to 90~ traffic capacity. He indicated that the freeway would go up to level of service "E" with one section possibly going up to level of service "F". This could be mitigated by the improvements propased in the EIR. The freeway has different policies on traffic levels and was allowed a level of service "E". He reminded the Commission that estimated ultimate build out for Eastern Dublin was the year 2020 or beyond; however this may not occur. Cm. North asked how much traffic would we be adding to the existing problem. Mr. Aronson described the traffic concerns from the wall map. He indicated that the I-580/680 freeway area was a regional problem and required regional improvements. Some impacts can be mitigated by local road improvements. The traffic impacts on the freeway had been included in the traffic analysis. Cm. North asked how many of the improvements would still be needed without the Eastern Dublin plan due to the increase of usage from people from the San Joaguin County area, Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, etc. Mr. Aronson indicated that growth outside Eastern Dublin would account for 770 of the traffic. We would need to widen the sections of freeway from Tassajara and Fallon Roads, plus the local improvements which include improvements in conjunction with the North Livermore and Dougherty Valley plans. The freeway would still have a level of service "E" which is considered acceptable by the County. He referred to the Table on page 3.3-20. Mr. Aronson pointed out there were problems even if the Eastern Dublin project was not developed, which is only 23~ of the growth in the area. These problems needed to be dealt with at the regional level. Cm. Zika asked if we could require other outlying cities and/or developments to create mitigations for traffic improvements, i.e., pay their share of the impacts. Mr. Aronson reiterated that the EIR was recommending regional coordination. We cannot do anything about the San Joaquin County traffic. There is no regional setup to deal with the traffic from Regular Meeting PCM-1992-120 September 23, 1992 [9-23minJ ` , ~ . ~ this area. Al1 of the surrounding cities are subject to the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan which is the group that distributes the Measure B sales tax funds. These cities have to meet the requirements of the plan in order to receive their portion of the sales tax monies to build street improvements. Part of the terms is to examine each project and identify improvements for deficient road systems or create other modes of transportation. The CMA could withhold funds if other modes of transportation and contributions were not implemented. The Tri-Va11ey Transportation Committee is an advisory committee which deals with coming up with plans to mitigate all surrounding impacts plus recommendations on how the cities need to participate. The EIR is recommending that Dublin participate which encourages other cities to participate, including Danville, San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, etc. Cm. Zika asked if the last City to develop would get the brunt of the traffic mitigations. Mr. Aronson hoped that this would not occur. Development should be contributing to the plan along the way. Hopefully by the year 2010 a system will have been implemented that works. Mr. Tong explained that there is the potential for the last community bear the brunt of the accumulated traffic problems. The intent of the Congestion Management Plan for Alameda County and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan for the tri-valley area which include cities in Contra Costa County was to consider programs to deal with these incremental increases in traffic. These programs have not been put into place yet. Mr. Aronson indicated that the EIR recommended that the City of Dublin participate in the process. Mr. Tong clarified that the Proposition 111 funds come from the gas tax. Cm. North commented that BART was supposed to be completed by 1995 and traffic from the San Joaquin County area would be using the facility. Have there been any studies completed on the traffic from the San Joaquin County area? He asked what the percentage of traffic from this area might be. Mr. Aronson indicated yes. The traffic coming off the freeway to the BART Station was included in the analysis. Also included are traffic projections from the new towns that are proposed in the San Joaquin County area. It was unknown what the percentage of traffic would be. The numbers were small for traffic going to the BART Station. There is still a substantial share going through to Santa Clara county and western areas. Cm. North commented that maybe Alameda County and Contra Costa County should be talking with San Joaquin County also; at least entering into negotiations with us. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-121 September 23, 1992 [9-23minJ . , S ~ Mr. Aronson indicated that he would try to get back to the Commission with some feedback on these concerns. Cm. Zika and Cm. North commented that there was a tremendous amount of traffic coming from the Central Valley. It was difficult to maintain 60 mph at 6:30 a.m. coming from that area. Ms. Bobbie Foscalina had comments and questions on several sections in the traffic and circulation chapter of the EIR as follows: Item #3.3/I:Mitigation #3.3/9.0 - questioned if prohibiting left turns would be appropriate. Item #3.3/J:Mitigation #3.3/10 - who would pay for the mitigation improvements and how would these mitigations occur. Item #3.3/K:Mitigation #3.3/11.0 - why City of Livermore and Caltrans should share the cost of these improvements. Item #3.3/N:Mitigation #3.3/14 - why would businesses want to locate where there was a level of service "F"; why would anyone want to shop in a gridlock area; how will emergency services respond quickly. Ms. Foscalina commented that the traffic consultant recommended the cities to find other means of transportation as a mitigation to the traffic congestion. This was an unacceptable solution. She asked if this was the only remedy available. Ms. Foscalini referred to Figure #3.3/E and asked if these calculations included the Doolan Canyon area. Why did the numbers not change with or without buildout? What was the level of service on Doolan Road. What was the level of service comparison on the north end versus the south end of Doolan Road? How many East Dublin residents will use the BART Station and what impact will this have on Dublin or Livermore? Will residents of Contra Costa County use the Livermore BART Station? Were these figures derived for the level of service for the project area? Mr. Aronson explained that the buildout referred to everything outside of the Eastern Dublin area. He felt that Doolan Road would not be an attractive through route. The plan calls for this road to remain a 2- lane local road, with stops signs, not a through route. There is also Fallon Road which is the main bypass. The figures are a total daily traffic and assume people will not use this road; they will go through on alternative routes. Cm. Zika asked how would we implement a fair share of the cost of improvements. Mr. Aronson indicated that this needed to be coordinated with other agencies. The cost would be based on impact. Cm. Burnham referred to page 3.3-2 and asked if the daily traffic volume of 600 vehicles shown for poolan Canyon Road was in error. Mr. Aronson indicated that this had not been researched yet; however he will respond to that concern before the Final EIR. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the recommendation that there be no left-turn at the McDonald's on Santa Rita Road going south. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-122 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] . ; ~ ~ ~ Mr. Aronson believed that to make this intersection work at better than level of service "E", recommendations were made to limit left turns; possibly between the 4-6 p.m, which would have an acceptable level of service "D". Cm. North asked what the feelings were from the businesses along the Santa Rita Road area. There business traffic would definitely be affected by the left-turn limitation. Mr. Aronson indicated that the Eastern Dublin plan is not the only project contributing to the traffic. Hacienda Business Park is projected to cause a lot of the traffic in this area. This was a recommendation to provide an acceptable level of service. Cm. Burnham commented that this recommendation gives the right of-way to people coming out of Hacienda Business Park versus people coming off the freeway. Mr. Aronson indicated that this recommendation is purely from a traffic engineering standpoint. Technically, it would be a trade off. There is quite a big difference of level of traffic coming from both directions. The EIR is intended to provide a feasible mitigation that could be implemented, not a judgment whether it is desirable. John Anderson referred to the data shown on page 3.3-13 and 3.3-20 which showed an 104~ increase in traffic by buildout (2010) with a possible gridlock situation. He asked what the time schedules were for traffic/road improvements and construction constraints. Have these plans been worked out. Have the mitigation measures been feasibly examined for time, manpower, technology, finances and quality of life as defined by the tri-valley cities. What are the mitigation measures based on - increased revenues? labor costs? quality of life? Is there any interrelationship between mitigations? Mr. Aronson indicated that the time schedules would go along with development. This was a program EIR. This would not be the last time that the impacts and mitigations would be reviewed. A lot of developers will be coming in with individual projects. Impacts would be examined again by the City of Dublin with each development project and make a determination would be made at that time to make improvements and use impact fees. Mr. Anderson questioned if future studies would be taken on and would they be done far enough in advance to properly mitigate the causes of the development. Mr. Aronson stated that this was the intent of the program EIR. We are looking at a long-range plan of what the area will need for the year 2010. Along the way, the city will monitor development as it occurs. Cm. Zika asked if the specific timing for freeway intersections, widening roads, etc, is covered more under the Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-123 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] i ~ ~ Mr. Tong explained that prior to any construction taking place, the mitigation measures would need to be implemented. The specific time that these improvements are completed, would have to be worked out at that time, i.e., prior to building permits, subdivision of property, zoning or site development review, etc. Transportation improvements will either be started or be funded before any development is in place. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, referred to page 1-2 and 1-7 of the program EIR. The EIR indicates that future environmental analysis is required when a particular application to develop property. This EIR is very general. That is what a program EIR is because it covers a number of actions, i.e., general plan amendment, specific plan, annexation, and sphere of influence changes. Specific proposals will be subject to further review. She commented that a developer can be required to put in oversized improvements and be reimbursed by subsequent developments. Cm. North asked since the Eastern Dublin project involves multiple developers, who will be responsible for monitoring the development to make sure that Eastern Dublin does not have to pay out more than its fair share of improvements throughout the tri-valley area. What agency is going to coordinate the whole area. Mr. Tong explained that the City of Dublin will seek those proportionate shares from the other developments. The City has limited control over what happens in other jurisdictions. If all of the communities join together on a regional basis and comply with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan, then each agency will contribute its fair share. Without these programs, it would be very difficult to force other cities to contribute. It is the City's responsibility to develop programs requiring each individual developer to contribute their fair share. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on how the cost of improvements could be split between several different developers who would be developing on different time frames. Mr. Tong gave a scenario for a traffic signal improvement. A traffic signal was required if a particular amount of development occurred. The City can require the first developer to initially pay the full price, even though only a portion of the signal funding was required, with an agreement that future development would reimburse that developer. The first developer would recoup the additional costs at a later date. He reiterated that it was the City's policy to have development pay its own way. There are other funding mechanisms that will have to be explored and the City will be holding workshops to learn other means of funding infrastructure. Mr. Anderson indicated that it was his understanding that there were no firm proposals at this time and asked what defined a firm proposal. Mr. Tong explained that the City was a long way from construction. Prior to construction, there needs to be building permits or Regular Meeting PCM-1992-124 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] , , ~ ~ improvement plans. Prior to that, annexation, prezoning, and site ' specific development plans would occur. The City is years away from this review process. The City anticipates that any construction in the Eastern Dublin area will occur at least five years from now. There will be more detailed review completed within those five years. Mr. Anderson felt that the interrelationship between mitigations in the EIR were not adequate and should be closely examined by the City. Mr. Hammond emphasized that the plan was set up in conjunction with the City's General Plan policies. The development should not have a fiscal impact on the City. All mitigation measures would be paid for by developers. John Chapman had concerns with traffic. He indicated he was involved with the documents for the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara plans and was concerned about the cumulative impacts involved with the proposed projects. There would be approximately 100,000 additional people by the time these projects were completed. The assumption that people would be driving to work within the next block is absurd. People drive to Oakland, San Francisco, Concord, etc. He stated that we need to look at the big picture and that he felt serious traffic studies and proper infrastructure should be implemented before these projects take place. Martin Inderbitzen reminded everyone that this project has been in process for five years and felt that this process had not been hurried along. Also, CEQA did not require public hearings for Environmental Impact Reports and felt that there was ample review time given by the Planning Commission. He appreciated the City's approach to the overall process. He sees no reason for the City to apolagize to anyone about the processing time and/or format. Jim Stedman had concerns with the traffic and circulation chapter of the EIR. The proposed lanes surrounding Tassajara Road, the Town Center and the transit spine are deficient. He felt that there should be additional lanes to eliminate traffic congestion in the Town Center area. He distributed a letter to the Planning Commission describing his proposed changes to the road and identified the area on the wall map. Mr. Aronson indicated that the current maps showing the roads in the Specific Plan and EIR should match with the same amount of lanes proposed. The rationale of the Town Center area is to set up a "pedestrian oriented" site which will be enhanced by the two-lane roadway. He referred to Walnut Creek's Main Street area where there was a two-lane road which expands at the end of the street. Mr. Aronson stated that widening Tassajara Road to six lanes was a mitigation measure for development outside of the Eastern Dublin area. Both the Specific Plan and EIR show this section of roadway as four lanes. There is potential to go to six lanes with right-of-way in the future if necessary. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-125 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] ~ ~ Mr.~ Hammond explained that the decision was made during the planning process that Dublin was trying to create a pedestrian environment. There was potential right-of-way for six lanes; however, from a planning standpoint, the plan was trying to create access to the local community; not, however, to have a highway going through town. Cm. North felt that this was not realistic approach to the way people drive in California. The plan would not discourage traffic; it would probably create more traffic. Mr. Tong explained that one viewpoint is if you assume all the tri- valley projects will be built-out, we may want to consider the six- lane through road or set aside right-of-way for it. The othe~ viewpoint is that what might happen in Contra Costa County should not dictate what Dublin's plans should be. This is a policy decision. Cm. Burnham felt that the plan could propose wider sidewalks to accommodate future road widening. This way the City would not have to take business frontage when it was necessar~ to widen the road. He had concerns with the east/west traffic and felt that delivery trucks could cause traffic congestion. Mr. Aronson indicated that the plans give them every opportunity to load/unload behind the businesses via the use of "alleywa~s". Mr. Hammond reiterated that from a planning standpoint, the commercial environment was created to enhance pedestrian shopping. We took some of the better qualities of other towns, such as Walnut Creek, Mountain View and Monterey, where there were two lane streets with parking on either side. We are trying to get away from vehicle traffic which causes strip commercial development, high traffic speeds, etc. Ms. Silver reminded the Commission that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments on the EIR's adequacy. The current discussions are more appropriate at the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment stages. Bob Patterson referred to the north/southbound circulation and stated that maybe a stub freeway should go through to the County line. This would appease the business owners in the area. The Planning Commission took a 15 minute break. Everyone was present upon returning. There were no additional comments on Traffic and Circulation. There was no comments on Chapter 1- Introduction. Cm. Zika continued to Chapter 2- Project Description and asked for public testimony. Mr. Anderson asked if the commercial development can proceed without the residential development and can the Specific Plan development proceed without the General Plan area development. Is there anything that could prohibit a modular development? Regular Meeting PCM-1992-126 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] . ' ~ ~ Mr. Tong stated that there were no policies that prohibited modular development. The development can be phased and the City will be looking at the extension of facilities. The necessary infrastructure goes along with the development. For example, when we review the site specifics we will look at the overall picture of land uses so that they provide appropriate infrastructure and logical expansion of the area. Ms. Silver explained that this plan was mainly a General Plan which provides for land uses permitted in the area. When and how the property is to be developed depends upon the property owners. This can occur whenever the property owners are ready to develop their specific site. Mr. Anderson referred to Figure 2-D and indicated that there seemed to be conflicts on the acreage tabulations. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would need to research the figures. The figures may have been tabulated off the assessors parcel map which have been known to be incorrect. Ms. Morgan referred to page 2.5 under Statement of Project Objectives and had concerns on Staff using ABAG's population projections since ABAG has noted that these figures could be overestimated. The City estimates that the area will buildout within 30-40 years; however how would anybody know what is going to happen in 30 years. She had concerns that the City would allow "hodge-podge" development. Cm. Zika explained to Ms. Morgan that the City was working on a plan to prevent "hodge-podge" development. The reason the City incorporated because the County gave us "hodge-podge" development. Ms. Morgan suggested that the City make restrictions on who can develop at what time in order to control unorganized development. Ms. Silver indicated that the City could, through zoning regulations, prevent too much development and create limits and restrictions. Ms. Morgan referred to the multi-family density of 25.1+ dwelling units per acre and asked how far up can this figure go. Mr. Tong indicated that this was a high density figure and it could go up to a reasonable maximum. The project was looking at a 30 year time frame. Mr. Hammond explained that there was no defined upper end. Under design guidelines, it was possible to have a three story building; possibly 80 units per acre. Ms. Morgan referred to page 2.10 and felt that Tassajara Road could be considered a scenic route just like Fallon Road. Ms. Morgan referred to pages 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13. There were no references to kit fox or tiger salamanders. These animals exist and Regular Meeting PCM-1992-127 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] ~ ~ should be considered as a special status species. She had concerns about noise control and indicated that the airport caused a significant amount of noise in the area. Donna Ogelvie referred to page 2.4 and questioned what was meant by "integrated, multi-modal system". Mr. Hammond explained that a number of modes of transportation wera being encouraged, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, automobile, etc. Ms. Ogelvie had concerns about the population projection of 43,000. How do we know this is going to happen. There are currently several condominiums and homes for sale in Dublin and questioned how we can predict future population growth. Ms. Ogelvie questioned where the water supply was coming from and who was going to pay for the water. She indicated that we were in the middle of a drought and were currently at an all time low water supply. Ms. Ogelvie commented that LAFCO was a reactionary agency and Crystal Hishida of that agency indicated that no applications had been filed. She requested that the public be given the right to respond to the EIR in a timely matter. Ms. Bobbie Foscalina had concerns regarding growth patterns and hodge- podge development. She felt that development should be allowed to go forward only in a contiguous manner. A plan should be followed. Cm. North commented that this plan was based on a contiguous design. Developers would not want to spend money on the cost of water/sewer hookups from one far section to another. Ms. Foscalina indicated that the plan should meet certain standards with infill regulations. Mr. Tong reminded everyone that the public hearing was to comment on the adequacy of the EIR. Cm. Burnham was under the impression that Zone 7 had guaranteed there would be enough water. Mr. Tong felt the water district had indicated that development shall not take place unless there was an adequate source of water. This can be reviewed under the water section of the EIR. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #3.1 - Land Use and asked for public testimony. Mr. Stedman referred to page 3.1-23, Table Section IP 2.1.2C. He felt there was a potential inconsistency in the General Plan policies for mixture of dwelling units on the property he was representing. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-128 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] . ; ~ ~ Mr. Stedman referred to page 3.1-28, Circulation and Scenic Highway Table, Section GP 5.1.D and 5.1.I. He felt there was inconsistency with the General Plan in that there were not enough lanes proposed for the projected traffic as he had mentioned previously. Staff had stated previously that traffic would be allowed to use neighboring streets as through traffic within the town center area and he felt that this was inconsistent with the Specific Plan policies. Ms. Marjorie LaBar referred to page 3.1/1 and had concerns that both the City of Dublin and City of Livermore were looking at two different plans for the Doolan Canyon area. She felt that Dublin should look more closely at what Livermore is doing. Ms. LaBar referred to page 3.1-29 through 31 and felt there were no mitigation suggestions available. The City was looking at consistencies and inconsistencies, yet there were no solid policies. She noted that on 3.1-26, item IP 7.7.B had no deed restrictions. These are general comments which can be applied to several sections of the EIR. She commented that on page 29: riparian vegetation there were no specific standards set. There does not seem to be any specific mitigations throughout the document. Mr. Hammond clarified that the analysis in this part of the EIR is policy consistency. This is not considered an environmental impact by CEQA. Ms. LaBar suggested that the City not put housing in the airport protection zone. The City may open themselves up to potential lawsuits if this zone is ignored. Cm. Burnham asked if the airport protection zone was a suggested buffer zone, not a legal buffer zone. Mr. Tong commented that this zone was being proposed by the City of Livermore. Staff has reviewed the plans and submitted comments indicating the gross inadequacies with the report and protection area. There is no indication that there will be any adverse impacts from the projected flights from the airport. Ms. Silver added that the City of Livermore has no legal authority to add a protection zone to the City of Dublin. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission does have that authority and is the board that is considering the adoption of the airport protection zone. Ms. Morgan referred to page 3.1-2 and indicated that there was agricultural land on the site which was being used for commercial livestock purposes. Ms. Morgan referred to page 3.1-5; Williamson Act and indicated there seemed to be an inconsistency on the amount of property owners that had lapsed contracts. She questioned the logic in property owners not renewing their contracts when there was the possibility that development may not occur for 30-40 years, especially in the general planning areas. Will the City be allowing growth within the General Regular Meeting PCM-1992-129 September 23, 1992 [9-23minJ ~ ~ ~ Plan area before the 5pecific Plan area? Will this create higher infrastructure costs? Ms. Morgan referred to page 3.1-7 whereby it states that open space would be compensated for the conversion to urban use. She indicated that rural residential does not constitute open space. Can the public have access to this land? Can it be used for hiking, biking or pedestrian use? She was confused over the percentage of open space in the area. There seemed to be less open space than what was stated in the documents. Ms. Morgan referred to page 3.1-7, IM 3.1/C and indicated that it was not the City's concern if there were higher tax rates once the Williamson Act contracts were discontinued. She stated that there was no one in the Collier Canyon area that has filed non-renewal of their contracts. A ratio of 3:2 of the property owners in the Doolan Canyon area have also not renewed their contracts. Mr. Anderson referred to page 3.1-19. He had concerns with the high percentage of population increase that would take place in the tri- valley area within the next 15 years. He urged the City of Dublin to look at all of the aspects in the surrounding areas with the proposed project. He referenced Figure 3-1D, Airport Referral Area, and questioned if property owners could be required to sign waivers when they start buying within the airport zone. Would this be legally possible? If development did occur, what sort of restrictions would this place on the airport patterns? Ms. Foscalina referred to page 3.1-23, IM 2.1.3.B and indicated that these comments were not consistent with the uses that exist now in the Doolan Canyon area. She felt that the policies shown in the table needed to be clarified and spelled out. She referred to page 3.1-25 and indicated that the statements shown in GP3.2.A are contradictory. Do you want to preserve open space or do you want to mitigate it? There is nothing in the EIR that protects open space. She referenced page 3.1-26, IP 7.7.B and indicated there was nothing in the General Plan that allowed for these comments. She referred to page 3.1-27 and indicated that the sewage capacity was to its limit. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.2 - Population, Housing & Employment and asked for public testimony. Mr. Anderson questioned if ABAG had any authority to implement fines if their population, housing and employment ratios were not followed. Mr. Tong indicated that ABAG had no citation or enforcement authority; however, a lot of the figures are built into State laws, which govern the City's Housing Element within the General Plan. Mr. Anderson referred to Table 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 and indicated there was an error in the amount of persons per dwelling unit under the single- family category. Mr. Hammond indicated both tables should show a figure of 3.2 persons per dwelling unit. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-130 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] i ~ Mr. Anderson asked how "affordable housing" was defined. Mr. Tong explained there was a formula set up by the City. Each city was different depending on their income levels. Ms. Morgan asked what was the price tag for affordable housing in the City of Dublin. Mr. Dennis Carrington explained that the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development comes out with figures about every 12-18 months. They determine what the median income is for specific areas, which could include several communities. There are various levels of income, for example 120~ of inedian income is considered moderate, 80~ is low income, 50°s is very-low income. ABAG then determines each city's fair share of each income category and the city sets targets in their Housing Element to implement these targets. Individuals should not pay more than 30°s of their monthly incomes on housing and an affordable housing price can be projected from these figures. Ms. Morgan had concerns with affordable housing. When you look at the cost of sewage/water hook-ups the only affordable housing that will be affordable with be the multi-family units with the higher density levels. Cm. Zika explained that there were various ways to create affordable housing. Everyone had to pull their weight when it came to affordable housing costs. Mr. Tong stated that the Draft EIR does not supersede State and Federal laws. If the State or Federal laws provide for exceptions, those laws will prevail. Ms. LaBar suggested that not only is there a need for tracking housing needs; there is also the need to track the available income by the jobs being produced. The incomes from the jobs being produced in the area need to balance with the housing being produced. Are we filling someone else's housing needs outside of the area? Ms. Foscalina asked for clarification on whether the developer was required to pay for the hookups. In order to accommodate low-cost housing, will the costs be spread out throughout the City? Cm. Zika stated that this was only an idea. There were various opportunities to create affordable housing. It was imperative that the City create low cost housing and everyone is required to participate in this program. Cm. Zika explained that it has been the City's policy to require specific developments to pay its own way when it comes to cost of utilities, etc. Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter 3.4 - Community Services. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-131 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] u , ~ ~ The public, Staff and Planning Commission discussed the rest of the evening's schedule. Staff indicated that they were scheduled to review the items shown for the September 21st and 23rd meetings. The Planning Commission decided not to have a presentation from Staff on Chapter 3.4. Cm. Zika asked for public comments on Chapter 3.4. Mr. Anderson referred to page 3.4-2 and was concerned that there were no police facilities or fire stations established for the area. He had concerns with the response time for such a large area and asked how the City was to staff the additional personnel without additional facilities. Mr. Hammond stated that the police department felt they would not need a separate facility. There would be two fire stations in the area; one at Tassajara and one at Fallon Village. Mr. Anderson had concerns with the land fill capacities to accommodate the new growth. Mr. Tong indicated that the land fill capacity was shown to be able to accommodate the area at full build out. Staff will double check these figures. Ms. LaBar referred to page 3.4-5 IM 3.4/E and requested that additional language be included to stipulate setbacks and fire protection zones. She stated that there were no solid policies established for fire safety and referenced the Oakland and Berkeley hill fires. She would not like to see these type of fires happen in the Eastern Dublin hills. A fire station was needed and established open space buffers established in residential areas. Ms. LaBar had concerns with the school district's growth impact fees and requested that some solid regulations be established. Ms. Morgan indicated that she had been in contact with the utility company and they had indicated the trunk lines were almost at full capacity. Mr. Hammond explained that PG&E provides services on demand. The cost to extend service is borne by the developers. Ms. Morgan referred to Figure 3.4-B and indicated she could not locate "iron horse trail". She had concerns with the additional schools being proposed. There were funding and program cuts taking place and felt that these problems will multiply in this area. Mr. Tong referred to Figure 3.4-B. Item #11 is shown as "iron horse trail". Ms. Gillarde requested everyone to put their comments in writing. It would help Staff in responding to their concerns/comments. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-132 September 23, 1992 [9-23min] ' ~ ~ Cm. Zika continued the public hearing to September 29, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ l~ ~ , P anning ommissio hairperson / ~~ti~~~ ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-133 September 23, 1992 [9-23min]