Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-02-1992 ^'j~ ^ , ~ ~ Special Meeting - April 2,__1992 A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on April 2, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING None * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR}, Prezoning,_ Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexatian to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (continued from the March 30, 1992 Planning Commission meeting} Special Meeting PCM-1992-60 April 2, 1992 [4-02min] .e . • • Ms. Gillarde indicated that the Commission had received a staff report summary sheet with their packet that summarized the meeting's format. Staff would be going through each section of the summary sheet, indicating the Staff's recommendation and Planning Commission action required for that item. Ms. Gillarde explained that the Commission needed to take four actions: 1) determine additional EIR mitigations; 2) determine adequacy of Final EIR; 3) recommend certification of Final EIR; and 4) continue item to the April 6th meeting. Ms. Gillarde discussed Item #1. The City Attorney had issued a memorandum (Attachment C) regarding the replacement of lost habitat. This memo should answer the Commission's questions from the previous meeting. Staff was recommending that this not be added as a mitigation to the Final EIR. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was not aware of Fish & Game's policy for replacing lost habitat. Staff was also not aware of any other projects that were using this policy. Mr. Dahlin concurred with Mr. Tong. He was not aware that this policy was being applied anywhere else. Cm. Zika asked if Fish & Game's policy were required, would it be implemented when the developer requested permits. Mr. Tong indicated yes. The Commission discussed Fish & Game's draft letter and felt that the final letter did not need to be accepted because it was received after the deadline. The draft letter did not mention the 3:1 replacement policy. Mr. Dahlin indicated that there were no permit requirements for the oak woodlands, only riparian areas., i.e., setbacks along stream corridors. Cm. North felt that the cost of additional land to replace lost habitat was too great. He concurred with Staff's recommendation to not include this policy in the EIR. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation to not include oak woodland off-site replacement as a mitigation in the Final EIR. Ms. Gillarde continued with Item #b - Open Space Fee Program. Staff's recommendation was to not add this as a mitigation to the Final EIR. Cm. North asked if Staff would be developinq specific requirements for managing the open space area. He felt that the EIR did not adequately address this issue. Mr. Dahlin indicated that the EIR was set up to designate a follow-up system for the management of open space. There were fairly detailed Special Meeting PCM-1992-61 April 2, 1992 [4-02min] ~ . standards. The project could not take place without this issue being resolved. Ms. Silver explained that the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan had specific planning requirements. The EIR provided information on project impacts and mitigation measures. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation to not add this as a mitigation to the Final EIR. Ms. Gillarde went on to Item #2a, Comment Grading Impacts. Staff felt that the EIR adequately addressed this issue. Cm. North felt that there were unavoidable impacts and felt that the EIR did not adequately address this issue. Ms. Gillarde pointed out that one of the project alternatives would not have any unavoidable significant impacts. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff and determined that the EIR adequately addressed the grading impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Ms. Gillarde discussed item #c - Impacts on I-580. Staff feels that the EIR does take into consideration the impacts on I-580. Cm. North referred to Hayward Area Recreation Department's comments regarding the Schaefer Ranch interchange and requested clarification. Ms. Gillarde described the two configurations identified for the interchange. Staff was recommending the hook ramp style. This type would be built further south than the "diamond" configuration and would take up less land. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation that mainline impacts were sufficiently addressed in the EIR. Discussions continued to item #d - Cumulative Impacts. Staff felt that the EIR adequately covered cumulative projects for traffic impacts. The development trends of the Central Valley area were considered. The Planning Commission concurred that the EIR adequately addressed the cumulative impacts. Ms. Gillarde indicated at this point the Commission needed to address any additional issues or concerns they might have regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Staff recommended the Commission go through the EIR by each chapter. Cm. North questioned if the Commission should be making recommendations on various mitigation factors that have been mentioned. Special Meeting PCM-1992-62 April 2, 1992 [4-02min] " ~ ~ Ms. Gillarde reminded the Commission that they were to make a recommendation on the adequacy and certification of the EIR. Ms. Silver explained that there were different mitigations for different impacts. The Commission needed to choose which mitigations were required. The EIR includes alternatives to the proposed project. They were not approving the proposed project at this time. The Commission needed to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy and certification of the EIR. Mr. Tong explained that at the final adoption of the project there would be a comprehensive mitigation list that would be implemented. A mitigation monitoring program would be set up for that purpose. The Planning Commission had no concerns regarding Chapters 1 through 6 of the EIR. The Commission and Staff discussed Chapter #7. Cm. North asked if the new residents would be required to pay for the water and sewer improvements. Mr. Dahlin indicated that the new development would pay its own way. Cm. North referred to page 7-7, mitigation #7-2-1 and #7-2-2 regarding Tri-Valley Wastewater pipeline and asked for clarification. Mr. Tong indicated that DSRSD is on record in supporting Staff's recommendations. Zone 2 is only responsible for flood control in the area. Zone 7 can provide water in Zone 2's area; however, it is not legally required. There were no guarantees on future water supplies. DSRSD has stated their intent to provide water to the area. There is a requirement in the EIR that, prior to development of a specific project, DSRSD provide a"will serve" letter to the City. The City recommends that the additional improvements be borne by the new residents. Mr. Dahlin noted that this issue is covered in Chapter 7, page 7-3 and Comment #59 to DSRSD's response letter. Cm. North asked if this requirement was written into the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde referred to page 7-4, Revisions to EIR. A"will serve" letter would need to be provided before grading permits or final approvals were allowed. This language would be added to the Specific Plan. Cm. North had concerns with the grading and landslide provisions mentioned in Chapter #8. Staff noted that these concerns were addressed in the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment policies. The discussions went onto Chapter 9 of the EIR. Special Meeting PCM-1992-63 Apri1 2, 1992 [4-02min] . ^ ~ . , Mr. Dahlin referred to Comment 3-5 of the Responses to Comments which addressed any issues regarding the geologic abatement district and City liability. No comments were made for Chapters #10 and #11. Discussions were continued to Chapter #12 - Air Quality. Mr. Dahlin referred to page 12-14 of the EIR. This information covered the dust control issue. Cm. North referred to page 12-14, paragraph 12-8a, and asked if the resident on the property would be moved while the development was under way. Mr. Dahlin indicated that Mr. Schaefer was living at this residence and Staff could require him to move temporarily. The mitigations shown in paragraph 12-8 were available to monitor the situation. Mr. Tong explained that it was mandatory to monitor the area surrounding this resident. A condition of approval could be added to require both mitigations shown on page 12-14 to be implemented. The Applicant and Developer would pay for the mitigation. There were no comments on Chapters #13 and #14. Discussions continued to Chapter #15. Cm. Zika asked if DSRSD annexed the land would the Morris property be required to hook up to DSRSD's lines. Ms. Gillarde indicated that anyone in the district's jurisdiction would be hooked up. There could be an exception to the rule. It would have to be approved by DSRSD's board. Cm. Zika asked who would pay for the hook up. Mr. Dahlin indicated that the Specific Plan and EIR maintain a certain amount of flexibility. There would be every effort made to require the hook up; however, the septic tank could be checked and monitored. Cm. North asked if the Morris Ranch could be forced into being hooked up to DSRSD. Mr. Dahlin stated that in theory, the Morris property could be excluded from DSRSD and the City limits. LAFCO would need to approve an island. Cm. Zika asked if DSRSD could annex around the Morris property. Ms. Silver explained that the City or DSRSD would not have to annex the Morris property, assuming LAFCO excluded the property. This would create an island within the City limits. She would need to review this issue. Special Meeting PCM-1992-64 April 2, 1992 [4-02min] . ; . • • ~ The Commission requested additional information from the City Attorney on this issue. Discussions continued to Chapter #17. Cm. North requested clarification on the Commission's role regarding the EIR. Were they to pick a preferred plan or alternative or just make sure that the EIR had considered alternatives. Mr. Tong explained that the question before the Commission was whether the EIR adequately discussed the impacts for the project. Making choices would be appropriate at the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Final EIR be certified as adequate. Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that the resolutions would be brought back to the Commission for their consideration at the April 20th meeting. Cm. North asked if all of the comments received were part of the EIR. Mr. Tong indicated yes. The Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, Revisions to the Draft EIR and any other additions or changes the Commission had requested at this meeting. The Commission continued the meeting to April 6, 1992 to discuss the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan documents. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , Plannin ommis n airperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Special Meeting PCM-1992-65 Apri1 2, 1992 [4-02min]