Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 New Water Resources Element STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK File #420-30 CITY COUNCIL DATE:June 18, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJECT: New Water Resources Element of the General Plan (PLPA-2013-00022) Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: One of the City Council’s key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to revise the General Plan, and to create a new Economic Development Element, Water Resources Element, and Energy Conservation Element over a multi-year period. The revisions to General Plan and the Economic Development Element were approved earlier this year, and the Energy Conservation Element is scheduled for review and consideration in the next fiscal year. At this meeting, the City Council will consider the new Water Resources Element. The Water Resources Element has been written to guide the City’s efforts to promote and encourage water conservation by existing and future business, residential, and public users, to plan for additional use of recycled water, and to guide efforts to manage the City’s storm water system. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This effort was budgeted in the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to include a new Water Resources Element in the General Plan. Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: The City Council expressed interest in preparing new General Plan Elements that have been deemed of interest to the community. One of the City Council’s key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to revise the General Plan, and to create a new Economic Development Element, Water Resources Element, and Energy Conservation Element. The City Council prioritized the preparation of these elements over multiple years. The revisions to the General Plan and the Economic Development Element were approved by the City Council on April 16, ITEM NO. 6.1 Page 1 of 3 2013, and the Energy Conservation Element is scheduled for review and consideration in the next fiscal year. The proposed Water Resources Element is the subject of this staff report. New Chapter 12: Water Resources Element The City of Dublin does not control the supply or the delivery of water to customers, nor does the City manage flood control facilities. However, the City works in collaboration with other agencies that provide these services, and therefore the scope of the Water Resources Element reflects this reality. The scope of City influence extends mainly to promoting and encouraging water conservation among business and residential users, implementing measures to help treat storm water, as well as managing the storm water runoff and pipelines that lead to flood control facilities. The primary purpose of this element, and the reason for including this optional Element in the Dublin General Plan, is to ensure that the City’s water resources are sustained and protected, and to consolidate information and polices related to the conservation and management of water resources, riparian corridors, and watershed lands. The Water Resources Element also defines the storm water facilities needed to serve Dublin at build-out of the General Plan. The Water Resources Element contains background information on water supply and service in Dublin as well as Guiding and Implementing Policies in the following subject areas: 1. Water Supply 2. Water Conservation and Efficiency in Existing Development 3. Water Conservation and Efficiency in New Development 4. Water Conservation and Efficiency in Public Facilities 5. Water Quality, Flood Protection, and Stormwater Management The Draft Water Resources Element is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1 of this Staff Report. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment at the meeting on May 28, 2013. After deliberation, the Planning Commission had two suggested revisions which have been incorporated into the Element: 1. Add language to the Element to recognize that the City does not control the supply or delivery of water to customers nor does it control cost and pricing mechanisms of water supply, although the City is cognizant that water and sewer fees can be an impediment for businesses and residents alike. 2. Modify Policy 3.5.B2 to note that the minimum street paving width should account for alternative means of transportation and compliance with Complete Streets policies. After the discussion concluded, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution 13- 18 (Attachment 2), recommending that the City Council approving a General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element. The draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. Page 2 of 3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The new Water Resource Element has been reviewed for internal consistency with other Elements of the General Plan. The Element has also been reviewed for consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; no inconsistencies were found. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, Dublin San Ramon Services District and Alameda County Flood Control District (Zone 7) reviewed the project and provided input where appropriate to ensure the accuracy of the new Water Resources Element. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the Project be found exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity can be found exempt from CEQA. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has not received any comments on the proposed amendment to the General Plan to incorporate the Water Resources Element. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element, with the draft Water Resources Element attached as Exhibit A 2. Planning Commission Resolution 13-18 3. May 28, 2013 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NEW WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT PLPA-2013-00022 WHEREAS, one of the City Council’s key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to create a new Water Resources Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 65352.3, the City notified the tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project and adopted Resolution 13-18 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2013, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated June 18, 2013 and incorporated herein by reference was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element; and WHEREAS , the City Council did review and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to taking action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve the General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect thirty days after the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2013 by the following vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN : ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST : _________________________________ City Clerk City of Dublin General Plan Chapter 12 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT 12.1 INTRODUCTION An adequate and high quality water supply is considered a basic of water has long been regulated by government. Since water move boundaries, much of the regulation is at the regional, state and and counties have legal authority over development and land use, of water supplies and how development affects the quantity and q bene“cial uses. The long term adequacy of groundwater and surface water resource concern in California. Water related issues include lowered grou increased stormwater runoff, sediment and pollutants in runoff, watershed of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, summer rationin of “sh and wildlife, the rates of water usage, conservation meth growing re-use of water and continuing changes in state and fede The City of Dublin does not control the supply or the delivery o control cost and pricing mechanisms related to water supply. The control facilities either. However, the City works in collaborat these services, and therefore the scope of the Water Resources E of City in”uence extends mainly to promoting and encouraging wat and residential users, implementing Low Impact Development measu well as managing the stormwater runoff and pipelines that lead t Resources Element is intended to guide these efforts. 12.1.1 PURPOSE The primary purpose of this element and the reason for including Dublin General Plan is to ensure that the Citys water resources consolidate information and polices related to the conservation riparian corridors, and watershed lands. The Water Resources Ele facilities needed to serve Dublin at buildout of the General Pla 12.1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS California Government Code Section 65302 requires a Land Use Ele and extent of various land uses, and a Conservation Element that force, rivers and other waters. Section 65302 also states that t control of streams and other waters, protection of watersheds, a Government Code Section 65301(a) allows a legislative body to ad deemed appropriate or convenient. Some other water-related topics are addressed in other Elements. development is addressed in the Land Use Element. The Conservati corridors and erosion/siltation control. The Schools, Public Lan City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12…1 water supply and connections to public water systems. The Public hazards, “re suppression, and hazardous materials. The Water Resources Element has been developed to be consistent Elements. References to policies in other Elements are provided objectives of the Water Resources Element. 1.3 Scope and Organization The Water Resources Element is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the Legislation and the Regulatory Environment Use, Conservation and Ef“ciency, and how to ensure Water Quality Section 3 includes the Citys policies to manage water resources water quality, ”ood protection, and manage stormwater. 12.2 BACKGROUND 12.2.1 KEY LEGISLATION AND THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT The regulatory environment for water resources can generally be supply, water use and conservation, and water quality management brie”y below, which explains what is required by mandate and off some of the ordinances and requirements that it does. Water Supply Legislation In 2001, two water supply planning bills were enacted that requi data to be shared between water suppliers and local land use age Senate Bill 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for any 500 housing units (or the commercial/mixed-use equivalent). The document prepared for the project. If there is not adequate wate normal, dry, and multiple dry years, new water sources need to b Senate Bill 221 prohibits any land use agency from approving a s housing units (or 10% increase in the total number of existing w written veri“cation from a water provider that a suf“cient and r Water Use and Conservation Legislation Senate Bill X7-7 was enacted in November 2009, requiring all wat ef“ciency. The legislation sets a statewide goal of reducing per December 31, 2020. Collectively, the State of California shall m goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10% by Decembe Assembly Bill 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 12…2City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element prepare and adopt a Water Ef“cient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). for each California jurisdiction is to ensure the installation o development and to reduce water waste in existing landscapes. Water Quality Legislation The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was amended in 1987 to address of the nations waters. In 1990, the United States Environmental establishing Phase 1 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina program. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued the A Stormwater Permit in 2003 to the Alameda Countywide Clean Water member. In October 2009, the California Regional Water Quality C Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit to the Alameda Countywide Clean to permittees in Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, San Ma Vallejo. Provision C.3 of the permit requires all jurisdictions appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatmen to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutan in runoff ”ows from new development and redevelopment projects. primarily through the implementation of low impact development ( 12.2.2 WATER SUPPLY Potable Water The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the water retailer for residents in the City of Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon. DSRSD buys wholesale potable water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (also referred to as the Zone 7 Water Agency, or Zone 7). Zone 7 obtains water most of its water supply from the State Water Project (SWP), with additional supplies derived from the local watershed and the Byron Bethany Irrigation District. Z aquifers in the Tri Valley area to store imported water. Approxi comes from the SWP, traveling from the Sierra Nevada mountains through Lake Oroville and the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Delta. The water is then pumped into the South Bay Aqueduct near Tracy, where it enters the Tri- Valley. Zone 7 also pumps DSRSDs groundwater quota for delivery to DSRSD customers. City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12…3 Recycled Water To improve the reliability of the Tri-Valleys water supply, par Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) created the San Ramon Valley 1995. The partnership has built a water recycling plant adjacent facility and a backbone transmission system that connects to DSR DSRSD personnel operate these facilities on behalf of the partne Valley area primarily by large irrigation customers: golf course schools, of“ce complexes, and common areas in homeowner associat the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA), governs the pa each agency serve on the DERWA Board of Directors. Wastewater Collection and Treatment DSRSD owns and operates sewers in the cities of Dublin and San R plant in the City of Pleasanton. Under contract, DSRSD also trea Pleasanton. DSRSDs service area is shown in Figure 12-1. 12…4City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element Two wastewater treatment plants serve Tri-Valley residents, busi operates the plant located in the City of Pleasanton, which has day (MGD). The City of Livermore operates the other plant, which wastewater disposal matters are the business of the Livermore Am Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority formed in June 1974 be Pleasanton and Livermore. LAVWMA is responsible for maintaining wastewater from the two treatment plants to San Lorenzo. It is d the East Bay Dischargers Authority, another joint powers authori the East Bay, which operates and maintains a large outfall syste 12.2.3 WATER DEMAND AND USE Potable and Recycled water use in Dublin has generally risen fro table below. Much of this increased water usage is the result of TABLE 12.1 | DSRSD WATER DEMAND IN DUBLIN, 2002-2012 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT WATER DEMAND (MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER YEAR) TYPE OF USE20022003200420052006200720082009201020112012 Commercial333.3558.3557.6511.8455.2519.0405.9278.5262.4266.5267. Industrial0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Institutional357.2364.0356.9363.9338.1347.2389.1281.9248.3242.82 Irrigation457.6433.8445.7351.3387.3405.4428.6372.5350.6350.4391. Multi-Family204.4227.2235.3268.1261.2284.3312.9320.8323.5330.433 Single-Family941.7959.61,041.81,011.91,050.21,074.71,094.51,005. TOTAL WATER DEMAND2,294.22,542.92,637.32,507.02,492.02,630.62,630.92,259.22, RECYCLED WATER14.999.572.9319.8182.3301.7306.0315.9295.8355.5398.7 The largest categorical consumer of water is residential users, residential users. Although the total water demand over the past single-family residential category, the total number of single-f greater rate than the total water demand rate. Therefore, the av family household has decreased from 140,700 gallons per year in in 2012 (Source: DSRSD, 2013). This 16.4% decrease in the averag to many factors, including a greater use of water ef“cient featu landscapes, and greater public education regarding the importanc 12.2.4 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY DSRSD has a comprehensive Water Conservation Program in place th City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12…5 demand-side measures, including audits, incentives, optimal mana wastewater and landscape regulations, education programs, suppor replacement. DSRSD also recommends that local cities require wat standard feature in the design and construction of proposed deve The City of Dublin currently utilizes several means to promote w new development: Implementation of Chapter 8.88 of the Municipal Code (Water Ef“cient Landscape Regulations) which requires that development projects of a certain size and scope be designed with landscape materials and maintenance that is sensitive to reducing water use. Chapter 8.88 conforms to the state mandate to either have a local Water Ef“cient Landscape Ordinance or require that new p statewide Water Ef“cient Landscape requirements. Implementation of Chapter 7.94 of the Municipal Code (Dublin Gre purpose of enhancing the design and construction of buildings an construction practices in several categories including water ef“ Participation and collaboration with outside organizations and a educate the public and provide hands-on assistance to increase w The City is also committed to conserving water to the greatest d possible in public facilities such as community buildings and pa City follows the requirements of the Water Ef“cient Landscape Re at all civic sites and implements the recommendations of the Bay Landscape Guidelines for water-ef“cient landscapes. In addition, has been aggressive in utilizing water ef“cient appliances and f in the construction of new civic buildings and when remodeling e facilities. For example, the Shannon Community Center was design constructed to LEED Silver certi“cation standards, and included water conservation elements that contributed to that effort. 12.2.5 WATER QUALITY, FLOOD PROTECTION, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Historically, the Tri-Valley has experienced relatively frequent streams which drain large areas of impermeable soils converge in rainfall, runoff rapidly causes some stream ”ows to exceed ”oodw areas. 12…6City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element Extensive ”ood channel improvements required of development projects during the past 20 years have signi“cantly reduced this type of ”ood hazard. As a result of good planning and system maintenance, the Tri-Valley now experiences minimal ”ood damage compared with many other areas of California. Responsibility for ”ood protection in Dublin lies with Zone 7, which maintains improved ”ood-control channels and installs new drainage channel development projects have improved many of the existing channels protection facilities. Zone 7 continues to work with local juris to identify means and methods to provide greater ”ood protection 7 adopted the Stream Management Master Plan (SMMP), which incorp to address ”ood protection. The local storm drainage system consists of underground pipes, l and vegetated swales throughout newer neighborhoods. These facil drainage basin to the ”ood-control channels and further to regio new projects must install adequately-sized storm drains to conne storm drain network. To accommodate future buildout in accordance with the General Pl that new developments install appropriately-sized storm drains. to older portions of the storm drain network through the Citys Dublin currently utilizes several means and methods to ensure th managed and treated by the time it enters regional ”ood control and other required permits: Implementation of Chapter 7.20 of the Municipal Code (Watercours enacted to safeguard and preserve watercourses, protect lives an due to ”ooding, protect drainage facilities, control erosion and discharge of polluted materials, and enhance recreational and be Implementation of Chapter 7.74 of the Municipal Code (Stormwater Discharge Control Ordinance), which is designed to ensure the fu general welfare of Dublin citizens by eliminating non-stormwater storm drain system and reducing pollutants in stormwater dischar practicable; City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12…7 Implementation of the Dublin Clean Water Program, which is a fed under the federal Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Wate pollutants, such as oil, dirt, pesticides, litter, and other sim the storm drain system so only clean water enters our waterways Francisco Bay. The City conducts public education and outreach e reports of clean water violations; and Monitoring construction sites to ensure adequate Best Management implemented to reduce water pollution during construction in com General Construction Permit issued by the California State Water 12.3 GUIDING AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES 12.3.1 WATER SUPPLY A. Guiding Policy 1. Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customer Dublin. B. Implementing Policies 1. In anticipation of planned future growth, continue working wi DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for suf“cient future water supplies. 12.3.2 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT A. Guiding Policy 1. Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize wa residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and grounds. 2. Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to establis B. Implementing Policies 1. Encourage DSRSD to continue offering free water saving device 2. Encourage Zone 7 to continue its on-going rebate program for appliances. 3. Continue collaborative efforts and programs with outside orga Youth Energy Services (CYES), which trains and employs local you conservation audits and water/energy retro“ts to local residence 4. Continue collaborative efforts with DSRSD to plan for and con utilize recycled water. 12…8City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12.3.3 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY IN NEW DEVELOPMENT A. Guiding Policy 1. Promote the conservation of water resources in new developme B. Implementing Policies 1. Continue implementation of the Water Ef“cient Landscape Regul grouping plants with the same water requirements together (hydro water-ef“cient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil mois and the minimal use of turf. 2. Support DSRSDs ongoing efforts to extend recycled water infr new locations. 3. Continue implementation of the Green Building Code to ensure construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed buil to assessment of its ef“ciency features. 12.3.4 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC FACILITIES A. Guiding Policy 1. Promote the conservation of water resources in public facilit 2. Promote the use of recycled water in public facilities. B. Implementing Policies 1. Retro“t existing parks with new irrigation controllers that l system that downloads daily weather reports from a local weather amount of irrigated water applied to each park each day. 2. At the completion of each public construction and/or capital an irrigation audit to ensure proper water utilization. 3. Ensure that future publicly-owned facilities (e.g. street med growing environment by receiving soil that is appropriate to sup typically provided by the developer dedicating the median and/or provided shall meet City standards. 4. Continue to demonstrate low water-use techniques at public pa facilities. 5. During construction or reconstruction of public facilities, i such as hot-on-demand water faucets, low-”ush toilets, and low w the greatest degree possible. 6. In the design and construction of all public facilities, util for water-wise landscaping. 7. When recycled water lines are extended to established areas i public facilities and connecting existing public landscape irrig water distribution system. City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element 12…9 12.3.5 WATER QUALITY, FLOOD PROTECTION, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A. Guiding Policies 1. Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundw community. 2. Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and pro facilities. 3. To minimize ”ooding in existing and future development, desig handle design-year ”ows based on buildout of the General Plan. B. Implementing Policies 1. Support Zone 7s efforts to complete planned regional storm d 2. With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area, encourag of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane width p circulation, ”ow, and safety requirements for all modes of trans 3. Discourage additional parking over and above the required min any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for add 4. Conserve the Citys urban forest, including trees in parks as continue and enhance surface water “ltration and community chara 5. Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that clean water runoff requirements into their projects. 6. Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwa design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or retention runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage water ”ow. 7. Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces and in“ltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such me green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the street an community, wherever practical and feasible. 8. Continue conducting construction site “eld inspections to ens and materials/waste management implementation to effectively pro discharges. 9. Support Zone 7 in updating and implementing its Stream Manage protect and enhance the water quality of streams and groundwater 10. Ensure adequate setbacks from creeks/waterways and developme vegetation where feasible and, where necessary, plant buffers wi 12…10City of Dublin General Plan | Water Resources Element RESOLUTION NO. 13-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A NEW WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT PLPA-2013-00022 WHEREAS, one of the City Council’s key initiatives for Fiscal Year 2011/2012 was to create a new Water Resources Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment for the new Water Resources Element is exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 65352.3, the City notified the tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on May 28, 2013 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment for the new Economic Development Element, with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. th PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day of May 2013 by the following vote: AYES: O’Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2 of 2 DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Tuesday, May 28, A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on 2013 , in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O’Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:10 PM Present: Chair O’Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDANONE – MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1 (Cm. Kohli abstained as he was absent) the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the April 23, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE – CONSENT CALENDAR NONE – WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONSNONE – PUBLIC HEARINGS – PLPA-2013-00016 Creative Autism Solutions Team 8.1 (CAST) Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center at 6533 Sierra Lane. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant is leasing the space from the Pathway Community Church and asked if the church owns the property. Mr. Adams answered that the church leases the space from the property owner but does not own the property. The Applicant will sublease half of the space during the week and on Saturdays. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the church operates in the building currently. Mr. Adams answered that the church does not operate during the week. Chair O’Keefe opened the pubic hearing. Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 75 | Page DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Annette Musso, Creative Autism Solutions Team, spoke in favor of the project. She felt that the community needs more places filled with love and acceptance. She stated that they are a neurological based center but will be filled with support and respect for people with autism and the gifts that they possess. She stated that the project is 100% volunteer run but they will hire staff in the future. She thanked the Planning Commission and asked that they approve the project. Chair O’Keefe asked where they were operating before the move to Dublin. Ms. Musso stated they had a program in Livermore in the summer of 2011 but are not currently operating. Cm. Kohli asked why the Applicant chose Dublin. Ms. Musso answered that they want to serve the East Bay and be located in an area with easy access to/from the 580/680 corridor. She felt that Dublin was the perfect location and that it will be a good partnership with other businesses in the area that support children with autism. Chair O’Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated that he is surprised at the challenges in locating the right services for autistic children, especially as they become older. He stated that he is in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project. Chair O’Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and excited for them to join the community. Cm. Goel stated that he has a family member with special needs who is now 67 years old and felt that she shows what love and nurture can do for someone with special needs. He thanked the Applicant for their contribution. Cm. Do also thanked the Applicant for providing this facility so that children are loved and cared for and made to feel special in their own way and become a contributing member of society. On a motion by Cm. O’Keefe and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 6533 SIERRA LANE (APN 941-0205-020-00) PLPA-2013-00016 Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 76 | Page DRAFT DRAFT PLPA 2013-00003 The Heights at Positano 8.2 (Neighborhood E-2) Site Development Review for a portion of the Positano project which includes 84 single-family detached residential units on approximately 21.08 acres within Tract 8109. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli mentioned that Mr. Porto stated that this project is the last project for the Positano development but felt that there are semi-public lots throughout the development. He felt that anything developed on those lots would come to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Porto answered that there is one semi-public lot but the subdivision work is complete. He stated that, depending on what type of project is brought forward, it may come back to the Planning Commission. Chair O’Keefe opened the public hearing. Ray Panek, KB Home, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their help with the project. He felt that this project affords the opportunity to offer more varied floor plans with some different architecture. Cm. Kohli asked what the price of the homes will be. Mr. Panek answered that the market in the Bay Area has improved and the houses will be well priced for competition at approximately $800K – to $900K each. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the driveways in these larger homes had the same scoring as some of the smaller floor plans. She asked if the Applicant would be willing to use some different scoring patterns in the driveways of this project. Mr. Panek agreed to use different scoring patterns on the driveways. Cm. Kohli asked Cm. Bhuthimethee to explain her request. Cm. Bhuthimethee directed the Planning Commission to pages L.7 through L.11. She felt that the scoring was average and that there is an opportunity to easily enhance the driveways. Cm. Kohli agreed and stated that he owns a KB home in the Positano community and wishes the driveways were better. Mr. Panek agreed to add some scoring patterns to the driveways throughout the project. Chair O’Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do felt it was nice to have the final part of the development being constructed. Chair O’Keefe stated he was in support of the project and thanked the Applicant for agreeing to the enhancement to the driveways. Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 77 | Page DRAFT DRAFT On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the resolution with a Condition of Approval added to enhance the driveways with different scoring patterns: RESOLUTION NO. 13-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE HEIGHTS AT POSITANO (NEIGHBORHOOD E-2) FOR 84 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 21.08 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8109 (Lots 1 through 84) PLPA 2013-00003 PLPA-2013-00022 New Water Resources Element of the General Plan 8.3 Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli understood that the City of Dublin does not have control of the supply or delivery of water and does not manage flood control facilities, but can only promote water conservation and support the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). He asked if the Element can indicate that the City is aware of how water prices impact the residents and will listen to concerns and share them with DSRSD. He stated that he has heard comments regarding water prices and asked if his concerns could be added into the Element. Ms. Bascom agreed and stated that Staff hears similar comments from the developers regarding the cost of new water services from DSRSD. She stated that the City has no role in water supply; therefore the City’s efforts are focused on encouraging and mandating water conservation and conserving features in new homes. She continued that it sounds like a great idea but would have no “teeth.” Cm. Kohli agreed but asked if there can be language added to the Element that at the same time the City is asking them to conserve water, they are also sensitive to price and it is the City’s duty to share their concerns with the DSRSD, i.e., advocacy going both ways. He asked if that type of language can be added. Mr. Baker responded that water and sewer capacity issues are a frequent discussion topic for both new development and new businesses. He stated that would fall under the Economic Development Department who have programs in place is assist with “dwelling unit equivalent,” where the City works with DSRSD and offers programs to subsidize the fees to allow the new businesses to get started. He felt that these programs addressed his concerns. Cm. Kohli felt that if someone is interested in water pricing, commercial and/or residential, they may not go to the Economic Development Element for information, they would go directly to the Water Resources Element. He felt there would be good will generated if they feel that the City is advocating for the residents. Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 78 | Page DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the price is determined by DSRSD and should be addressed by them rather than the City. Cm. Kohli felt that, in the Water Resources Element, it clearly states that the City does not have any control over water but does try to influence the residents regarding conservation. He suggested including language that indicates that the City will do the same advocacy in terms of making sure that the City is cognizant of price changes. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli’s idea but was concerned with the City’s ability to deliver. Cm. Kohli responded that the City cannot require the residents to comply with water conservation, they can only promote it. Cm. Do agreed and felt that the City should advocate on the residents’ behalf which would show good will and that the City is looking out for their residents. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested that the language in the Water Resources Element reference the Economic Development Element. Cm. Kohli suggested language such as: “as stated in the Economic Development Element, the City will be aware of economic issues that impact both residents and business owners and will do what it can to advocate for...” He felt that the information should be readily available in the Water Resources Element to direct the reader to the Economic Development Element. Cm. Goel asked what the purpose of the Water Resources Element is in order to determine if the suggested comments need to be included. He asked what the overall vision of the policy is, what does it do, and how will it be used for guidance. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to the Element, Item 1.1 Purpose which states: “The primary purpose of this Element and the reason for including this optional Element in the Dublin General Plan is to ensure that the City’s waters resources are sustained and protected and to consolidate information and policies related to the conservation…” Cm. Goel felt that the section that Ms. Bascom referred to does not discus fees, practicality, or how to protect the water resources and asked if that was the correct understanding. Ms. Bascom responded that he is correct that there is no mention of fees in the section. Cm. Goel asked if the policy discusses water recharge. Ms. Bascom answered no; the Element does not go into that level of detail. She stated that this Element of the General Plan is a guiding policy document for the City, only addressing those items that the City can influence. Cm. Goel referred to Section 3.5.B, #7 and felt that the Planning Commission would refer to this guideline when reviewing design for new developments. He felt that the Commission has had discussions regarding concrete or impervious materials. He felt that the Commission might want to expand on this section. He also referred the Commission to 3.5.B, #2, regarding new Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 79 | Page DRAFT DRAFT streets indicating a minimum width and asked if the minimum width is for the travel way or the roadway cross section. Ms. Bascom answered the intent is for impervious surface, not parkway strips or medians but would be travel lanes. Cm. Goel stated that the section refers to meeting circulation flow and safety requirements and felt it should also indicate alternative means of transportation other than vehicles. Ms. Bascom suggested clarifying the section to state: “encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum travel lane width possible so that it does not preclude bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. to encourage alternative modes.” Cm. Goel felt that it should say “the minimum width should account for alternative transportation means and complete streets.” Mr. Baker felt that it might be a matter of changing the word “all circulation” to something that mentions alternatives. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the General Plan and all of its Elements, even the optional Elements, are all on equal level of legal status. She stated that they should recognize that there are Elements that talk about things that might affect the width of roadways and that would be considered when looking at projects or implementing ordinances. But this would not necessarily mean that it takes a lesser role, it would still be on an equal level with all the other Elements. The challenge is to reconcile them all when reviewing a project. Cm. Goel stated his intent is to reconcile the elements to ensure that the cross-reference takes place. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the demand for water and asked if the City knows the capacity. She understood that the City doesn’t control the water, and that DSRSD buys it from Zone 7. Ms. Bascom responded that DSRSD buys water from Zone 7 and they are the retail and service provider to Dublin. She stated that the City works closely with DSRSD in reviewing each new development application. She stated that DSRSD prepares an urban water management plan, to assess where the water supply is coming from and ensuring there is adequate supply for the projected development The Water Resources Element states that any time there is a large project, over a certain number of residents and over a certain number of square footage of commercial uses, there is a separate water analysis specific to the project that to ensure that DSRSD can supply the water needed for the development. Chair O’Keefe asked if Cm. Kohli wanted to add some language to the Element. Cm. Kohli answered that he would like to have the Commission vote but did not want to make it too specific. He felt that he wanted to recommend to the City Council to add explicit language in the Water Resources Element referring to the City being cognizant of the fees that impact the residents and business owners and advocate, when necessary, in regards to sensitivity around these issues. He felt that if a resident goes to the Water Resources Element, they are going Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 80 | Page DRAFT DRAFT there because they feel their water bill is too high and felt that the Water Resources Element should point them to the Economic Development Element to learn more. Cm. Goel suggested language that indicates that “the City should be cognizant of its economics to the community.” Ms. Faubion commented that the General Plan is a land use document and did not feel that the General Plan is the correct place for these concerns. She felt there was a different way to make the same point and mentioned the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance that the City created and enforces. She felt that the City has been able to make good strides in doing what it can to encourage water conservation. She offered alternate language such as: “the City has control by these means and implements it with both cost efficiency and efficiency in conservation” within the context. Recognizing that the City does not have control over water, but is cognizant of costs where we do have control. She was concerned that the Commission should not go too far from the Land Use nature of the document. Cm. Kohli felt that the information in the Water Resources Element is missing and readers can be pointed back to the Economic Development Element for more information. He felt that the information is missing from the Water Resources Element and should be added. Chair O’Keefe asked Ms. Faubion where in the document she would recommend incorporating the information, in the Introduction or the Background section. Ms. Faubion felt that the Introduction was a good place. She felt that it might be inserted at the third paragraph that begins “The City of Dublin does not control the supply or the delivery of water to customers…” Cm. Kohli felt that was a good location. Chair O’Keefe stated that Cm. Kohli is requesting, and the Commission agreed, to insert language regarding the City not having control over the monetary aspect of water supply/prices and Cm. Goel suggested adding to the description in Section 3.5.B #2 to provide more specifics. He asked Mr. Baker if he has language to capture those suggestions. Mr. Baker answered yes, but felt that Ms. Bascom had also written down some suggestions. Ms. Bascom stated that, based on the thoughts she heard from the Commission: Policy 3.5.B #2 should be changed to read: encourage design and construction of new streets to be the minimum vehicular travel lane width possible while still meeting circulation flow and safety requirements for all modes of transportation to minimize impervious surface area. rd Ms. Bascom added to the 3 paragraph in the Introduction which reads:  The City of Dublin does not control the supply or delivery of water to customers nor does it control cost and pricing mechanisms of water supply. The City also does not manage flood control facilities… The Planning Commission agreed. Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 81 | Page DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel asked to explain the water supply legislation; SB 610 and SB 221. He asked how the legislation reflects the things that the Planning Commission does. Ms. Bascom responded that SB 610 and SB 221 reference water supply. SB 610 requires a separate water supply assessment be completed for any development with more than 500 housing units or the commercial mixed-use equivalent. She stated that this is part of the CEQA/Environmental analysis that is done at the beginning of the project. Staff works with DSRSD, who prepares the document stating that the supply will be there to accommodate the project that might not have been anticipated. She stated that SB 221 prohibits an agency from approving a subdivision map of more than 500 housing units or a 10% increase in the number of water connections unless a water supply assessment has been done. She stated that the two bills work together to ensure that anytime there is a large project, a separate document is done. Chair O’Keefe asked about the body of water by Lowes. Ms. Bascom answered that is a water retention basin for Dublin Ranch, so that the Stormwater that flows from subdivision in Dublin Ranch gathers at the basin where it is retained there and then is metered out to a Zone 7 facility and treated. Chair O’Keefe asked if that was a requirement of the development. Ms. Bascom stated that the facility was designed to serve the entirety of Dublin Ranch. She stated that each new development is required to treat their water onsite before it enters the storm water facility. Mr. Baker stated that, as an example, there are several in Positano, including at the entry at Fallon Road. Chair O’Keefe asked why that location was chosen for Dublin Ranch and felt that it is prime real estate in that area, close to the freeway. Mr. Baker stated that it had to do with gravity because all the water drains to that area and the master developer owned and controlled that land. Cm. Goel felt that the area has sufficient enhancement to be used as a community park. He stated that the basins are also used to create a lag in the rainfall flow, delaying the peak flow, keeping sufficient capacity in the existing facilities. Ms. Faubion responded that the C3 requirements do not allow developments to have any more water run-off than is not already running off and it must be treated onsite. Cm. Bhuthimethee understood that the reason the west side does not have the water retention facilities are because the legislation was not in effect until recently. She stated that a big pond is the older version of the legislation and the newer legislation is that the storm water needs to be treated on-site and then the holding and retention of it so that it doesn’t overwhelm the water ways. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, with the agreed upon language changes to the Element as to fees and transportation, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 82 | Page DRAFT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 13-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A NEW WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT PLPA-2013-00022 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE Brief INFORMATION ONLY 10.1 reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Kohli mentioned the Summerhill/DiManto project that was discussed at the recent City Council meeting. He was interested to see how that would impact future projects that come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker gave a brief overview of the Summerhill/DiManto project and explained the process to initiate a General Plan Amendment. 10.3 Cm. Kohli asked about televising the Planning Commission meetings. He asked to hear the other Commissioners’ thoughts. Chair O’Keefe stated that this is something that Staff wants to do but there is a budget issue and that is why it has not been done yet. The City Council would have to make the determination. Cm. Kohli felt that with more development happening in the City and the residents being more interested in what the Planning Commission is doing, he felt it would be good to televise the meetings. He felt it would be worth approaching the subject with the City Council and see what their thoughts are. Cm. Do asked if other cities televise their Planning Commission meetings and felt that most cities do. She agreed that it would be nice to have them televised or on the website to give residents an opportunity to see what goes on at a Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Goel stated that there are special funds for councils that cannot be used for commissions or committees. These funds are not just born by the City and there may be some guidelines regarding what type of group can be broadcast. He stated that he is open to having the meetings televised. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed that most other cities have their Planning Commission meetings televised and felt a webcast is cheaper. Chair O’Keefe suggested that if Cm. Kohli feels strongly about this subject, he should speak with the councilmembers. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission can ask what opportunities they might have for broadcasting the meetings. Mr. Baker responded that it would be a policy decision by the City Council. The City Council will see the discussion in the minutes, and he suggested that the Commissioners could contact the Councilmembers for a discussion. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be a service to the public to have it available as another resource. Chair O’Keefe suggested that Cm. Kohli attend a City Council meeting and bring it up under Oral Communications. Cm. Kohli felt that it is important for transparency and because the residents are asking more questions. Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 83 | Page DRAFT DRAFT ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 8:16:19 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:\MINUTES\2013\PLANNING COMMISSION\05.28.13 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx Planning Commission May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting 84 | Page