Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Statement 12-7-1992SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1992 IT (; Eastern Dublin: Remaining Comments on the Draft Specific Plan; Part I of the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator A. Letter from Ted Fairfield, dated 9/7/92 1. Part I of Responses to DEIR Comments, dated 12/7/92 (under separate cover) 1. Hear Staff presentation 2. Discuss responses and related issues 3. Provide direction to Staff per the Commission Action section contained in the agenda statement 4. Continue meeting to December 15, 1992 The previous two Planning Commission meetings dealt with responses to comments on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan. Staff has provided some additional responses to several comments made in the attached letter that were not included in the October 29 presentation. The remaining comments in this letter were covered in the October 29 agenda statement, Letter 4 from Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen, dated October 16, 1992. In addition, this agenda statement provides an outline of Part I of the responses to the Draft EIR. The responses were prepared by the study consultant, Wallace, Roberts & Todd, and were reviewed by City Staff. Part II of the responses will be discussed at the December 15 Planning Commission meeting. ISSUES A. REMAINING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN A. Letter from Ted Fairfield, dated September 7, 1992 A-1 Comment: The floor area ratio shown for General Commercial and Industrial Park is unrealistically low. The amount of acreage for the high school site (55.3 acres) is 15 acres more than is necessary. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The general plan land use category for General Commercial allows a range of .20 to .60 FAR and for Industrial Park a maximum of .35 FAR with an ultimate of .50 FAR in some cases. The .25 FAR in Table 4.1 was used to estimate yield for the Specific Plan and /eddec for environmental review. It was not meant to imply the maximum or minimum amount of general commercial or industrial development. The acreage shown for the high school is at the high end of the range that is normally required for these types of facilities (40-55 acres). This is due to the topography of the site which is sloping in some areas. The actual acreage needed by the school may be less than is shown in the Specific Plan, depending on the design and siting of the school. Any designated school acreage that is not needed for a school would be redesignated residential at the same density as the surrounding area. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. A-2 Comment: Policy 6-12 (page 65) which requires detention basins should be eliminated. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The policy does not require detention basins. It states that retention basins are preferable to channelization. Any improvements, including retention or detention basins, for flood control purposes would have to be approved by Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. A-3 Comment: Policy 6-38 should only apply to major cut and fill slopes. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text to allow minor exceptions subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, as recommended by Staff. A-4 Comment: The golden eagle nest is not properly located on Figure 6.2. The word "potential" conveys the feeling there are kit foxes in the area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Figure 6.2 to more accurately depict the location of the eagle nest. The reference to potential kit fox dens should remain as it presently appears in Figure 6.2. Appendix E of the Draft EIR clearly defines potential kit fox dens: "Any natural den or burrow within the species' range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions to accommodate San Joaquin kit foxes for which, however, there is little to no evidence of kit fox use." (Page App-E/1) This definition is provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The dens found in eastern Dublin fit this description and are, therefore, correctly classified in Figure 6.2. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, as recommended by Staff. A-5 Comment: Figure 6.3 incorrectly shows the southernmost tributary of Tassajara Creek as the Creek. (The remainder of the comment regarding the location of the golden eagle protection zone was covered in the October 29 agenda statement (Comment 4-20)). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Figure 6.3 to show the southernmost tributary as an intermittent stream course rather than part of Tassajara Creek. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, as recommended by Staff. A-6 Comment: The design guidelines for the Gateway Subarea (page 102) require orienting buildings so that they do not face directly onto the freeway and that heavy planting be placed along the freeway frontage to buffer the buildings. This will excessively limit valuable freeway exposure for these buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The Building Siting guidelines do not preclude buildings facing the freeway, only that they are oriented so their backs are not facing the community streets. Since many of the buildings will be tall or large, building signage and freestanding signs can be used for identification. Landscaping along the freeway frontage can be designed so that building signage and freestanding signs will be visible from the freeway. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. A-7 Comment: Action Program 7B is too exacting (page 116). Final grading plans, etc. should not be reviewed by a design review committee. Also perspectives/renderings should not be required as part of design submittal. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. This program does not require review by a design review committee. The program requires submittal of certain information to the City for review. Requiring submittal of renderings or perspectives is a standard request in development applications. It assists the City in determining whether the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. 3 Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. B. DRAFT EIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The following section contains consultant responses to a portion of the comments received on the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Due to the magnitude of comments received (over 750), responses have been prepared in sections. Letters containing the comments addressed in this agenda statement are attached for the reader's reference. Two types of comments/responses are outlined in the paragraphs below: 1) Staff recommended text changes to the Draft EIR; and 2) responses to comments addressing major adequacy issues in the Draft EIR. Staff concurs with these responses and believes that the Draft EIR and Final EIR fully address the adequacy issues raised by various commentors. The remainder of the attached comments/responses are not specifically addressed in this agenda statement but can be brought up by the Commission if so desired. The remaining responses primarily clarify information in the Draft EIR or answer questions raised by the commentor about procedure, methodology and/or assumptions. Again, Staff concurs with the responses contained herein and believes that the issues are adequately addressed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The Planning Commission is requested to review all of the comments/responses, and take action as indicated in bold typeface. As mentioned previously, the Commission can raise questions about other comments/responses not specifically raised in this agenda statement. The purpose for reviewing the comments/responses is to consider the adequacy of the Eastern Dublin EIR. At a subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation, in the form of a resolution, that the City Council certify the Eastern Dublin EIR as adequate. Adequacy is based on whether the information has been presented in accordance with State requirements and whether there has been sufficient analysis to inform decision -makers of the environmental consequences of a project. Adequacy is not affected by the presence of significant impacts which cannot be mitigated and require a statement of overriding considerations. Also, disagreement among professionals about the severity of an impact does not affect adequacy. 1. Comments/Responses Recommending Text Changes to the Draft EIR Comment/Response # Summary of Staff Recommended Changes 2-3 Corrects number of aircraft at Livermore Airport 3-3 Corrects three acreage figures in Figure 2-D (Ownership Patterns) 3-7 Corrects a typographical error in the persons per household figure (the correct figure was use in calculations for the Draft EIR) 7-11 Recommends revision to mitigation for I-580/ Hacienda Drive eastbound ramps 7-13 Recommends revision to mitigation for I-580/Santa Rita Road eastbound ramps 8-2 Changes policy reconciliation to recommend right- of-way for six lanes on Tassajara Road 12-2 Corrects level of service and number of lanes for 12-4 certain roadway segments as shown in Table 3.3-9; corresponding text revisions will also be made 12-9 Corrects Figure 3.3-B regarding number of lanes on I-680 13-8 Adds language to specify revegetation criteria 13-9 Adds language specifying certain prohibited invasive plant species 14-4 14-7 Adds language to discourage the use of groundwater Adds language to minimize stream maintenance impacts 15-1 Adds language to clarify the project is served by four interchanges 15-3 Corrects two ownership errors on Figure 2-D 15-4 Corrects errors in Table 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 related 15-5 to Williamson Act Contract expiration dates 15-6 Corrects a typo regarding creek setbacks 15-26 Changes wording to ensure a practical approach to fire station site acquisition 15-33 Corrects typographical error on level of impact statement regarding park acreage 15-37 Adds language to place emphasis on the US Postal Service to provide any necessary facilities in eastern Dublin 15-38 Add language to place emphasis on supporting the Alameda County Library System in providing any necessary facilities in eastern Dublin 15-39 Adds language to clarify DSRSD wastewater collection plans in relation to Doolan Canyon 15-43 Adds language to clarify the use of piezometers 15-44 15-58 16-11 16-12 16-14 16-19 17-2 17-18 19-1 23-11 Changes language to clarify the definition of special- status wildlife species Changes mitigation for burrowing owl to allow greater flexibility Adds information regarding capacity, projected enrollment, student generation rates for Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) Changes student generated rates Adds information regarding funding sources for LVJUSD Clarifies school selection areas Recommends revision to mitigation for I-580/Airway Boulevard westbound ramps Adds reference to additional California Division of Mines and Geology information Adds reference to Alameda County's Storm Water Management Plan Clarifies submittal of development agreements Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends incorporating the above changes into the Final EIR. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to incorporate the above changes as recommended by Staff. 2. Comments/Responses Relating to Adequacy of the Draft EIR Comment/Response # Topic 1-6 Analysis of hazards from ground rupture 1-7 "No mitigation is required" statements 3-10 Feasibility of roadway mitigation measures 7-6 Impact of overpasses on Pleasanton 7-9 List of intersections studied in EIR 7-10 Inclusion of a funding program for roadway improvements 9-1 Impacts on the Alameda County Congestion 9-5 Management Program 9-3 Source of funding for roadways improvements 6 9-4 Relationship to Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan 12-1; 12-6 22-5; 22-8 Use of AM and PM peak hour analysis 13-3 Use of current projections for buildout of Tassajara Valley 14-2 Expansion of impact analysis to include demand on regional parks 14-5 Secondary impacts of increased water demand on Del Valle and Shadow Cliffs Recreation areas 15-16 Methodology used for traffic analysis 15-18 Discussion of traffic impacts on areas outside the immediate project vicinity 15-21 Need for additional information on mitigations for Airway Boulevard 16-18 Use of Livermore School District criteria 17-3 Study of ozone precursors 17-4 Identification of CO values 17-8 Exposure of development to airport noise 20-7 Studies for the Tiger Salamander 22-11 Impacts of Camp Park operations on the project STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the agenda statement and attachments and direct Staff where indicated by bold typeface. Review of the Responses to Comments does not require direct action by the Commission. As stated previously, the Commission will ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council regarding certification of the Draft and Final EIR for Eastern Dublin. In order to certify an EIR, it must be found adequate. The Commission ultimately must determine if the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments have adequately identified and addressed the issues relating to the proposed development of eastern Dublin. 7 TED C. FAIRFIELD Consulting Civil Engineer September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Planning Director City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Larry: —cc _ -� 'b� G REgG�E(VED L-S DUBLIN PLANNING As an outgrowth of the meeting among you, Rod Andrade, Dennis Carrington and Brenda Gillarde on 8/17/92 I am submitting comments and concerns pertaining to the draft Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. These comments represent the thinking of all members of the Lin Design Team (Rod, Jim Tong, Bob Harris and Marty Inderbitzen), in addition to myself. these comments are in addition to the formal responses we intend to make to the EIR and planning documents via the CEQA and public hearing procedures. Our initial comments pertain to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. Most of these comments have to do with how much more the proposed GPA constrains development in Eastern Dublin as compared to the development constraints proposed for Western Dublin (i.e., those properties covered by the Western Dublin Specific Plan). Examples of this are as follows: — In East Dublin, site grading and access roads cannot "disfigure" the ridgelands (p. 14). In West Dublin, this prohibition exists only where ricigelandc will he viewed from existing Dublin development (p. 15). Ridgelands are prominent features of the East Dublin area. "Ridgelands" can also be subjectively interpreted, and depending on how the terms "ridgeland" and "disfigure" are defined, this prohibition could have a major impact on the developability of the area. — In East Dublin, development is to be prohibited in areas over 30% slope. In West Dublin, this restriction can be eliminated if three simple findings can be made by the City (p.17). — East Dublin developers are required to preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space. This directive does not seem to apply to West Dublin (p.17)./TM .- P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. . Pleasanton, California 94566 • (415) 462-1455 PAGE _L._ OF • September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 2 — Property owners in Fast Dublin are discouraged from applying for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts where those in West Dublin aren't (p. 19). — Performance standards and an ordinance regulating run-off are proposed for East Dublin. No such mechanisms are proposed for West Dublin (p. 31). — East and West Dublin have arbitrarily been treated differently. The value judgements made in West Dublin need to be applied consistently throughout the General Plan, including Fast Dublin! We have two other concerns about the GPA. First of all, Guiding Policy G under Amendment 3.3 states "Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate to meet citywide needs for open space, cultural, and sports facilities, as well as the local needs of the Fastern Extended Planning Area." This seems to indicate that development in East Dublin will pay for citywide recreation facilities even though there already may be a current need for such facilities. A means of everyone paying their fair share should be developed. Secondly, Implementing Policy E under Amendment 7.7 states that roads which pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible. This policy was not followed by WRT in laying out the alignment of the Doolan Canyon connector. The balance of the comments in this letter pertain to the Specific Plan. — Section 3.5.1 calls for preservation and enhancement of the area's stream corridors, which are defined as Tassajara Creek and four intermittent stream corridors. Elsewhere the Plan seems to indicate that all watercourses (natural stream courses, stream courses, etc.) be preserved and enhanced. Figures 4.1 and 6.1 seem to show 8 open space corridors located in stream valleys. I assume Figures 4.1 and 6.1 govern, but it is important that this matter be clarified. Every swale in the plan area is a watercourse and if they all have to be preserved, then virtually no development can take place. The plan must be specific in which natural elements must be preserved. This comment also extends to section 3.5.2 where grading is discussed. Avoidance of extensive grading must be limited to sensitive areas defined in the plan. The amount of grading must not be the focus here, but rather the aesthetics quality of the developed product should be the plans concern. — Table 4.1 shows a floor area ratio of .25 for General Commercial and Industrial Park. This figure is unrealistically low. This same table shows the high school site at 55.3 acres. This is probably 15 acres larger than is necessary. September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 3 — The first sentence in Section 4.4.1 says 1,975 acres are devoted to residential land uses. This doesn't correspond with Table 4.1 which shows 1,703 acres of this designation. — Action Programs 4F and 4G call for development of an inclusionary housing program and in -lieu fees for Eastern Dublin. Why wouldn't such programs apply to the entire City? It is not equitable to assign responsibility of such a social problem to only the builders in East Dublin! As we have mentioned in the past, we don't feel inclusionary zoning is practical or workable. An in -lieu affordable housing fee would he much more effective. — Policy 4-26 calls for residential and employment generating uses to be developed concurrently. This is unworkable since employment usually follows creation of a work force. — Action Program 4N says credit toward parkland dedication will be given only for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. It seems to me there is some recreation value to more steeply sloping land, therefore, some credit should be given for this type of terrain. Also it is unreasonable to think that naturally flat parksites exist in East Dublin. Much as the area needs to be graded for homes and "developed" uses; parks, too, will have to be created by grading efforts. — We have a number of questions and concerns regarding action Program 5A. Some of the curves on Fallon Road extension are in the 1,000 ft. radius range, but the minimum curve radius called out for arterial streets is 1,400 ft; on -street parking should probably be prohibited on major collector streets; the maximum grade on residential streets should be 15 % rather than 12%; and more flexibility is needed on the length of cul-de-sac streets. — Action Program 5C calls for a minimum 300 ft. wide buffer between the Tassajara Creek trail and adjacent development. Depending upon where the trail is located, this could mean a set -back of 350 ft. to 400 ft. or more from the creek. This distance is excessive. Setbacks should be measured from creek banks and a minimum of 100' should be adequate. — Action Program 5F calls for businesses with 50 or more employees to prepare a TSM program. However, Section 3.4.6 says this will be required only of businesses with 500 or more employees. — Action Program 6A talks about open space management plans and calls for review of such plans by applicable agencies such as the Department of Fish and 3 PAGE OF 7 September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 4 Game. We would urge that such review occur only when stipulated by the regulations of those agencies, e.g., in conjunction with a stream alteration permit in the case of Fish and Game. This comment also applies to Policy 6-9. — What is the rationale of requiring replacement of riparian habitat on a 3:1 basis (Policy 6-10)? — Policy 6-11 must apply only to the stream corridors shown on Figures 4.1 and 6.1 and then only in those areas where development has an impact on the stream corridors. When revegetation does take place, why is Fish and Game approval required? Why isn't City approval alone satisfactory? — Policy 6-12 requiring detention basins should be eliminated. It is likely that piping systems will be necessary to control erosion; not provide increased A2. capacity. Where major downstream facilities have been built and planned to accommodate more water, detention basins make little sense. — Policy 6-14 calls for avoidance of development which backs directly on a stream corridor. Policies such as this can sometimes place unreasonable constraints on development. — Action Program 6E is too broadly worded. Applicants should have to submit plans to the COE and Department of Fish and Game only in accordance with the official and formally adopted regulations of those agencies. — Action Program 6G should apply only to the stream corridors shown on Figures 4.1 and 6.1. — Policy 6-17 should apply only to rare and endangered species known to exist in the East Dublin area. — Action Program 6M is totally unreasonable. The cost of placing transmission lines underground would break any project. — Policy 6-29 seems to indicate development will not be allowed on the foreground hills and ridgelines if at any one spot on a defined scenic route, a backdrop of natural ridgelines does not remain visible. This is too draconian; development of such areas should be allowed when the general intent of not creating a silhouette is achieved. The same comment applies to Policy 6-30. — Policy 6-33 says grading shall not "disfigure" the foreground hills. What does disfigure mean? Some disturbance of these ares will be necessary in order to PAGE a. o September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 5 implement the plan. This should be acceptable provided such areas are properly restored. — Policies 6-34 through 6-36 get to the heart of our major concern about the Specific Plan. Figure 4.1 shows the developable areas and open space areas in Eastern Dublin. It is our opinion that grading must be allowed everywhere in the developable area if even the average densities shown in Figure 4.1 (and reflected in Table 4.1) are to be achieved. If Policies 6-34 through 6-36 (and many of the guidelines described for the Foothill Residential Subarea) are followed, it would be surprising if development at one-half of those residential densities could be achieved, at least as far as the Single Family and much of the Medium Density and Medium High Density Residential designations are concerned. Tassajara Village could not be constructed in any manner similar to the design shown in Chapter 7 if these policies and design guidelines are implemented. Therefore, instead of 12,500 units, the Plan would likely accommodate development in the range of only 9,000 to 10,000 units. This is an obvious inconsistency which is not reflected in other parts of the Specific Plan. Such a design concept jeopardizes the fiscal feasibility of the Specific Plan and reduces the Plans ability to provide moderately priced housing for the future jobholders in the area. This concern will be discussed further in our comments on Chapter 7. — Policy 6-38 must apply to major cut and fill slopes only. A-3 — Figure 6.2 is misleading. First of all, the golden eagle nest is not properly located. Secondly, even though the word potential is used, it conveys the A`14 feeling there are kit foxes in the area when there have been no confirmed sightings. 01.14 — There are two discrepancies in Figure 6.3. The southernmost tributary of Tassajara Creek is shown as Tassajara Creek, this is incorrect; and the boundary A• J of the golden eagle protection zone is not remotely similar to the area earlier agreed upon. — The design guidelines for Fallon Village call for buildings in the residential neighborhood south of the Transit Spine to be sited so they are not visible in views of the open space preserve from the south. This restriction may not be achievable without a severe impact on the developability of the residential neighborhood. — The design guidelines for Tassajara Village prohibit culverts or channelizing Tassajara Creek. Does this mean all of the crossings shown on the Tassajara September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 6 Village Concept Plan must be bridges? This would be very expensive. Some channelization/stabilization of the Creek may be necessary in order to implement that village plan. We are concerned with the overall design of Tassajara Village as shown in Figure 7-28; there are too many (5) expensive crossings of Tassajara Creek, property lines haven't been respected and topographic constraints may cause problems. Much of the Foothill Residential Subarea is shown as Single Family Residential on the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1). Large areas are devoted to Medium Density Residential as well. The Foothill residential design guidelines are impractical under the densities described in the Plan. These are the types of guidelines which would be used for custom homes in hillside areas at a density of about two units per acre or less!! As I mentioned previously, we feel it will be necessary to grade the entire developable area (as shown on Figure 4.1 but excluding Rural Residential) in order to achieve the densities called for in the Specific Plan. The maximum 65 % of parcel grading limitation is especially bothersome. Stepped building pads are not envisioned but elevation differences would take place between pads. Development would be very similar to the Vintage Hills section of Pleasanton. As I understood it from conversations with City staff, you were mainly concerned about streets which ramp directly up hill faces and extensive graded slopes between tiers of lots especially where this could be seen from scenic corridors. Our intention has always been to avoid this type of development, but to do so by grading relatively flat areas partially behind hills or berms, or in front of ridgeline backdrops so the development won't be obtrusive from off -site. illumemo — The design guidelines for the Gateway Subareas prohibit buildings adjacent to I-580 from being directly oriented toward it. Also heavy planting is called for along the freeway right-of-way to buffer these buildings. Exposure for buildings on this very valuable property is, therefore, going to be severely inhibited. — In some instances road rights -of -way standards are overly generous. this is especially true with regard to the widths of sidewalks. Also they include an over abundant amount of landscaping for this era of reduced water availability. A- b — Action Program 7B is too exacting. Final grading plans, etc. should not be A'7 reviewed by a design review committee. Also perspectives/renderings should not be required as part of a design submittal. — Policy 8.2 should be modified by substituting "occupancy" for development in the second to last line. September 7, 1992 Laurence Tong Page 7 — Policy 8.3 should be amended by adding "according to state standards" at the end. — Action Program 8H should be modified to require City of Dublin approval of any DRFA standards. — We wonder why the Plan proposes combining the Camp Parks and Alameda County turnouts into the DSRSD system? — In view of the new NPDES requirements we feel Program 9T is unnecessary. — On p. 145 where DRFA impact fees are discussed, it mentions four fire stations will be required for the eastern Dublin build -out. Section 8.3.1 states two new stations will be needed. Larry, I realize this is a rather exhaustive list of comments, but I think they are all important. All of these items need to be addressed at this time in order for the development stage of the process to run smoothly. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ted C. Fairfield TCF:dlm or