HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9.1 PA 88-144 Reso for W Dublin Envir. Impact Report, Gen Plan Amend., and Spec. PlanCITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 20, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Brenda Gillarde, Project Coordinator (3
SUBJECT: Resolutions for the Western Dublin Environmental
Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, and
Specific Plan (PA 88-144)
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Resolution recommending City Council Certification
of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan
Exhibit B: Resolution recommending City Council adoption of
the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment
Exhibit C: Resolution recommending City Council adoption of
the Western Dublin Specific Plan
Attachment 1: Minutes from March 30, 1992 meeting
Attachment 2: Minutes from April 2, 1992 meeting
Attachment 3: Minutes from April 6, 1992 meeting
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Continue meeting from April 6, 1992
2. Hear Staff presentation
3. Discuss each resolution in the order attached
and direct Staff on any final changes
4. Adopt, in the following order:
a. Resolution recommending City Council
Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Western Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(Exhibit A)
ITEM NO. 9,1
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
Application File
b. Resolution recommending City Council
adoption of the Western Dublin General
Plan Amendment (Exhibit B)
c. Resolution recommending City Council
adoption of the Western Dublin Specific
Plan (Exhibit C)
DESCRIPTION:
At the last two meetings (April 2 and 6, 1992), the Planning
Commission took straw votes on several issues related to the EIR,
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. A recap is provided below.
The date, page number and item number in the Staff summary where the
issue was discussed is provided in parentheses.
A. Issues Relating to the Environmental Impact Report
1. The Commission gave direction to not include a mitigation
in the EIR requiring off -site replacement of oak woodland
lost on -site (April 2, page 1, Item la).
2. The Commission gave direction to not include a mitigation in
the EIR requiring a fee program for the purchase of open
space (April 2, page 2, Item lb).
3. The Commission gave direction that the EIR adequately
addressed issues raised by Fish and Game and Caltrans (April
2, pages 2-4, Items 2a-d).
4. The Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR
which includes the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to
Comments, and Revisions to the Draft EIR text and directed
Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
B. Issues Relating to the General Plan Amendment
1. The Commission gave direction for minor modifications to the
GPA (April 6, page 2, Item A1-8).
2. The Commission directed Staff to prepare a resolution to
Council recommending adoption of the GPA with all changes
indicated by the Planning Commission.
C. Issues Relating to the Specific Plan
1. The Commission gave direction for minor modifications to the
Specific Plan text and maps (April 6, page 3, Item la-g).
2. The Commission gave direction to reduce the number of units
on the Milestone property to a maximum of 74, to delete the
Brittany Drive extension, and to designate the southerly
alignment for the emergency vehicle access road connecting
to the Eden/Schaefer development (April 6, page 4, Item 2a).
-2-
iN4nE 2 OF
3. The Commission gave direction (on a 3-1 straw vote) to
forward the Eden/Schaefer project as proposed in the
Specific Plan to the Council, with the Planning Commission's
concerns about unavoidable adverse impacts (April 6, page 5,
Item 4b).
4. The Commission gave direction on various issues raised by
the applicants and the Planning Commission (April 6, pages
5-8, Item 3a-g).
5. The Commission recommended that the resolution be prepared
for the Specific Plan incorporating all changes recommended
by the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions, in the order listed:
A. Adopt resolution recommending City Council Certification of the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Western Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Exhibit A).
B. Adopt resolution recommending City Council adoption of the
Western Dublin General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B).
C. Adopt resolution recommending City Council adoption of the
Western Dublin Specific Plan (Exhibit C).
-3-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to residential development applications
from Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc., and
later, the Milestone Land Development Corporation, the City of
Dublin undertook the Western Dublin Study to plan for the future
development of the Western Dublin Expanded Planning Area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted
three joint public study sessions relating to planning issues in
western Dublin. The December 13, 1989 study session identified
existing site conditions in the study area and described the
site's development constraints and opportunities. The February
28, 1991 study session considered different land use options for
the study area and chose the applicants' proposals as the
preferred alternative for further study. The November 11, 1991
study session addressed visual and parkland issues in the study
area.
3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 28, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan
Amendment and a Draft Specific Plan, to allow the future
development of a residential community of approximately 3260
units on approximately 3255 acres of land.
4. The project included planning for the future
development of a residential community of single-family and
multiple family residences with supporting community and
commercial facilities, together with an 18-hole championship golf
course and other park and open space facilities.
5. The City completed an Initial Study on the project and
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
required. A Notice of Preparation dated September 8, 1989 was
prepared, published in a newspaper of general circulation and
mailed to Responsible Agencies and various other interested
parties.
6. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the
project, including the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
Prezoning, Annexation to the City and other jurisdictional
boundary changes. The Draft Environmental Impact Report
consisted of a Draft Environmental Impact Report - Part One of
Two Documents, and Appendices for the Draft Environmental Impact
Report - Part Two of Two Documents, both Parts dated December,
1991. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary
EXHIBIT A
rent 4 Ae
3`�
of Resources via the State Clearinghouse on January 13, 1992 (SCH
No. 89091211).
7. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated
for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on January 17,
1992 and ending on March 2, 1992. Public notice of the
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
published in a newspaper of general circulation.
8. The City of Dublin Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
on January 29, 1992, which hearing was continued to February 18,
1992, and March 2, 1992. At these hearings, and through
submitted written comments, the Planning Commission received
comments on the Draft EIR from the public, responsible agencies,
other governmental and private organizations as well as from City
staff and its consultants and the project sponsors and their
consultants.
9. The City prepared responses to comments on
environmental issues received during the public review period and
at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the
information contained in the Draft EIR, providing good faith
reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments
and responses to comments were published in four parts, on March
23, 1992, March 24, 1992, March 26, 1992 and March 30, 1992, and
were distributed to or otherwise made available to the Planning
Commission, Responsible Agencies and other interested parties.
10. The Planning Commission reviewed specific text
revisions to the Draft EIR, showing how portions of the comments
and responses were incorporated into the Draft EIR. Part 1 of the
text revisions was dated March 24, 1992 and accompanied the March
24, 1992 responses to comments. Part 2 of the text revisions was
dated March 30, 1992 and was distributed at the March 30, 1992
continued hearing.
11. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the
City, which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Parts One and Two) dated December, 1991, the Responses to
Comments dated March 23, 1992, March 24, 1992, March 26, 1992 and
March 30, 1992 and Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report, dated March 24, 1992 and March 30, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
B. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission
hereby finds and recommends to the City Council that it certify
the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and
PAGE 5 or 3
in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental
Guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Director
atty\mkf\eir2.114
Planning Commission Chairperson
PAGE
F
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Recitals
1. In response to residential development applications
from Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc., and
later, the Milestone Land Development Corporation, the City of
Dublin undertook the Western Dublin Study to plan for the future
development of the Western Dublin Expanded Planning Area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted
three joint public study sessions relating to planning issues in
western Dublin. The December 13, 1989 study session identified
existing site conditions in the study area and described the
site's development constraints and opportunities. The February
28, 1991 study session considered different land use options for
the study area and chose the applicants' proposals as the
preferred alternative for further study. The November 11, 1991
study session addressed visual and parkland issues in the study
area.
3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 28, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan
Amendment to plan for the future development of a residential
community of single-family and multiple family residences with
supporting community and commercial facilities, together with an
18-hole championship golf course and other park and open space
facilities.
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated December 1991,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Western Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks and
recreation, and other categories of public and private uses of
land.
5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement
of standards of population density and standards of building
intensity for Western Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of
the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan.
7. A Staff Report dated January 14, 1992 was prepared for
the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment, which report
EXHIBIT (3
PAGE _.L_ OF 3*
described the amendment and identified issues related to the
amendment.
8. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on
January 14, 1992 which hearing was continued to March 16, 1992.
9. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated April 2, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning
Commmission on April 6, 1992.
10. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act through the preparation and review of an
Environmental Impact Report. On April 20, 1992, by Res. No.
, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
11. The Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission recommends City Council approval of the Western Dublin
General Plan Amendment dated December, 1991 as revised April 2,
1992, and make all findings regarding significant and potentially
significant impacts as required under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Director
atty\mkf\adopt.gp
Planning Commission Chairperson
PAGE
OF
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF THE WESTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to residential development applications
from Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc., and
later, the Milestone Land Development Corporation, the City of
Dublin undertook the Western Dublin Study to plan for the future
development of the Western Dublin Expanded Planning Area.
2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted
three joint public study sessions relating to planning issues in
western Dublin. The December 13, 1989 study session identified
existing site conditions in the study area and described the
site's development constraints and opportunities. The February
28, 1991 study session considered different land use options for
the study area and chose the applicants' proposals as the
preferred alternative for further study. The November 11, 1991
study session addressed visual and parkland issues in the study
area.
3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 28, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan
Amendment and Draft Specific Plan to plan for the future
development of a residential community of single-family and
multiple family residences with supporting community and
commercial facilities, together with an 18-hole championship golf
course and other park and open space facilities.
4. The Draft Specific Plan, dated December, 1991,
implements the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment by providing
a detailed framework, including policies, standards and
implementation programs, for evaluation of development projects
proposed in Western Dublin.
5. Pursuant to State Law, the Western Dublin Draft
Specific Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a
general plan amendment.
6. A Staff Report dated December 16, 1991 was prepared for
the Western Dublin Draft Specific Plan, which report summarized
the Specific Plan and identified related discussion topics.
7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Western Dublin Draft Specific Plan on December 16,
1991, which hearing was continued to January 6, 1992, January 14,
1992, and March 16, 1992.
EXHIBIT C
PAGE g OF21
8. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated April 2, 1992 were made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on April 6, 1992.
9. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
through the preparation and review of an Final Environmental
Impact Report. On April 20, 1992, by Res. No. , the Planning
Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
10. The Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The Dublin Planning Commission recommends the City
Council find the Western Dublin Specific Plan consistent with the
Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Western Dublin General
Plan Amendment.
B. The Dublin Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Western Dublin Specific Plan dated December,
1991 as revised April 2, 1992 and April 6, 1992 and make all
findings regarding significant and potentially significant
impacts as required under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOTES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Director
atty\mkf\adopt.sp
Planning Commission Chairperson
PAGE 1 OF 31
Special Meeting - March 30, 1992
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held
on March 30, 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; Dennis Carrington, Senior
Planner; 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), Prezoninq,
Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the
City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(continued from the March 16, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting)
Special Meeting
[3-30minJ
PCM-1992-53 March 30, 1992
Nita
Ms. Gillarde summarized the previous meeting of March 16, 1992. She
indicated that tonight's meeting was to discuss the adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Report. The Commission needed to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding the adequacy of the EIR
before going on with the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that Staff needed direction on the following
issues: 1) should the Brittany Drive extension be eliminated and what
the maximum allowable units could be on the Cronin property; 2) the
alignment of the emergency vehicle access road; 3) preferred off -site
grading approach; 4) should their be a major redesign to avoid
impacts; 5) off -site purchase of oak woodlands; and 6) open space fee
program.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that the responses to the comments were
thorough. She recommended that the Commission go through the EIR by
chapters and voice their concerns on various issues. Dennis Dahlin
was available to answer any of the Commission's questions.
Cm. Zika reminded Staff that part of the responses from the Fish &
Game Department had not been read yet.
Ms. Gillarde hoped the Commission could get through the issues as much
as possible so that recommendations on the EIR could be made this
evening.
Cm. Zika questioned how the EIR could be adequate if there were so
many significant adverse impacts.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that the City Council could decide to make a
"Statement of Overriding Consideration".
Mr. Tong explained that the Commission needed to give Staff direction
on the adequacy of the EIR. Was the EIR adequate in addressing all of
the issues and impacts for this project? The Commission needed to
give Staff direction on their preferred project so that Staff could
take the Commission's recommendations to the City Council.
Ms. Gillarde reminded the Commission that the Final Responses to
Comments would be taken to the City Council for review and discussion.
Cm. Zika asked if the Commission could double check to make sure all
of the items were included into the EIR.
Ms. Silver explained that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR,
and the Responses to Comments, which is now an appendix to the Draft
EIR.
Ms. Gillarde stated that the text changes to the EIR were included
with the agenda packets delivered to the Commission.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he had listened to the tapes from the
previous meeting.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-54 March 30, 1992
[3-30min]
PAGE 12--
Cm. North felt that the Cronin property should be restricted to 74
units. This would enable the Brittany Drive extension to be
eliminated.
Cm. Burnham asked about the grading and would it affect the visual
impact above the 740 foot elevation.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that if there were a maximum of 74 units, there
would be no visual impacts above the 740 foot level.
Cm. Zika asked where the emergency vehicle access road needed to be
built.
Ms. Gillarde explained that the emergency vehicle access road could be
developed over the ridge. Staff preferred the southern road
alignment. Only one emergency access road was required for the
project.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that Chapter 5 of the EIR discussed the potential
impacts for the emergency access road.
Ms. Silver explained that the EIR provides information to the public
regarding the issues and impacts on the project. The decision makers
can make separate decisions or make a statement for overriding
consideration.
Cm. Burnham asked if the Commission decided there should be no
ridgeline road and no Brittany road extension, the project could not
be developed.
Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that Staff was looking for direction
at this point of the public hearing process.
Cm. North recommended that Staff reduce the maximum units allowed for
the Cronin property to 74 units and require grading be below the 740
foot elevation. This would reduce the visual impacts from the site.
Cm. Zika and Cm. Rafanelli asked if reducing the site to a maximum of
74 units would affect the financial situation of the project.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there might be some fiscal impacts for the
74 or 16 unit alternatives. The project might break even.
Mr. Tong reiterated that Staff needed direction, not recommendations,
from the Commission.
Ms. Silver explained that the Commission's recommendation to the City
Council on the adequacy and certification of the EIR did not mean that
the Commission was recommending the project be approved.
Cm. Burnham felt that the EIR did not adequately address the road
construction, such as the EVA, or the landslide and fault areas. He
wanted to see the Cronin site cut down to the 16 unit alternative.
Special Meeting
[3-30minj
PCM-1992-55 March 30, 1992
PAGE 13 OF 34-
The Commission had concerns regarding the emergency vehicle access
road.
The Commission had a 4-1 consensus on allowing a maximum of 74 units
on the Cronin property and constructing the southern alignment of the
emergency vehicle access road. Cm. Burnham preferred the site to have
a maximum of 16 units.
Ms. Gillarde discussed the visual impacts due to mass landform
alteration. The only way to minimize the visual impacts would be the
rural residential alternative which would allow 200 units.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there would be massive grading on Eden
Canyon Road. The 1300 unit option would destroy the creek.
Ms. Silver clarified that the Planning Commission could recommend any
type of project. The EIR needed to be certified as adequately
addressing the issues and impacts of the project.
Cm. Zika was concerned with making recommendations when there were so
many significant impacts.
The Commission felt that the visual impacts were unavoidable.
The discussion went onto grading issues.
Mr. Tong indicated that the 16 unit alternative would have fewer
significant grading impacts than the 74 unit alternative.
The Commission preferred the 74 unit alternative (3-2). Cm. Burnham
noted that the visual impacts were the same for the 125 units or the
74 unit alternative.
The discussion continued with the grading issues in connection with
the Morris property.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there were unavoidable noise, dust and
visual impacts. Chapters 11 and 12 discussed these issues. Page 17-
2 showed a schematic plan for the 1300 unit alternative.
Mr. Tong referred to page 17-2 which showed a pedestrian trail network
within the Morris property line.
Cm. Burnham asked why the Schaefer interchange was not required if the
project was developed with only 1300 units.
Mr. Dahlin explained that there would be less traffic demand and more
cost to the property owners.
Cm. North asked where the access road would be for the 1300 units.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that the project could be accessed from Dublin
Canyon Road.
Special Meeting
[3-30min]
PCM-1992-56 March 30, 1992
PAGE I GF Si-
Cm. Zika asked how many vehicle trips per day would there be if 1300
units were developed.
Mr. Dahlin was not sure what this figure would be. He indicated that
the Commission could require the construction of the Dublin Boulevard
extension.
There was a 4-1 consensus from the Commission to allow the Eden/
Schaefer project as proposed which would result in visual impacts to
the Morris property due to grading.
The Commission and Staff discussed the maximum 740 foot elevation.
Ms. Gillarde referred to the off -site grading issues. She indicated
that Staff's recommendation has been revised to allow a grading
easement for the Schaefer Heights portion of the project.
The Commission had a consensus on the off -site grading issues to allow
the grading easement.
The Commission and Staff discussed the vegetation issues.
Cm. North asked how many acres of vegetation would need to be removed
if the project was only allowed to build 1300 units.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there would be a substantial reduction. A
10% reduction would calculate out to about 50 acres less of vegetation
removed. The intent of the 1300 unit alternative was to reduce
vegetation and grading impacts.
Cm. North referred to Fish and Game's letter dated March 30th and
asked for clarification on the replacement ratio.
Ms. Gillarde explained that Fish and Game's draft letter stated their
recommendation was to replace the vegetation at a 1:1 ratio. The
final letter recommends 3:1 replacement. Technically, the final
letter does not have to be addressed since it was received after the
deadline for EIR comments.
Cm. Zika asked if the 3:1 replacement would mitigate the impacts.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that no matter what the recommendation is, there
would be unavoidable impacts.
Cm. North asked what would it cost to purchase oak woodlands to meet
the Fish and Game's recommendation.
Mr. Tong indicated that there was a Fish and Game representative in
the audience to answer this question.
Terry Palmisano, representative from Fish and Game, indicated that the
option was to purchase land in the vicinity of the project.
Mitigation on the site was the first priority.
Special Meeting
[3-30min]
PCM-1992-57 March 30, 1992
PAGE 15 OF 34
Cm. North felt that if there was to be 3200 units allowed, he
recommended 3:1 replacement ratio plus purchasing property in the
vicinity.
Cm. Burnham had a concern with filling the canyons. He had no problem
with the 3:1 ratio recommendation.
Ms. Silver had concerns with the Fish and Game's recommendation in
purchasing acreage. Fish and Game might be referring to purchasing
acreage at a 3:1 ratio. This needed to be clarified.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that replacing wetlands at a 3:1 ratio was a
common practice; however, off -site woodlands replacement was not.
Cm. Zika asked the Fish and Game representative to explained the
purchase of additional off -site acreage.
F & G indicated that this project would be eliminating a lot of oak
woodlands. Trees take 80-100 years to mature. We are recommending
that acreage be purchased at a 3:1 ratio.
Cm. Zika asked if there was that much woodlands around.
F & G indicated yes.
Cm. Rafanelli felt that the Commission should consider either the 3:1
replacement on site or the 3:1 purchase off -site.
Cm. Barnes recommended that the project be allowed to develop 1300
dwelling units.
Three of the Commissioners recommended that the 1300 unit alternative
be developed. Two of the Commissioners preferred the 3200 unit
cluster alternative plus requiring the replacement of oak woodlands at
a 3:1 ratio.
The Commission and Staff discussed the open space, reservoir and
Cronin ridge issues.
The Commission consensus was to allow a maximum of 74 units on the
Cronin property.
The Commission and Staff discussed the Martin Creek area.
Mr. Dahlin explained that the soil was unstable. Only 2 units could
be allowed to avoid impacts to this area. The proposed plan would
destroy 1500 feet and the creek channel would need to be
reconstructed. The project can be redesigned to accommodate 16 units.
Revisions to the text would be needed. The area would need to be
filled in order to accommodate 74 units.
Mr. Tong referred to page 17-3 where Martin Creek was preserved.
The Commission preferred either the 16 or 74 unit alterative.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-58 March 30, 1992
[3-30min]
PAGE 1L. OF ��
The Commission and Staff discussed the cluster development alternative
identified in the EIR.
Mr. Dahlin referred to page 17-9 which showed a description of the
cluster development. There would be some canyons filled with this
alternative and referred to 17-2 and 17-4.
Cm. Zika asked if there would be a negative fiscal impact if the
cluster development was adopted.
Mr. Dahlin indicated it depended on the real estate market. There
would be less property tax with the cluster development.
The Commission preferred the cluster development alternative.
The discussion was continued to Public Services.
Cm. North requested that public services be guaranteed before permits
were approved for the project.
The Commission talked about issues concerning the ozone layer,
electric cars, recycled water, and dust control.
Mr. Tong suggested that in order to mitigate dust control on adjacent
residents, the Public Works Department be authorized to hire an air
quality specialist.
Cm. North requested that the developer be required to water the area
twice a day for dust control. The Public Works Department should be
required to monitor situation.
On a consensus, the Commission requested that the Public Works
Department be authorized to monitor the dust control issue.
The Commission discussed the dedication of open space issue. They
were concerned with the management of the open space and felt that a
plan be adopted before any development occurred.
The Commission continued the discussion on the adequacy of the EIR to
Thursday, April 2, 1992.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Special Meeting PCM-1992-59 March 30, 1992
[3-30min]
PAGE 11 01 34'
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 Annexation to the
City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(continued from the March 30, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting)
Special Meeting
[4-02min]
PCM-1992-60 April 2, 1992
ATTACHMENT 2.
PAGE 18 or 34.
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 developing 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
j4-02min)
PCM-1992-61 April 2, 1992
PAGE 1 q OF 39
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
[4-02min]
PCM-1992-62 April 2, 1992
PAGE 2-° OF M.
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
[4-02min]
PCM-1992-63 April 2, 1992
PAGE ZA OF 34-
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
[4-02min]
PCM-1992-64 April 2, 1992
PAGE 2 OF
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,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Special Meeting
[4-02min]
PCM-1992-65 April 2, 1992
PAGE Z 3 OF
Regular Meeting - April 6, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held
on April 6, 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, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence
L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Carol
R. Cirelli; Associate Planner, Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner;
Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and
Gail Adams, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner North
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 92-006 Cross Creek Plaza Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review approval to construct a 7,156 square foot
retail commercial building (convenience market) on a vacant
lot and to amend the Planned Development (PD) District
regulations to establish setback standards located at the
southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty
Road
Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-66 April 6, 1992
Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff
was recommending approval of the application.
Cm. Burnham asked where the restrooms were located. They weren't
shown on the plans.
Ms. Cirelli indicated that the restrooms would be located adjacent to
the storage room in the rear of each tenant space. The plans do not
show the rear access of the building. Two exits are required and when
the Applicant submits for building permits, these changes will show on
the plans.
Cm. Burnham felt that there was a limited amount of parking for the
type of uses that would be going into the buildings.
Ms. Cirelli explained that when analyzing the parking requirements,
the major tenant space (i.e., convenience market) was used. Staff
does not know specifically what other tenants will be occupying the
building. Twenty parking spaces was in conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance requirements. The regulations are based on the use and
square footage of each tenant space. With regards to "take-out" uses,
Staff calculates the square footage of the public area. This would be
a very small area.
Cm. Burnham felt that the convenience market would be very busy at
certain times of the day.
Cm. Zika indicated that the convenience market would generally create
short stops. Office and barber shops would generate longer term
parking.
Ms. Cirelli indicated that this building would be a neighborhood
oriented facility.
Mr. Tong noted that the office space would create longer term parking;
however, there would be less trips on and off the site compared to the
convenience market which would create more traffic.
Cm. Zika asked why there was no traffic impact fee required for this
project.
Ms. Cirelli indicated that during the original approval process for
the Alamo Creek Villages project, the proposed convenience store uses
were taken into consideration. The fees had already been assessed.
Judd Lee, Applicant, had no concerns or comments.
Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant what happens when the parking lot is
full. There did not seem to be any place else to park.
Mr. Lee described the neighborhood center as having a lot of foot
traffic since it was in a residential area. The worst possible
traffic scenario had been considered which calculated out to be one
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-67 April 6, 1992
-)AGE 2; OF..
parking space for every 300 square feet of building space. He
indicated that he could designate parking spaces for each tenant.
The Commission had concerns regarding the west side of the building
where there was a long, narrow empty space which would collect a lot
of debris. The Commission asked that the area be capped as well as
closed off.
Mr. Lee indicated that he would take care of these concerns and that
there will be a gate closing off this area.
Ms. Cirelli noted that in calculating parking requirements for the
project, based on the square footage of each tenant space, the
convenience market is required to have 8 spaces. If the other two
tenant spaces are retail businesses, they are required to have a total
of 11 spaces. This totals 19 spaces. The Applicant proposes 20
spaces on the site.
Cm. Zika closed the public hearing.
Cm. Barnes had concerns with developing another retail center when
there were so many empty tenant spaces throughout the City.
On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of
3-1 (Cm. Barnes voted no), the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 92-020
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 7,156
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CONVENIENCE MARKET) AND TO
AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH
SETBACK STANDARDS AT A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD
RESOLUTION NO. 92-021
APPROVING PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH SETBACK
STANDARDS AT A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD
RESOLUTION NO. 92-022
APPROVING PA 92-006 CROSS CREEK PLAZA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO
CONSTRUCT A 7,156 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CONVENIENCE
MARKET) ON A VACANT LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD
SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Prezoning,
Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the
City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(continued from the April 2, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting)
Ms. Gillarde described the format for the meeting, indicating that
there was a summary sheet within the Commission's packet that Staff
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-68 April 6, 1992
[4-6min]
PAGE
0
34
recommended be followed. The Commission needed to take three actions,
1) discuss the General Plan Amendment and make a recommendation to the
City Council; 2) discuss the Specific Plan and make a recommendation
to the City Council; and 3) continue the item to the April 20th
meeting.
Ms. Gillarde distributed an updated version of the Specific Plan
revisions indicating that there were changes and additions to the
previous revisions (Exhibit B of the staff report). She indicated on
Attachment E, the cluster development alternative shows 3131 dwelling
units; this number should be 3182.
Ms. Silver clarified that the Commission needed to adopt resolutions
for the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. For tonight's meeting, the Commission needed to give
direction to Staff on their recommendations to prepare the resolutions
for the April 20, 1992 meeting.
Mr. Dahlin gave a brief history of the planning process for the
project since 1989. The project had been refined several times in the
past in order to come up with the final plan that was now being
presented to the Commission.
Cm. Zika indicated that there were several property owners in the
western Dublin area. If the Commission approved the plan as a group
and eventually the area breaks up into several sections, how are the
property owners going to be protected.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that this was the role of a development agreement
and phasing plans. The consultant was not directed to work on this
portion of the project.
Ms. Silver explained that the development agreement was addressed at a
later stage.
Cm. Zika had concerns with the traffic congestion on Dublin Boulevard
and felt that the streets would be close to grid lock once western
Dublin was developed.
Ms. Silver explained that there were provisions to allow for a four
lane road.
Cm. Zika asked if the Commission could require the interchange be
developed before the development was in.
Mr. Dahlin referred to the EIR, mitigation #4-3. He explained the
traffic study and phasing plan for traffic improvements.
Cm. Zika asked if the level of service goes beyond the allowable
levels, could the Commission require the interchange at that time.
Mr. Dahlin explained that if this occurred, the whole project could
come to a halt in order to improve the traffic conditions.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-69 April 6, 1992
PAGE 27 OF
Mr. Tong indicated that a phasing plan was built into the Hansen Hill
project, which was of a much smaller scale than the western Dublin
development.
Ms. Gillarde proceeded to the action items. She briefly summarized
policy changes and modifications proposed for the General Plan
Amendment.
Cm. Zika referred to item #2 and asked for clarification on the
language revision regarding open space dedication/restriction.
Ms. Silver explained that the language revision would give more
flexibility. The property owner could still own the land. It would
provide options to be restricted, such as a conservation easement. A
restricted use would not require a title change.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) incorporate adjustments 1
through 8 described on page 2 of the summary sheet into the Draft
General Plan Amendment; and 2) to prepare a resolution to the City
Council recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
Ms. Gillarde continued to Section B (Specific Plan). There were minor
adjustments to the plan as shown on page 3 of the summary sheet.
There were four action items: 1) minor Specific Plan adjustments; 2)
major land use modifications; 3) additional issues; and 4) Specific
Plan recommendation.
Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on item #c - fencing around the
Powerline reservoir. Did this policy accept the reservoir as part of
the Specific Plan.
Ms. Gillarde explained that the recycled water program and the
reservoir was part of the Specific Plan. The fencing concern was
added.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) incorporate items a
through g shown on page 3 of the summary sheet into the Specific Plan;
and 2) incorporate this action into the resolution for the Specific
Plan.
Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section 2 - Major Land Use Modifications.
The Commission needed to give Staff direction on their recommendations
to the City Council.
Cm. Burnham asked if the 74 units were recommended for the Milestone
development would the access road into the Hansen Hill development be
able to carry the traffic.
Staff indicated yes.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to 1) revise the plan to
reflect a maximum of 74 units on the Milestone property, 2) delete
Brittany Drive extension and show access via Hansen Hills Ranch and 3)
show the southerly emergency vehicle access road alignment rather than
the northerly alignment.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-70 April 6, 1992
PAGE •& Oi 3�
Cm. Zika had concerns with the proposed project for the Eden/Schaefer
properties. There were major environmental impacts and felt that the
cluster development alternative would eliminate some of the
environmental issues. He was not concerned about asking the Council
to consider the cluster development alternative even if it required
more review and processing time.
Cm. Barnes indicated that the Environmental Impact Report would not
need to be redone if the cluster development alternative was adopted.
Cm. Zika felt that Staff should take a look at the cluster development
alternative. He felt this was the right thing to do.
Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. Zika; however, he liked the looks of
the proposed project. He wanted to see the proposed project cut back
some to avoid some of the major impacts.
Cm. Barnes concurred. She was concerned with the massive loss of
vegetation.
Cm. Rafanelli concurred.
The Planning Commission's consensus was to direct Staff to incorporate
the cluster development alternative into a resolution.
Ms. Gillarde reminded the Commission that the impacts had been
discussed.
Cm. Burnham asked Staff if other alternative plans could be looked at.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that if the Commission wanted to review the
cluster development alternative, there would be spin-offs from taking
this direction. If accepted by the Council, the project would need to
be redesigned and the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
rewritten.
Ms. Silver clarified that if the Commission's consensus was to
consider the cluster development alternative, the EIR would not need
to be rewritten - since the EIR had considered this alternative.
However, if the Commission wanted a project alternative different than
any of those discussed in the EIR, Staff would need to start over and
the EIR would need to be rewritten.
Cm. Barnes indicated that the cluster development alternative would
address the vegetation impacts.
Mr. Tong asked for clarification on the Commission's recommendations.
He was hearing that the Commission was recommending Staff to prepare
resolutions recommending the cluster development alternative with a
maximum of 3200 dwelling units.
Cm. Zika had concerns with eliminating the Elderberry and Wildflower
canyons.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-71 April 6, 1992
PAGE 01 or al.
The Planning Commission's consensus was to recommend to the City
Council the cluster development alternative.
Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section 3 - Additional Issues. She
summarized the following issues: a) street standards; b) golf course
access; c) golf course water feature; d) lot orientation; e) design
review committee; f) tax and assessment caps; and g) existing wells
and septic tanks.
The Planning Commission determined that the revisions shown in items
#a through #d should be incorporated into the Specific Plan and
directed Staff to incorporate this action into the resolution on the
Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission discussed item #f - Tax and Assessment Caps.
Cm. Zika asked why the City Manager was responsible for making
approval on bond issuing. Why not an elected body, such as the City
Council?
Ms. Gillarde indicated that the City Manager and Planning Department
would be discussing these issues.
Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council could be made responsible for
reviewing the bond issuance.
Cm. Zika wanted to see City Council approval when considering the
issuance of bonds.
Cm. Barnes and Cm. Rafanelli concurred.
Ms. Silver clarified that the City Council would need to take action
on an assessment. There was a 2% property value rule when permitting
the issuance of bonds.
The Planning Commission recommended the revisions be incorporated into
the Specific Plan with the sentence to Policy #10-10 to read:
"Consider exceptions to this policy per approval by the City Council."
The Commission directed Staff to incorporate this action into the
resolution on the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission discussed item #g - Existing Wells and Septic
Tanks. The Commission determined that this revision should be
incorporated into the Specific Plan and directed Staff to incorporate
this action into the resolution on the Specific Plan.
Ms. Gillarde continued onto Section #4 - Specific Plan
Recommendation. Staff requested direction from the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare resolutions
incorporating all the changes recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that he needed more specific direction regarding
the cluster development alternative.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-72 April 6, 1992
PAGE 3° OF
Cm. Zika wanted to protect the two canyons.
Cm. Burnham felt that the modifications associated with the cluster
development alternative would take care of the Commission's concerns.
Ms. Silver reiterated that the Commission could make a recommendation
to the City Council for any type of project. Staff would have to go
back and rewrite the EIR to address the options.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that removing the golf course would take care of
some of the impacts.
Cm. Rafanelli felt that there could be portions of the proposed
project eliminated to lessen the impacts.
Cm. Barnes felt that the cluster development alternative minimized the
impacts for the massive grading, vegetation loss, etc.
The general consensus of the Commission was to preserve as much of the
natural land masses as possible. The cluster development alternative
would save a lot of land formations. The Commission requested more
information from Staff on the available options.
Mr. Dahlin discussed the fiscal analysis and was uncertain if the
cluster development alternative could achieve the necessary fiscal
balance.
Ms. Gillarde interpreted the Commission's responses as wanting to
avoid several environmental impacts and still have a fiscally viable
project. She indicated that the cluster development alternative may
not be a fiscally viable project in the current market place.
The Planning Commission took a short break. Upon returning, everyone
was present.
Mr. Tong explained to the Commission the implications involved if the
cluster development alternative was adopted. The cluster development
alternative is a different plan from what is recommended within the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. If the Commission wants a
different plan, the Commission would need to give Staff direction to
deny the project, as proposed, and make a recommendation to redesign
the project for the cluster development alternative.
Mr. Tong noted that this would take a considerable amount of time and
effort for the Staff and Applicant. The General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan would need to be revised with this recommendation.
Cm. Zika wanted to see the upper canyons preserved. He recommended
the development be modified to preserve these canyons.
Cm. Burnham asked if the Commission could make a recommendation to go
ahead with the proposed project; however, note their concerns with the
preservation of the canyon areas.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-73 April 6, 1992
PAGE 31 OF 34
Mr. Tong indicated that the proposed project could not be built and
save the canyons as well.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that saving additional woodlands depended upon
the amount of project modifications. This was a difficult site and
with some minor adjustments approximately 5% more trees could be
saved. If the whole canyon was to be preserved, this was a major
change, and we would need to go back to the drawing board. The
Commission needed to give more specific directions.
Cm. Burnham asked if the proposed project could be cut back by
eliminating 50% of the moving and filling of the canyons, could there
still be a project.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that at that scale, the project would need to be
redesigned.
Mr. Tong noted that there would be a significant reduction in grading,
tree loss, etc. This would create a different project.
The Planning Commission was concerned with eliminating the canyons.
The only way to mitigate these concerns was to propose a cluster type
of development. The project does not have to follow the existing
cluster development alternative. The proposed project tears up too
much vegetation, land and trees.
Mr. Dahlin pointed out that even with the cluster development
alternative there would be grading.
Cm. Rafanelli indicated that he wanted to see the project go through;
however, was concerned with the filling of the canyon.
Mr. Dahlin reminded the Commission that the elimination of the golf
course would create major changes in the whole project. The project
might not be economically feasible.
Ms. Silver indicated that the Commission needed to make a
recommendation to the City Council. Staff could not include general
language. A specific recommendation was required.
Cm. Barnes questioned if only Wildflower Canyon would be taken care of
if the cluster development alternative was recommended, or would both
canyons be saved.
Mr. Dahlin indicated the cluster development alternative would
minimize the grading done on Wildflower canyon. There would be major
biotic impacts on Elderberry canyon.
Mr. Tong recapped the options available to the Commission. First
option - the Commission could recommend that the City Council go with
the cluster development alternative. This would deny the proposed
project. There would need to be significant changes to the project.
These revisions would come back before the Commission. Second option
- recommend project as proposed, limiting the areas to be saved, with
additional dirt moved and grading minimized. Third option - recommend
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-74 April 6, 1992
PACE 3Z OF ?,.
the project as proposed (maximum of 3,131 units), but with significant
reduction in grading. If significant reductions in grading were to
be made, the project could not go forward in the configuration
proposed. Staff would need definition of the reductions.
Cm. Zika preferred the third option. He wanted to see the project
could through; however had concerns with the amount of grading.
Cm. Barnes concurred with Cm. Zika.
Mr. Tong reminded the Commission that the third option would require a
different project. If there was no golf course, the project was
significantly different. It was either keep Elderberry canyon intact
or have the golf course in the proposed configuration. You cannot
have both. Basically, the Commission would be denying the General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Commission's recommendation
would be to come back with reduction in tree loss and grading, another
alternative.
Mr. Tong reviewed the Commission's options. The Commission could
recommend denial of the project, recommend the Applicant come back
with a project redesign that avoids filling Elderberry and Wildflower
canyons and reduces tree loss. Or, the Commission could recommend the
approval of the proposed project, voice their major concerns with the
tree loss and grading. This would not result in any major redesign.
Ms. Silver indicated that the Commission's third option would be.to
deny the proposed project and recommend the cluster development
alternative, with the necessary changes made to the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission, with a 3-1 consensus, recommended to the City
Council to adopt the proposed project. For the record, the Commission
had concerns with the elimination of Elderberry and Wildflower
canyons, the massive loss of vegetation and trees, and grading.
The Planning Commission continued the item to the April 20, 1992
meeting.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong indicated that at the next City Council meeting, the SDR
Guidelines, and reports regarding the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing
Committee and Outstanding Development would be discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS
Cm. Barnes had concerns with the Cross Creek development. There were
banners advertising that the 3-bedroom units were for rent. She felt
that the signs should be removed.
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-75 April 6, 1992
PAGE 3 OF 3�{
Mr. Tong indicated he would check to see if they had the applicable
permits for the signs.
Cm. Barnes indicated that there were "For Lease" signs located on the
west side of the Amador Auto Center on Dougherty Road. These signs
seemed somewhat large.
Mr. Tong indicated he would have someone investigate the concern.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Regular Meeting
[4-6min]
PCM-1992-76 April 6, 1992
PACE3L OF