Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MInutes 03-30-1992 .d.._.------_, . . ~ • Special Meetinq - 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}, Prezoning, Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the Citv of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (continued from the March 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting) Special Meeting PCM-1992-53 March 30, 1992 [3-30min] + ~ ~ 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 [3-30minJ , ' ~ • • 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 PCM-1992-55 March 30, 1992 [3-30min] . ~ ~ • 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 PCM-1992-56 March 30, 1992 [3-30min] ' ~ • • 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 PCM-1992-57 March 30, 1992 [3-30min] ~ ! ~ - 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] , • . ~ ~ • 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, a~ lannin ommiss' n C airperson ~ Laurence L. ong Planning Director Special Meeting PCM-1992-59 March 30, 1992 [3-30min]