HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-29-1992
I T ~ , ` ~
Special Meetinq - January 29, 1992
A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held
on January 29, 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 Dennis Carrington, Senior
Planner.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
* * * *
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 January 14, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting}
Cm. Zika indicated that the adjournment time for this meeting would be
10:00 p.m. He indicated that he had reviewed the tages from the
previous meeting (January 14, 1992) and was familiar with that
meeting.
Ms. Brenda Gillarde indicated that we will begin discussions on the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this meeting. The document was
available from the Planning Department. There were two volumes; one
was the text document and the other was the technical appendices.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that the EIR discussed, in considerable detail,
the various impacts for this project. She complimented the EIR
consultant on doing a very thorough job on the report, which clearly
laid out the issues and was easily readable.
Ms. Gillarde discussed two types of mitigations mentioned in the EIR.
Many of the mitigations have already been incorporated into the
Specific Plan and General Plan policies. There are additional impacts
and mitigations that are required for this project.
Ms. Gillarde reviewed the staff report and gave a summary of the
specific chapters of the EIR. She indicated that this meeting would
Special Meeting PCM-1992-1 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
• •
give the public an opportunity to comment on the content and
conclusions of the EIR.
Cm. North questioned the amount of population growth projected for
this development and what were the indirect effects from this growth.
Mr. Tong referred Cm. North to the indirect off-site emplayment growth
discussed on page 16-6.
Cm. Zika started the public comment period with Chapter #1. He
indicated that the public needed to fill out speaker slips and
requested they keep their comments to 5-6 minutes.
Mr. John Anderson referenced Chapter #1 - Existing General Plan
policies. He had concerns with grading, cutting of ridges, filling of
canyons/creeks, grassland loss, oakwood land loss, slope stability,
traffic hazards, open space management. He indicated in regards to
the Highway 580 corridor, HARD was not in support of the urban
development. He indicated that the City would be open to legal suits
if accidents happened because of slope instability/traffic hazards.
He asked who would be responsible for the management of the open space
Would the City be held liable/culpable for accidents?
Ms. Silver indicated that the question is general and opened ended.
If the Commission had more specific questions afterwards, she would be
happy to answer them.
Mr. John Anderson questioned further if it could be studied now and
find out what would happen instead of waiting until something does
happen. Could it be part of the study that is being reviewed.
Cm. Zika indicated that a more specific question needed to be
formulated.
Cm. Zika moved on to Chapters #2 and #3 - Communitywide Social
Economic Impacts and Land Use Planning. There was no public comment.
Cm. Zika moved on to Chapter #4 - Traffic and Circulation.
Mr. Glenn Brown, representing Milestone Development, clarified
Milestone Development's position regarding the Cronin Ranch
development and its impacts. He discussed the EIR's requirement for
an emergency access road over the ridge as well as the performance
standards for that road.
Mr. Brown added that the public has expressed a concern regarding the
Brittany Lane road extension. He suggested that the Commission
recommend that a road over the ridge be considered for regular traffic
circulation in place of the proposed Brittany Lane extension which has
considerable impact and little support within the community.
Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension. He
referred to page 4-10 of Volume 1 and page B-36 of Volume 2 and quoted
the California Highway Patrol's concerns regarding long access roads
Special Meeting PCM-1992-2 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
• •
and the Brittany Lane extension. He indicated that Brittany Lane was
not designed as a collector street or access to other neighborhoods.
Mr. Mike Lutz had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road extension.
The main arterial for the Cronin development should be the road over
the ridge. He was not in favor of the development at all; however he
indicated that Brittany Lane was not designed for additional traffic.
Mr. John Corallo had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road
extension. There will be too much traffic and speeding which would
cause many safety hazards. People do not stop at the existing stop
signs. The children will be jeopardized and the reasons for owning a
home in the hills - quiet serene area will be compromised.
Mr. Robert Patterson was opposed to using Brittany Lane as an access
road. He was concerned about traffic impacts.
Mr. Bob Sakerson indicated that he was opposed to massive development
that would impact the quality of life for everybody. The hills
should be developed in a very prudent and reasonable manner and he
hoped that this development was modified to a degree that does not
affect the surrounding areas.
Mr. John Anderson referred to page 4-10 and B-36 and discussed the
safety hazards/impacts, such as speeding and stop signs, associated
with the proposed Brittany Lane road extension.
Mr. Wes Asmussen, HARD, clarified that the Hayward Recreation
Department was not interested in the management of the open space of
the proposed development. He referred to page 4-7, Schaeffer Ranch
Road interchange. This interchange would have a significant impact on
Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park which is owned/operated by HARD. The District
is opposed to this interchange. He suggested an alternative area for
the interchange - approximately 1/4 mile from the proposed
interchange.
Ms. Marti Buxton felt that the mitigation measures noted in the
traffic/circulation chapters were well written and Eden Development
could abide by them.
Mr. Bill Banse was opposed to the Cronin Development and hoped the
Commission would consider the reduction of homes being proposed on
that property. This would create a more desirable area which would be
compatible to the Silvergate Highlands development.
Mr. David Bewley had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road
extension. He referred to page 4-10 in Volume 1 and page B-36 in
Volume 2. He reiterated Mr. Anderson's concerns regarding safety
hazards. This road will be the longest road in the development and
steepest road in the City of Dublin. He felt that the road was in
violation of the General Plan, as amended, and referred to Section
5.1d. He concurred with Glenn Brown's comments about the emergency
vehicle access and noted that the EIR did not focus on the impacts of
the surrounding streets connecting through Brittany Drive.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-3 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
. • • ~
Mr. Bewley stated that there was a potential liability issue regarding
the Brittany Lane road extension. He felt that the City might become
liable for any future accidents that may occur because the City
allowed the construction of the road.
Mr. Emmett King had concerns regarding the traffic impacts associated
with the Brittany Lane road extension. He did not feel that it would
be a wise decision to extend that road. There were other alternatives
available.
Cm. Zika clarified to the audience that the Planning Commission has
not made any decisions regarding the proposed project. The Commission
was listening to everyone's concerns/comments and the document has not
been finalized.
Ms. 5tephanie Leonard indicated that she lived at the end of Brittany
Lane. Several vehicles, such as garbage collectors, use her driveway
to turn around. She was concerned that if the street is extended,
this would create potential traffic accidents. She was also concerned
with the destruction of the beauty of the area, such as the woods,
canyons and streams.
Cm. Rafanelli asked Mr. Glenn Brown what the traffic counts would be
if the main road out of the Cronin Development was the road over the
ridge and the emergency access road was the extension of Brittany
Lane.
Mr. Brown indicated that some additional work had been done by TJKM,
the City's traffic consultant regarding the question. There would be
no trips from the golf course over the hill heading east. There would
be minimal trips from the Cronin area heading west. The Hansen Drive
road within the Hansen Hill project would be the road used the most in
this scenario.
Cm. Rafanelli asked if he was correct in saying that the impact would
be greater at the Hansen Subdivision extension if there was no access
through Brittany Drive.
Mr. Brown indicated that there would be an increase in traffic on the
Hansen Subdivision road; however it would not exceed the capacity of
the street, which was 3-4,000 trips.
Mr. King indicated that there would eventually be more than the
proposed 125 homes built. There would possibly be thousands of home
in the future which will create serious traffic concerns. The City
was opening a can of worms if they allow homes in the hills.
Mr. Corallo commented that young drivers tend to be less experienced
and more reckless and would be more prone to drive on the long
downhill streets rather than streets with a lot of stop lights or
signs. Therefore, this will accentuate more problems on any road over
the ridge.
The Commission took a 10 minute break.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-4 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
, • •
Upon returning, Cm. Zika continued on to Chapter #5 - Visual Quality
and Site Design.
Mr. Brown discussed skyline affect, performance criteria, roadway
shown in exhibits. He agreed with the performance criteria.
Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns with design of the Cronin Ranch.
She questioned if the design was in compliance with the General Plan
being that the development was so high on the ridge. This project
needs to be redesigned and suggested that the alternative allowing 74
homes with one access road be a place to start. She commented on the
visual impacts across the freeway.
John Anderson had concerns that Chapter #5 did not discuss the visual
impacts of the Brittany Lane extension. You can see the saddle from
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road and it is much more visible than
the skyline ridge. He proposed that this impacts should be part of
the visual analysis.
Robert Patterson had concerns with the visual impacts of additional
homes in the hills. He indicated that this impact does nothing for
the City's image or the general area.
Paul Speroni, representing Save Our Hills, had concerns with visual
impacts of the project. He indicated that these impacts are shared
with all residents not just the people in the project vicinity. The
project should be consistent with the existing General Plan and not
require any amendments. If amendments are required, they should be
voted upon by the City residents.
Ms. Nancy Nilssen had concerns with the unavoidable impacts of the
project. The impacts were unavoidable if the project was allowed to
be developed. She questioned what the positive aspects were of the
project. Why change the City's policies regarding steep slopes and
ridges.
Mr. Don Kelley indicated that there was a lot of land that could be
developed; however, he felt that the hills should be left alone.
Development of the hills cannot be reversed and future generations
will not be able to enjoy the area. The City needs to consider these
issues.
Mr. Bewley reiterated that the Brittany Lane road extension was not
mentioned in the EIR as a visual impact and should be addressed as
one. He felt that the road would be an adverse impact. He asked what
would happen to the project if the open space was not adopted into an
assessment district/maintenance or other mechanism for management.
Cm. Zika indicated that it was his opinion that if the open space was
not secured, the project could not continue. However, the Commission
was only making a recommendation to the City Council. The Council
would make the final decisions on the project.
Mr. Bewley noted then that the integrity of the open space and
resource areas were vital. He reminded the Commission that the
Special Meeting PCM-1992-5 January 29, 1992
(1-29min]
. . • . .
Brittany Lane road extension cut across a resource protection area and
the open space is a vital concept of the plan.
Mr. Bewley indicated that the Brittany Lane road extension could
possibly become an emergency access road and merits consideration. He
noted that what changes are made today does not guarantee they will
remain that way forever. What guarantee was there that the emergency
access road would remain one?
Ms. Marti Buxton commented that people had some concern that there
would eventually be thousands of homes built on the proposed open
space. She indicated that Eden Development had no control over the
Milestone development of Cronin Ranch; however the open space is part
of the total project and would be approved as a total project.
Ms. Buxton indicated that in regards to visual impacts, the Eden
Development project would not have any adverse impacts. The area
would look the same except for the emergency access road which is
required. Currently, the open space is privately owned. The open
space will be available for everyone once the project is approved.
Its important to consider everything in context.
Cm. Burnham asked Staff how many houses could be built on the Cronin
property without any grading or to stay within the current City
guidelines.
Mr. Dahlin referred to Chapter #17 {Figure 17-3) which indicates that
approximately 16 homes could be built with minimal grading.
Cm. North asked how many homes could be built if the development
stayed below 740 feet.
Mr. Dahlin estimated that it would be about 30-40 less than proposed
(about 85-95).
Cm. Zika went on to Chapter #6 - Vegetation and Wildlife
Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the preservation of oak woodlands.
He indicated that the current General Plan specifies that the oak
woodlands should be preserved. He felt that we presently had a
limited amount of woodlands and should not eliminate them further and
noted that if we took the same general direction as has been happening
since 1950, we only have 15~ left. This is a national problem and
should be considered so that we can preserve what we still have.
Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the wildlife corridors. He
reiterated the fact that the proposed Brittany Lane road extension
would cut off the resource protection area. It also captures a stream
corridor which exists at the bottom of the cliff on Brittany Lane.
There are a lot of animals living in this area. Both the road
extension and the emergency access road would cut off the wildlife.
Mr. Anderson invited the Commission to view the area near the end of
the existing Brittany Lane.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-6 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
• •
Mr. Doug Abbott was opposed to the massive grading, cut and fill, and
destruction of riparian habitat that will occur with this project. He
stated that there was nothing positive about the proposed project. He
urged the Commission to consider the alternatives noted in the EIR so
that various impacts could be avoided.
Mr. Mike Lutz was concerned about the loss of the oak trees. There
are no current programs to replace them. One alternative would be to
force the Developer to plant additional trees. He was also concerned
with the loss of the wildlife, natural habitat, scenic environment,
and the instability of the hills. These hills are not suitable for
development.
Cm. Zika referred to page 6-9, item 6-7. He quoted "...removed trees
shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio". There is a requirement to replace
the trees.
Ms. Marjorie LaBar reiterated comments from the last three speakers.
She had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension and the
possibility of a regularly traveled road over the ridge. These roads
make a convenient place for people to dump garbage. The Fish and Game
Department discourages island habitats.
Ms. LaBar was also concerned with the loss of riparian and wildlife
habitats and grading. There is no adequate mitigation for the loss of
these habitats. She indicated that once the habitats are gone, we
cannot get them back.
Cm. Zika went on to Chapter #7 - Public Services.
Mr. Abbott referred to Chapter #18 regarding water allotments. He
felt that the State's allotment was inaccurate. Zone 7 has made
comments that refute DSRSD's assurance that there was enough water for
this project. The additional water will cost a lot more money and
present homeowners will need to pay for the water needed for the West
Dublin project. He felt that there should be more information
regarding the amount and cost of additional water supplies before a
commitment is made.
Ms. LaBar had concerns regarding water supply allotments, package
sewage treatment plants and infrastructure funding from Mello-Roos
bonds. She hoped the City would look into these concerns before going
through with the project.
Mr. Anderson referred to page 7-6. He indicated that the water
treatment is to be held in a reservoir which is supposed to re-supply
the ponds for the wildlife. He asked if a study has been done on what
kind of impact this would have on wildlife.
Cm. Zika concluded the meeting.
Cm. North referred to newspaper articles that indicated that DSRSD
cannot supply sufficient amount of water to this project. He asked
Staff if they could get a statement from DSRSD regarding this concern.
Special Meeting PCM-1992-7 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
. , .y. ~ ~
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would request information from both
DSRSD and Zone 7.
Mr. Bruce Webb, representing DSRSD, indicated that the district will
be commenting on the Specific Plan and EIR regarding the water supply
issues.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and continued to the
February 18, 1992 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
"
~s%
e
anning ommi sio hairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Special Meeting PCM-1992-8 January 29, 1992
[1-29min]
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992
P-1 Comment:Population proiections. Cm.North questioned the amount of population
growth projected for this development and what were the indirect effects from this
growth.
Response to Comment P-1(at hearing):Mr.Tong[Planning Director]referred Cm.
North to the indirect off-site employment growth discussed on page 16-6 of the Draft EIR.
P-2 Comment:Existing General Plan policies. Mr.John Anderson referenced Chapter#1-
Existing General Plan policies. He had concems with grading,cutting of ridges,filling of
canyons/creeks,grassland loss,oakwood land loss,slope stability,traffic hazards,open
space management. He indicated in regards to the Highway 580 corridor,HARD was not
in support of the urban development. He indicated that the City would be open to legal
suits if accidents happened because of slope instability/traffic hazards.
Response to Comment P-2:These topics are covered in the EIR as follows:
• General Plan policies-Chapter 3
• Grading-Chapters 5 and 9
• Filling of canyons and creeks;grassland loss;oak woodland loss-Chapter 6
• Slope stability-Chapter 9
• Traffic hazards-Chapter 4
• Open space management-Chapter 7
See response to comment 3-5 regarding City liability.
P-3 Comment:Open space management. He asked who would be responsible for the
management of the open space.Would the City be held liable for accidents? Ms.Silver
indicated that the question is general and open ended. If the Commission had more
specific questions afterwards,she would be happy to answer them. Mr.John Anderson
questioned further if it could be studied now and fmd out what would happen instead of
waiting until something does happen. Could it be part of the study that is being reviewed.
Response to Comment P-3:See response to comment 3-5.
P-4 Comment:Cronin Ranch-emergency access road. Mr.Glenn Brown,representing
Milestone Development,clarified Milestone Development's position regarding the Cronin
Ranch development and its impacts. He discussed the EIR's requirement for an
emergency access road over the ridge as well as the performance standards for that road.
Response to Comment P-4:The emergency access road over the ridge is discussed in the
EIR under Impacts 4H and 5.3G.No issues are raised in this comment,and no response is
necessary.
9:V914RB RC-1
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992,Continued
P-5 Comment:Alternative access to Cronin Ranch. Mr.Brown added that the public has
expressed a concern regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He suggested that the
Commission recommend that a road over the ridge be considered for regular traffic
circulation in place of the proposed Brittany Lane extension which has considerable
impact and little support within the community.
Response to Comment P-5:The Draft Specific Plan(page 4-5)includes a rationale of
why a full street over Skyline Ridge was not included in the plan.Reasons include steep
terrain,visual concerns,unwanted traffic in residential neighborhoods,and intrusion on
the regional trail corridor.
P-6 Comment:Brittany Lane-collector street. Mr.Anderson had concerns regarding the
Brittany Lane extension. He referred to page 4-10 of Volume 1 and page B-36 of Volume
2 and quoted the California Highway Patrol's concerns regarding long access roads and
the Brittany Lane extension. He indicated that Brittany Lane was not designed as a
collector street or access to other neighborhoods.
Response to Comment P-6:Two issues are raised.
Collector street status.Page 4-7 of the Specific Plan describes streets which would
function as arterials and collectors.Brittany Extension is not a collector,but rather is
shown as a residential street which would serve residences within the Cronin project.
Estimated traffic on this street would be about 500 daily trips from the Cronin project
(EIR page 4-10).Collector streets have much higher volumes of traffic.
Safety concerns.The EIR identifies these concerns under impact 4D,page 4-10.The EIR
notes that traffic speeds are likely to increase due to the long straight alignment of
Brittany Drive;this could lead to safety hazards.
P-7 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic. Mr.Mike Lutz had concerns regarding the Brittany
Lane road extension. The main arterial for the Cronin development should be the road
over the ridge. He was not in favor of the development at all;however,he indicated that
Brittany Lane was not designed for additional traffic.
Response to Comment P-7:See responses to comments P-5 and P-6.
P-8 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety.Mr.John Corallo had concerns regarding the
Brittany Lane road extension. There will be too much traffic and speeding which would
cause many safety hazards. People do not stop at the existing stop signs. The children
will be jeopardized and the reasons for owning a home in the hills--quiet,serene area--
will be compromised.
Response to Comment P-8:See response to comment P-6.
9:�d9tl-RCP RC-2
P-9 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic impacts. Mr.Robert Patterson was opposed to using
Brittany Lane as an access road. He was concerned about traffic impacts.
Response to Comment P-9:See response to comment P-6.
P-10 Comment:Effect on surrounding area. Mr.Bob Sakerson indicated that he was
opposed to massive development that would impact the quality of life for everybody. The
hills should be developed in a very prudent and reasonable manner and he hoped that this
development was modified to a degree that does not affect the surrounding area.
Response to Comment P-10:The speaker's opposition to massive development is
acknowledged.No response is required.
P-11 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety. Mr.John Anderson referred to page 4-10 and
B-36 and discussed the safety hazardsfimpacts,such as speeding and stop signs,associated
with the proposed Brittany Lane road extension.
Response to Comment P-11:See response to comment P-6.
P-12 Comment:HARD position on open space management.Mr.Wes Asmussen,HARD,
clarified that the Hayward Recreation Department was not interested in the management
of the open space of the proposed development.
Response to Comment P-12:This is in agreement with the statement made by HARD
personnel and referenced in the Draft Specific Plan,page 7-16.No additional response is
necessary.
P-13 Comment:HARD opposition to Schaefer interchange.He referred to page 4-7,
2Schaeffer Ranch Road interchange. This interchange would have a significant impact on
Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park which is owned/operated by HARD. The District is opposed to
this interchange. He suggested an alternative area for the interchange--approximately
1/4 mile from the proposed interchange.
Response to Comment P-13:Two options for the Schaefer Ranch interchange were
considered in the DEIR(refer to page 4-7): 1)a diamond interchange;and 2)a hook-
ramp interchange.The hook ramp alternative would minimize impacts on the existing
Rowell Ranch. The DEW analysis assumed the hook-ramp option.
Appendix E of the DEIR further analyzes the interchange options. The hook ramp would
be located west of the park's service entrance on Dublin Canyon Road. This alternative
would not create direct impacts on existing park and picnic areas but would require
acquisition of some land for right-of-way. The land necessary for this acquisition would
involve the loss of parking on the periphery of one lot(Page E-11 of the DEIR). It may be
possible to minimize this impact by modifying the alignment of Dublin Canyon Road.
This will have to be further analyzed during a separate environmental review of the
interchange and subsequent discussions with HARD.
RC-3
^d914-RCP B
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992,Continued
P-14 Comment:Traffic mitigations-Eden Development. Ms.Marti Buxton felt that the
mitigation measures noted in the traffic/circulation chapters were well written and Eden
Development could abide by them.
Response to Comment P-14:This comment is acknowledged.No response is needed.
P-15 Comment:Cronin Ranch-compatibility with Silvergate Highlands. Mr.Bill Banse
was opposed to the Cronin Development and hoped the Commission would consider the
reduction of homes being proposed on that property. This would create a more desirable
area which would be compatible to the Silvergate Highlands development.
Response to Comment P-15:Chapter 17 of the EIR includes alteratives to the project
which would have fewer units.In particular,the Cluster Development alternative(Section
17.4)would have 74 units.
P-16 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety. Mr.David Bewley had concerns regarding
the Brittany Lane road extension. He referred to page 4-10 in Volume 1 and page B-36 in
Volume 2. He reiterated Mr.Anderson's concerns regarding safety hazards. This road
will be the longest road in the development and steepest road in the City of Dublin. He
felt that the road was in violation of the General Plan,as amended,and referred to Section
5.1d. He concurred with Glenn Brown's comments about the emergency vehicle access
and noted that the EIR did not focus on the impacts of the surrounding streets connecting
through Brittany Drive.
Response to Comment P-16:several issues are raised in this comment.
Safety hazards.See response to comment P-6.
General Plan policy.Policy 5.1d of the current General Plan deals with levels of service at
intersections.The road would not be in violation of this policy.The comment may be
referring to Policy 5.1d of the original General Plan,which was renumbered to Policy
5.1.0 in the current General Plan.This policy is not proposed for amendment,and states,
"Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and
collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the least friction."This policy does
not apply to the Brittany extension,since it is a residential street.There would be no
violation of this General Plan policy.
Emergency vehicle access.See response to comment P-4.
Impacts of the surrounding streets.Chapter 4 of the FIR is a comprehensive analysis of
traffic impacts.The purpose of this analysis is not to identify all existing traffic problems,
but to note where significant new impacts would be created by the project.The addition of
500 vehicles per day was not viewed as a significant adverse impact on other streets.
R:V914RCY RC-4
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992,Continued
P-17 Comment:Brittany Lane-liability for City. Mr.Bewley stated that there was a
potential liability issue regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He felt that the City
might become liable for any future accidents that may occur because the City allowed the
construction of the road.
Response to Comment P-17:
(to be completed)
R:W U-RCP RC-5
P-18 Comment:Brittany Lane-alternatives. Mr.Emmett King had concerns regarding the
traffic impacts associated with the Brittany Lane road extension. He did not feel that it
would be a wise decision to extend that road.There were other alternatives available.
Response to Comment P-18: Available alternates to Brittany Extension are described in
the EIR,and include the following.
• Substitute a street over the ridge for Brittany Extension.See comment P-5 for an
explanation of why this alternate street is not included in the Specific Plan.
• Reduce the number of Cronin Ranch units to 74 or less,as described in Chapter
17,under the Cluster Development Alternative(Section 17.4).The Brittany
extension would no longer be required as a second access.
• Other street alignments would have greater impacts than Brittany Extension.
P-19 Comment:Project status. Cm.Zika clarified to the audience that the Planning
Commission has not made any decisions regarding the proposed project. The
Commission was listening to everyone's concerns/comments and the document has not
been fmali7ed.
Response to Comment P-19:This comment is acknowledged.Chapter 1 of the EIR
describes the planning process for Western Dublin.
P-20 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety,and other environmental concerns. Ms.
Stephanie Leonard indicated that she lived at the end of Brittany Lane. Several vehicles,
such as garbage collectors,use her driveway to turn around. She was concerned that if the
street is extended,this would create potential traffic accidents. She was also concerned
with the destruction of the beauty of the area,such as the woods,canyons and streams.
Response to Comment P-20:Two issues are raised in this comment.
Traffic safety-see response to comment P-6.
Destruction of the beauty of the area.Chapter 5 of the EIR includes a detailed analysis of
visual impact.
P-21 Comment:Cronin Ranch-traffic counts. Cm.Rafanelli asked...what the traffic
counts would be if the main road out of the Cronin development was the road over the
ridge and the emergency access road was the extension of Brittany Lane.
Response to Comment P-21:The EIR is based on the project as described in the Draft
Specific Plan,which does not include a full street connection over the ridge.Assuming a
50-50 split of traffic between Hansen Hills access and ridge road access,traffic on the
affected Hansen Hills streets would increase by about 630 vehicles per day.
P-22 Comment:Cronin Ranch-traffic on Hansen Subdivision road. Mr.Brown indicated
that there would be an increase in traffic on the Hansen Subdivision road;however,it
would not exceed the capacity of the street,which was 3-4,000 trips.
Response to Comment P-22:See response to comment P-21.
P-23 Comment:Future development in hills. Mr.King indicated that there would
eventually be more than the proposed 125 homes built. There would possibly be
thousands of homes in the future which will create serious traffic concerns. The City was
opening a can of worms if they allow homes in the hills.
Response to Comment P-23:The Specific Plan is written to provide safeguards so that
no additional units could be built.Policy 3-4 states:"The Western Dublin Planning Area
shall be planned for a maximum of 3,260 housing units."Action Program 7.9A includes
restrictions so that open space is retained permanently.
P-24 Comment:Road over ridge-potential traffic problems. Mr.Corallo commented that
young drivers tend to be less experienced and more reckless and would be more prone to
drive on the long downhill streets rather than streets with a lot of stop lights or signs.
Therefore,this will accentuate more problems on any road over the ridge.
Response to Comment P-24:This comment is acknowledged.The Specific Plan does not
include a street over the ridge,for traffic and other reasons.See also response to comment
P-5.
P-25 Comment:Cronin Ranch-Visual concerns.Mr.Brown discussed skyline effect,
performance criteria,roadway shown in exhibits. He agreed with the performance
criteria.
Response to Comment P-25:
Performance criteria.This comment is acknowledged.No response is required.
Skyline effect:The computer simulations in the EWR do not show a skyline effect for the
Cronin project,from the particular viewpoint selected.From other viewpoints,however,
there is the potential for homes to be silhouetted,due to their location at an upper exposed
ridgeline elevation.It is impractical to simulate all possible viewpoints to demonstrate this
point.Mitigation measures are provided in the E1R to avoid this occurrence,since this
would be in conflict with General Plan policy.
Roadway shown in exhibits.Visual performance criteria are included in Chapter 5.
P-26 Comment:Cronin Ranch-development on ridge. Marjorie LaBar,PARC,had
concerns with design of the Cronin Ranch. She questioned if the design was in
compliance with the General Plan being that the development was so high on the ridge.
This project needs to be redesigned and suggested that the alternative,allowing 74 homes
with one access road be a place to start.
Response to Comment P-26:The EIR includes a detailed visual analysis of the Cronin
Ranch in Chapter 5,and includes Mitigation Measure 5.3-9 which generally eliminates
development above 740'elevation.Chapter 17 of the EIR includes alternatives with one
access road and reduced number of homes.
P-27 Comment:Visual impacts across the freeway.She commented on the visual impacts
across the freeway.
Response to Comment P-27:Chapter 5 of the EIR includes a detailed visual analysis of
views from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park across I-580 from the project.
P-28 Comment:Brittany Lane-visual impacts. John Anderson had concerns that Chapter
#5 did not discuss the visual impacts of the Brittany Lane extension. You can see the
saddle from Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road and it is much more visible that the
skyline ridge. He proposed that this impacts should be part of the visual analysis.
Response to Comment P-28:Impact 5.3C in Chapter 5 of the EIR discusses the visual
impact of the Cronin Ranch development for viewpoints in Dublin.Impacts of the
Brittany extension are covered under this analysis.Text has been added to this section to
clarify this point.
P-29 Comment:City's image-additional homes in the hills. Robert Patterson had concerns
with the visual impacts of additional homes in the hills. He indicated that this impact does
nothing for the City's image or the general area.
Response to Comment P-29:Chapter 5 of the EIR includes detailed visual analysis of
the proposed project.
P-30 Comment:Project consistency with General Plan. Paul Speroni,representing Save
Our Hills,had concerns with visual impacts of the project. He indicated that these
impacts are shared with all residents,not just the people in the project vicinity. The
project should be consistent with the existing General Plan and not require any
amendments. If amendments are required,they should be voted upon by the City
residents.
Response to Comment P-30:The proposed General Plan Amendment for Western
Dublin is described in Chapter 1 of the EIR.The comment regarding a vote on the General
Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
P-31 Comment:Unavoidable impacts of the project. Ms.Nancy Nilssen had concerns with
the unavoidable impacts of the project. The impacts were unavoidable if the project was
allowed to be developed. She questioned what the positive aspects were of the project.
Why change the City's policies regarding steep slopes and ridges.
Response to Comment P-31:Chapter 16 of the EIR summarizes the unavoidable adverse
impacts of the E .Positive aspects of the project described in the Specific Plan include
such features as provision of a regional trail,addition of a golf course to the City,and
inclusion of housing in an area where housing is in short supply.
P-32 Comment:Development of the hills. Mr.Don Kelley indicated that there was a lot of
land that could be developed;however,he felt that the hills should be left alone.
Development of the hills cannot be reversed and future generations will not be able to
enjoy the area. The City needs to consider these issues.
Response to Comment P-32:This comment is acknowledged.
P-33 Comment:Brittany Lane-visual impacts. Mr.Bewley reiterated that the Brittany Lane
road extension was not mentioned in the EIR as a visual impact and should be addressed
as one. He felt that the road would be an adverse impact.
Response to Comment P-33:See response to comment P-28.
P-34 Comment:Open space management. He asked what would happen to the project if the
open space was not adopted into an assessment district/maintenance or other mechanism
for management.
Response to Comment P-34:ER Mitigation Measure 7.6-18 requires that arrangements
for long-term maintenance shall be specified before development approval.See also
response to comment P-62.
P-35 Comment:Integrity of open space areas. Mr.Bewley noted then that the integrity of
the open space and resource areas were vital. He reminded the Commission that the
Brittany Lane road extension cut across a resource protection area and the open space is a
vital concept of the plan.
Response to Comment P-35:The EIR includes a detailed analysis of open space issues
in Chapter 7.
P-36 Comment:Brittany Lane-possible emergency access road. Mr.Bewley indicated that
the Brittany Lane road extension could possibly become an emergency access road and
merits consideration. He noted that what changes are made today does not guarantee they
will remain that way forever. What guarantee was there that the emergency access road
would remain one?
Response to Comment P-36:The Specific Plan does not propose Brittany Lane as an
emergency access road.The Specific Plan would need to be amended to change the
classification of a circulation route,with necessary environmental clearance.
P-37 Comment:additional homes in open space. Ms.Marti Buxton commented that people
had some concern that there would eventually be thousands of homes built on the
proposed open space. She indicated that Eden Development had no control over the
Milestone development of Cronin Ranch;however,the open space is part of the total
project and would be approved as a total project.
Response to Comment P-37:See response to comment P-23.
P-38 Comment:visual impacts-Eden development. Ms.Buxton indicated that in regards to
visual impacts,the Eden Development project would not have any adverse impacts. The
area would look the same except for the emergency access road which is required.
Currently,the open space is privately owned. The open space will be available for
everyone once the project is approved. It's important to consider everything in context.
Response to Comment P-38:This comment is acknowledged.The EIR does not identify
any adverse visual impacts of the Eden component of the project on the east-facing slopes
of the Eden property,as viewed from Dublin.
P-39 Comment:Cronin property-number of homes.Cm.Burnham asked Staff how many
houses could be built on the Cronin property without any grading or to stay within the
current City guidelines.
Response to Comment P-39(at hearing):Mr.Dahlin[ElK consultant]referred to
Chapter#17(Figure 17-3)which indicates that approximately 16 homes could be built
with minimal grading.
P-40 Comment:Cronin property-number of homes below 740'elevation. Cm.North
asked how many homes could be built if the development stayed below 740 feet.
Response to Comment P-40(at hearing):Mr.Dahlin[EIR consultant]estimated that it
would be about 30-40 less than proposed,or about 85-95 homes.
P-41 Comment:oak woodland loss. Mr.Anderson had concems regarding the preservation of
oak woodlands. He indicated that the current General Plan specifies that the oak
woodlands should be preserved. He felt that we presently had a limited amount of
woodlands and should not eliminate them further and noted that if we took the same
general direction as has been happening since 1950,we only have 15%left. This is a
national problem and should be considered so that we can preserve what we still have.
Response to Comment P-41:The EIR includes a detailed description of impacts on oak
woodland.Mitigation measures and alteratives to the project are available to reduce these
impacts.The EIR also includes standards for replacement of trees which are removed.
P-42 Comment:Wildlife corridors-Brittany Lane area. Mr.Anderson had concerns
regarding the wildlife corridors. He reiterated the fact that the proposed Brittany Lane
road extension would cut off the resource protection area. It also captures a stream
corridor which exists at the bottom of the cliff on Brittany Lane. There are a lot of
animals living in this area. Both the road extension and the emergency access road would
cut off the wildlife. Mr.Anderson invited the Commission to view the area near the end
of the existing Brittany Lane.
Response to Comment P-42:The area in question is on the eastern edge of the Planning
Area,and includes parts of Martin Canyon and Clark Ridge.The EIR includes a
discussion of impacts on wildlife corridors in Chapter 6,together with mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts.Mitigation Measure 6-19 would apply to any major
habitat areas in the Planning Area.
P-43 Comment:Environmental impacts and alternatives. Mr.Doug Abbott was opposed to
the massive grading,cut and fill,and destruction of riparian habitat that will occur with
this project. He stated that there was nothing positive about the proposed project. He
urged the Commission to consider the alternatives noted in the EIR so that various
impacts could be avoided.
Response to Comment P-43:The EIR includes a detailed analysis of impacts noted in
this comment.Alternatives are discussed in Chapter 17.
P-44 Comment:loss of oak woodland and other amenities. Mr.Mike Lutz was concerned
about the loss of the oak trees. There are no current programs to replace them. One
alternative would be to force the Developer to plant additional trees.He was also
concerned with the loss of the wildlife,natural habitat,scenic environment,and the
instability of the hills. These hills are not suitable for development.
Response to Comment P-44:several points are raised in this comment.
Tree loss(at hearing) Cm.Zika referred to page 6-9,item 6-7. He quoted"...removed
trees shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio." There is a requirement to replace the trees.
Loss of wildlife and natural habitat are covered in EIR Chapter 6.
Scenic environment:visual impacts are discussed in EIR Chapter 5.
Instability of hills:slope instability is covered in EIR chapter 9.
P-45 Comment:Access streets and island habitats. Ms.Marjorie LaBar reiterated comments
from the last three speakers. She had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension and
the possibility of a regularly traveled road over the ridge. These roads make a convenient
place for people to dump garbage. The Fish and Game Department discourages island
habitats.
Response to Comment P-45:See responses to comments P-42(habitat)and 4-2(road
over ridge).
P-46 Comment:loss of habitat. Ms.LaBar was also concerned with the loss of riparian and
wildlife habitats and grading. There is no adequate mitigation for the loss of these
habitats. She indicated that once the habitats are gone,we cannot get them back.
Response to Comment P-46:The EIR covers loss of wildlife habitat in Chapter 6,and
grading issues in chapters 5 and 9.
P-47 Comment:water supply concerns. Mr.Abbott referred to Chapter#18 regarding water
allotments. He felt that the State's allotment was inaccurate. Zone 7 has made comments
that refute DSRDS's assurance that there was enough water for this project. The
additional water will cost a lot more money and present homeowners will need to pay for
the water needed for the West Dublin project. He felt that there should be more
information regarding the amount and cost of additional water supplies before a
commitment is made.
Response to Comment P-47:See responses to comments 3-1 and 3-3.
P-48 Comment:water,sewer,and infrastructure funding concerns. Ms.LaBar had
concerns regarding water supply allotments,package sewage treatment plants and
infrastructure funding from Mello-Roos bonds. She hoped the City would look into these
concerns before going through with the project.
Response to Comment P-48:Issues raised in this comment include:
Package treatment plant.The project does not include an onsite package treatment plant.
While this was discussed at one time,the current proposal would provide for treatment of
wastewater at the existing DSRSD treatment facility in Pleasanton.Appendix G provides
more information on the selection process for wastewater treatment facility location.
Water supply allotments.See response to comment 3-1.
Infrastructure financing.Chapter 10 of the EIR provides a fiscal analysis of the project,
including an analysis of infrastructure financing.Performance standards for financing
techniques are included in Mitigation Measure 10-3.
P-49 Comment:reservoir-impact on wildlife. Mr.Anderson referred to page 7-6. He
indicated that the water treatment is to be held in a reservoir which is supposed to re-
supply the ponds for the wildlife. He asked if a study has been done on what kind of
impact this would have on wildlife.
Response to Comment P-49:Recycled water will be stored in Powerline Canyon
Reservoir.This water would meet stringent state health standards,and would have no
adverse effects on wildlife.Mitigation Measure 6-16 includes a recommendation on use of
water from this source for wildlife.
P-50 Comment:water supply-adequacy: Cm.North referred to newspaper articles that
indicated that DSRSD cannot supply sufficient amount of water to this project. He asked
Staff if they could get a statement from DSRSD regarding this concern.
Response to Comment P-50:See response to comment 3-1.Appendix N has been added
to the FEIR to clarify this issue.
Dublin Planning Commission Hearing:March 2,1992
P-51 Comment:EIR-public comment period. Cm.Zika asked if the 45-day public
comment period for the draft EIR was to expire today(March 2,1992).
Response to Comment P-51(at hearing):Ms.Gillarde[City consultant]indicated yes.
The Final EIR would be discussed during the City Council's review of the project. There
would be amended pages incorporated into the draft EIR.
Ms.Libby Silver,City Attorney,explained that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR,
and the comments/responses received. The Planning Commission will have an
opportunity to review everything before it goes before the City Council.
P-52 Comment:water supply-adequacy of EIR. Cm.Zika asked if the Commission could
reject the EIR if they were not satisfied with the comments received from the Dublin San
Ramon Service District regarding the water supply for this project.
Response to Comment P-52:(at hearing)Ms.Silver indicated that the Commission
could incorporate their comments and make revisions to the Draft EIR before the City
Council starts their review of the project.
P-53 Comment:fiscal impact of project. Cm.North indicated that according to ERA's letter,
the project would"marginally"pay for itself. Did Mr.Spickard have any comments
regarding this matter.
Response to Comment P-53(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated yes,the project was
right on the margin of being fiscally sound. The County will try to maximize its income
and minimize the fiscal benefit to the City.
P-54 Comment:fiscal analysis-effect of Proposition 13. Cm.North asked if a decision
regarding Proposition 13 from the State Supreme Court would have an effect on the fiscal
analysis of the project.
Response to Comment P-54(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated that any change in
legislation could affect the analysis for this project.
P-55 Comment:time required for project buildout.Cm.North asked how long it would take
to build 3,000 homes.
Response to Comment P-55(at hearing):Mr.Spickard estimated that it would take
about 10 years,assuming an absorption of approximately 300 units[per year]. The
infrastructure would be phased during this time period.
P-56 Comment:property tax revenues-assumptions in EIR. Cm.Zika asked if the tax
revenues were based on a percentage of appreciation of the property and what was the
source of this information.
Response to Comment P-56(at hearing):Mr.Spickard explained that it depended on
the market rate of real estate. It was based on 7%real estate appreciation minus 5%
inflation,which would have a net 2%growth.
P-57 Comment:fiscal analysis. Cm.Zika indicated that this analysis assumes everything says
the same. This was a pretty close call.All of the reports were tight projections.
Response to Comment P-57(at hearing):Mr.Spickard concurred. It all depended on
fine tuning certain policies. Some aspects of the project were more flexible,i.e.,open
space maintenance. The management of open space could fall under a homeowner's
association. Adjustments can be made later on.
P-58 Comment:fiscal analysis-inclusion of open space costs. Cm.Zika asked if the
documents included the open space areas.
Response to Comment P-58(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated yes.[A preliminary
estimate would be that]it would cost the City approximately$180,000 a year to maintain
the area.
P-59 Comment:fiscal analysis-conservative assumptions. Mike McKissick stated that the
fiscal analysis created by ERA had very conservative standards. He explained that there
could be a development agreement requiring a private homeowner's association. The
streets could be made into private streets where the homeowners would be responsible for
the street improvements and maintenance. Landscaping maintenance could also be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association. The letter from ERA was a worse[worst]
case scenario.
Response to Comment P-59:In preparing the fiscal analysis for the EIR,ERA has
purposely chosen to use conservative assumptions regarding sales prices,property values
and absorption rates in constructing the fiscal analysis.As the land use economist
protecting the City's financial interest,it is prudent for the consultant to be conservative.
This role often leads the consultant to be more conservative regarding market assumptions
than is the developer proposing the project.On the other hand,ERA's analysis is not a
worst case.The worst case would be an infeasible project.ERA has been careful to
construct a reasonable,mid-range analysis.
P-60 Comment:water supply-adequacy. Elliot Lee,Betlen Drive had concerns regarding
water supply and availability. He indicated that past performance is no indication of the
future.
Response to Comment P-60:See response to comment 3-1.
P-61 Comment:infrastructure financing. John Anderson had concerns regarding the cost of
infrastructure. Would the homes be assessed by a Mello Roos district?
Response to Comment P-61(at hearing):Ms.Silver[City Attorney]indicated that
assessment districts could be established. Mello Roos was a special tax within a particular
district. The City Council would make this determination.
P-62 Comment:open space management. Harvey Scudder had concerns with open space
management. He indicated that homeowners associations do not have the money to
maintain the amount of open space for this project.
Response to Comment P-62(by City Attorney):Section 7.7 of the proposed General
Plan Amendment,titled"Open Space Maintenance/Management",contains Guiding
Policy A which requires open space management and maintenance programs.Open space
management is discussed much more specifically in the draft Specific Plan and draft EIR.
In the Specific Plan,Action Program 7.1A and Table 7-1 reflect the requirement for and
content requirements of a comprehensive open space management plan for both private
and public open space(see pages 7-2 and 7-3).While ownership and management
responsibilities are suggested in Table 7-1,those relationships would have to be finally
established in the approved open space plan.Related text on page 7-1 as well as the action
program description reflect the Specific Plan's emphasis not only on acquisition but also
on long-term management of the open space.
In the draft EIR,loss of on-site open space is a significant impact for which the Specific
Plan open space management plan is a mitigation measure(see pages 3-28 through 3-30).
The mitigation requires the open space plan to be approved by the City,while the Specific
Plan requires that plan preparation be a condition of approval on Western Dublin
development projects.
P-63 Comment:liability for City. Doug Abbott asked who was liable for repaying the bonds
if the project fails. The City should protect itself.
Response to Comment P-63(at hearing):Ms.Silver[City Attorney]explained that the
bonds were secured by the property. Only property in the assessment district could be
taxed.There were several mechanisms available for the issuance of bonds. The bonds
would be spent only when needed.
P-64 Comment:water availability. Bert Michalczyk,DSRSD,gave an overview of the future
availability of water for this project. He confirmed that,currently,there is enough water
to supply a population of 74,000,which could be consumed within 9-14 years from now,
maybe 3-4 years after that. These figures are based on the State allotting 2/3 of the
promised water.
Mr.Michalczyk indicated that ground water would be drawn in the drier years. The water
needs can be met for 9-14 years.
Response to Comment P-64:See response to comment 3-1.
P-65 Comment:water availability-State Water Project. Cm.North asked for clarification
on the State's participation in providing water to the area. He indicated that the State has
not delivered its percentage of water in past years.
Response to Comment P-65(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that three
years ago the State delivered all of the water it promised. Last year,the State delivered
20%of the allocation. This year,the State may deliver 20%,maybe 40%,of its
allocation. He stated that there was no guarantee that the drought would not last longer;
however,it has never happened in the past.
Mr.Michalczyk indicated that the Los Banos reservoir project would support more people
in the next 15-20 years. Zone 7 was studying the use of recycled water,water transfers
and additional storage uses. DSRSD was responsible for protecting the current water
users,reducing the demand and using recycled water wherever possible.
Mr.Michalczyk stated that there was water available. The water may cost more,but it
was available.[See also response to comment 3-1].
P-66 Comment:water-cost. Cm.North asked if the cost of water would increase and would
the new residents bear the cost.
Response to Comment P-66:Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that water costs would
go up with inflation. The new water users would play their fair/equitable fees.[see also
response to comment 3-3].
P-67 Comment:recycled water-regulations.[Mr.Michalczyk-continued].Recycled water
was very important to the success of this project. He reiterated that recycled water would
meet all of the federal and state's strict regulations.
Response to Comment P-67:No response is needed to this statement.
P-68 Comment:wastewater-treatment plant failure. Cm.Burnham asked what would
happen if there was a failure at the treatment plant.
Response to Comment P-68(at hearing):Mr.Michalzyk explained that there were
guidelines in case of a failure. There were holding basins at the treatment plant.
P-69 Comment:reservoir overflow. Cm.Burnham asked what would happen if the reservoir
overflowed.
Response to Comment P-69(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk indicated that a discharge
permit would address overflows. There was a possibility if there was an extreme storm.
[See also response to comment 1-52].
P-70 Comment:recycled water-use on sports grounds. Cm.Zika asked if recycled water
would be used on sports grounds.[This does not involve Western Dublin].
Response to Comment P-70(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that this
was still an open issue. The City Council would need to decide whether to allow this
program.
P-71 Comment:water quality. Cm.Zika had concerns with water quality and asked if it
would get better.
Response to Comment P-71(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]explained that the
Tri-Valley area produced hard water. The salts came from ground water and cannot be
prevented until the drought situation lets up.
P-72 Comment:ownership of recycled water. Cm.Rafanelli asked who would have
ownership of the recycled water.
Response to Comment P-72:See response to comment 1-47.
P-73 Comment:reservoir-fencing. Cm.North asked if the reservoir for the recycled water
would be fenced off from wildlife habitats.
Response to Comment P-73(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated yes;
however,the district was open to other alternatives.
P-74 Comment:recycled water-content. Harvey Scudder had concerns with recycled water
and asked what was the components of the water.
Response to Comment P-74(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk explained that the water
would be filtered tertiary treated water.
P-75 Comment:water quality. Elliott Lee had concerns with the quality of water. The water
has improved over the years. He hoped the standards for water quality would not
diminish.
Response to Comment P-75:This comment is acknowledged.No question was raised in
regard to the EIR.
P-76 Comment:water supply-possible rationing. Mitch Alires had concerns regarding the
drought. The statements from DSRSD were based on too many"ifs." He felt that the
project could not be approved when there was a possibility of future water rationing. This
project could impact future water needs.
Response to Comment P-76:See response to comment 3-1.
P-77 Comment:grading and landslides. John Anderson had concerns with grading and
landslides. He referred to page 9-8 and indicated that it was against the Specific Plan
policies to allow the massive grading.
Response to Comment P-77:Page 9-8 of the DEIR describes proposed grading for the
project.The Specific Plan establishes standards for grading.Policy 8-4 states:"Grading in
the Planning Area shall be kept to an absolute minimum necessary to achieve
development objectives.Grading shall be planned to minimize visual impacts and tree
loss."Action programs in Specific Plan Chapter 8 provide more detailed standards for
grading.
At the same time,the Specific Plan(page 1-5)acknowledges that the Western Dublin site
poses challenges for development,including difficult terrain.The Specific Plan notes that
"massive grading and considerable tree removal would be necessary to build proposed
housing on the site".The Specific Plan notes that these environmental concerns need to be
balanced with the opportunities for development in the Planning Area,including
convenient freeway access,strategic location within the Bay Area,and the opportunity to
provide innovative recycling of water and other resources.
P-78 Comment:grading,geologic hazards,and City liability. Doug Abbott had concerns
regarding the amount of dirt being moved for this project. The City was liable for all
geologic hazards that might occur. He recommended having a hazard abatement district.
Response to Comment P-78(by City Attorney):This is a complicated question with
different answers in different circumstances.
1. Approval of the GPA,SP: The City is generally not liable for its legislative
decisions,such as approval of a GPA,SP or RZ(see Government Code 818.2).
RC-18
2. Approval of Project Permits: The City is generally not liable for the issuance of a
discretionary permit,such as development plans and tentative maps(see
Government Code 818.4). The City should nevertheless make sure that all
environmental and other applicable regulations are followed,e.g.proper findings
made and supported through feasible mitigation measures.
Policy 8-4 and Action Program 8.2A of the Specific Plan(page 8-7)require a detailed
geotechnical investigation for any proposed development in Western Dublin. Draft DEIR
mitigation measures,especially mitigations 9-3 to 9-11,also require detailed grading and
geotechnical study. The purpose of these investigations is to avoid the slides about which
Mr.Abbott is concerned. The question of whether slides are inevitable,and if so,what
the extent of the slides would be,as well as recommended corrective measures,should
perhaps be addressed in the investigation.
[Mitigation Measure 9-4 has been revised to include an explicit requirement for a detailed
geotechnical investigation. The mitigation monitoring program described in Chapter 1 of
the EIR will clarify the timing of geotechnical investigation.]
[See also response to comment 3-5].
P-79 Comment:air quality-construction dust. Mitch Alires had concerns with the amount
of dirt and dust that would be created from the grading and construction of this project.
Response to Comment P-79(at hearing):Cm.Burnham indicated that there were
mitigation measures that would take care of the dust and dirt.
Mr.Tong[Planning Director]explained that there were standard mitigations requiring
certain limitations.With a project of this magnitude there would be a certain amount of
dust and dirt in the area. Staff would be responsible for monitoring mitigation measures.
Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to Chapter#12 of the MR. The Developer was
required to water down the area twice a day. This project was quite a distance away from
existing residential neighborhoods and would not create as much dust and dirt.
Mr.Tong indicated that the Public Works Department would be responsible for taking
care of any dust complaints. The water spraying had short-term benefits.
[see also response to comment P-80].
P-80 Comment:air quality-construction dust. Elliott Lee had concerns with the dust and
dirt issue. He indicated that Dublin was a windy area and the dust would carry from the
west.
Response to Comment P-80:Mitigation Measure 12-7 of the EIR has been augmented to
emphasize the need for effective dust control
P-81 Comment:air quality-construction dust. John Berlan concurred that dust would be a
major problem.
RC-19
B:V91a AR
Response to Comment P-81:See responses to comments P-79 and P-80.
P-82 Comment:geologic hazards-Brittany Lane extension. John Anderson referred to
page 9-10 and indicated he had concerns regarding visual impacts and geological
mitigations. It was impossible to mitigate the hazards associated with the Brittany Lane
extension. There could be secondary effects and quake damage and asked if a study had
been done regarding earthquake impacts. He asked who would be paying for damages
occurring from earthquake and/or landslides.
Response to Comment P-82: The EIR(pages 9-8 and 9-9)states that all geotechnical
hazards of the project can be mitigated to an insignificant level,through application of
stringent and detailed mitigation measures.See response to comment P-5 regarding
liability.
P-83 Comment:schools-potential impacts. Cm.North asked if there were potential impacts
on the schools,such as the Castro Valley School District.
Response to Comment P-83(at hearing):Mr.Tong[Planning Director]indicated that
the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools needed to make a decision on the
district's boundaries.[This topic is covered in Chapter 7.7 of the EIR.Potential impacts
are noted,with mitigation measures to resolve the impacts.]
P-84 Comment:Noise-Schaefer Basin. Cm.North referred to page 11-18 and indicated
there were no mitigations shown for noise levels in the Schaefer Basin.
Response to Comment P-84(at hearing)Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]indicated that
there were no residential areas proposed in that vicinity. The commercial standards for
noise decibels were more relaxed[for proposed commercial development in the Schaefer
Basin].
[Noise impacts and mitigation measures for Schaefer Basin are included in Chapter 11.
Specific mitigations for Schaefer Basin are noted on DEIR pages 11-13 and 11-14].
P-85 Comment:air quality-fireplaces. John Anderson referred to page 12-11 and asked if
catalytic converters would be installed in the fireplaces.
Response to Comment P-85(at hearing): Mike McKissick[Eden project applicant]
explained that the Regional Air Quality Control Board might eventually restrict the use of
fireplaces altogether. There were adjustments being made now.
Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to page 12-13,mitigation 12-3. The catalytic
converters would be required if the Federal Environmental Protection Agency required
them.
P-86 Comment:solid waste. Harvey Scudder had concerns with solid waste management
plans occurring now. There were regulations for compost and pest control.
Response to Comment P-85(hearing):Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to page
7-10. These were State mandated issues.Mr.Tong[Planning Director]indicated that
RC-20
B:�E910.0.CY
there were County-wide waste management plans occurring now. There were regulations
for compost and pest control.[See also responses to comments 6-1 through 6-4.]
P-87 Comment:water-availability. Doug Abbott had concerns regarding water
supplies/resources.He felt that a detailed analysis needed to be done and questioned if
there was enough water available for the project.
Response to Comment P-87:See response to comment 3-1.
P-88 Comment:Parks-access. Mitch Alires had concerns with the park areas. He felt that
there was a small amount of usable parks and wanted to see more accessibility to the park
areas.
Response to Comment P-88:Impacts on parks and recreation are presented in Chapter 7
of the EIR,with mitigations to reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
P-89 Comment:Open space-quantity.Cm.North asked how much open space was within
the project.
Response to Comment P-89(at hearing):Mr.Tong indicated that at least 60%of the
site was in open space. The East Bay Regional Park District was interested in creating a
regional trail system within the proposed site.
P-90 Comment:Brittany Lane extension-alternatives. John Berlan had concerns regarding
traffic impacts on Brittany Lane and asked if there were alternatives to the proposed road
extension.
Response to Comment P-90:See response to comment P-18.
P-91 Comment:additional hearing for clarifications. John Anderson recommended that
another session be held to clarify various issues.
Response to Comment P-91(at hearing):Mr.Tong indicated that there would be
another opportunity for comments on the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment at
the March 16th meeting. Staff was recommending that the public hearing on the
Environmental Impact Report be closed at tonight's meeting.
RC-21
R.WU-RCP
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992
P-1 Comment:Population projections. Cm.North questioned the amount of population
growth projected for this development and what were the indirect effects from this
growth.
Response to Comment P-1(at hearing):Mr.Tong[Planning Director]referred Cm.
North to the indirect off-site employment growth discussed on page 16-6 of the Draft EIR.
P-2 Comment:Existing General Plan policies. Mr.John Anderson referenced Chapter#1-
Existing General Plan policies. He had concerns with grading,cutting of ridges,filling of
canyons/creeks,grassland loss,oakwood land loss,slope stability,traffic hazards,open
space management. He indicated in regards to the Highway 580 corridor,HARD was not
in support of the urban development. He indicated that the City would be open to legal
suits if accidents happened because of slope instability/traffic hazards.
Response to Comment P-2:These topics are covered in the EIR as follows:
• General Plan policies-Chapter 3
• Grading-Chapters 5 and 9
• Filling of canyons and creeks;grassland loss;oak woodland loss-Chapter 6
• Slope stability-Chapter 9
• Traffic hazards-Chapter 4
• Open space management-Chapter 7
See response to comment 3-5 regarding City liability.
P-3 Comment:Open space management. He asked who would be responsible for the
management of the open space.Would the City be held liable for accidents? Ms.Silver
indicated that the question is general and open ended. If the Commission had more
specific questions afterwards,she would be happy to answer them. Mr.John Anderson
questioned further if it could be studied now and find out what would happen instead of
waiting until something does happen. Could it be part of the study that is being reviewed.
Response to Comment P-3:See response to comment 3-5.
P-4 Comment:Cronin Ranch-emergency access road. Mr.Glenn Brown,representing
Milestone Development,clarified Milestone Development's position regarding the Cronin
Ranch development and its impacts. He discussed the EIR's requirement for an
emergency access road over the ridge as well as the performance standards for that road.
Response to Comment P-4:The emergency access road over the ridge is discussed in the
EIR under Impacts 4H and 5.3G.No issues are raised in this comment,and no response is
necessary.
e:vsu.xcr RC-1
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992,Continued
P-5 Comment:Alternative access to Cronin Ranch. Mr.Brown added that the public has
expressed a concern regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He suggested that the
Commission recommend that a road over the ridge be considered for regular traffic
circulation in place of the proposed Brittany Lane extension which has considerable
impact and little support within the community.
Response to Comment P-5:The Draft Specific Plan(page 4-5)includes a rationale of
why a full street over Skyline Ridge was not included in the plan.Reasons include steep
terrain,visual concerns,unwanted traffic in residential neighborhoods,and intrusion on
the regional trail corridor.
P-6 Comment:Brittany Lane-collector street. Mr.Anderson had concerns regarding the
Brittany Lane extension. He referred to page 4-10 of Volume 1 and page B-36 of Volume
2 and quoted the California Highway Patrol's concerns regarding long access roads and
the Brittany Lane extension. He indicated that Brittany Lane was not designed as a
collector street or access to other neighborhoods.
Response to Comment P-6:Two issues are raised.
Collector street status.Page 4-7 of the Specific Plan describes streets which would
function as arterials and collectors.Brittany Extension is not a collector,but rather is
shown as a residential street which would serve residences within the Cronin project.
Estimated traffic on this street would be about 500 daily trips from the Cronin project
(EIR page 4-10).Collector streets have much higher volumes of traffic.
Safety concerns.The EIR identifies these concerns under impact 4D,page 4-10.The EIR
notes that traffic speeds are likely to increase due to the long straight alignment of
Brittany Drive;this could lead to safety hazards.
P-7 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic. Mr.Mike Lutz had concerns regarding the Brittany
Lane road extension. The main arterial for the Cronin development should be the road
over the ridge. He was not in favor of the development at all;however,he indicated that
Brittany Lane was not designed for additional traffic.
Response to Comment P-7:See responses to comments P-5 and P-6.
P-8 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety.Mr.John Corallo had concerns regarding the
Brittany Lane road extension. There will be too much traffic and speeding which would
cause many safety hazards. People do not stop at the existing stop signs. The children
will be jeopardized and the reasons for owning a home in the hills--quiet,serene area--
will be compromised.
Response to Comment P-8:See response to comment P-6.
a:.9,�R RC-2
P-9 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic impacts. Mr.Robert Patterson was opposed to using
Brittany Lane as an access road. He was concerned about traffic impacts.
Response to Comment P-9:See response to comment P-6.
P-10 Comment:Effect on surrounding area. Mr.Bob Sakerson indicated that he was
opposed to massive development that would impact the quality of life for everybody. The
hills should be developed in a very prudent and reasonable manner and he hoped that this
development was modified to a degree that does not affect the surrounding area.
Response to Comment P-10:The speaker's opposition to massive development is
acknowledged.No response is required.
P-11 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety. Mr.John Anderson referred to page 4-10 and
B-36 and discussed the safety hazardsfimpacts,such as speeding and stop signs,associated
with the proposed Brittany Lane road extension.
Response to Comment P-11:See response to comment P-6.
P-12 Comment:HARD position on open space management.Mr.Wes Asmussen,HARD,
clarified that the Hayward Recreation Department was not interested in the management
of the open space of the proposed development.
Response to Comment P-12:This is in agreement with the statement made by HARD
personnel and referenced in the Draft Specific Plan,page 7-16.No additional response is
necessary.
P-13 Comment:HARD opposition to Schaefer interchange.He referred to page 4-7,
2Schaeffer Ranch Road interchange. This interchange would have a significant impact on
Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park which is owned/operated by HARD. The District is opposed to
this interchange. He suggested an altemative area for the interchange--approximately
1/4 mile from the proposed interchange.
Response to Comment P-13:Two options for the Schaefer Ranch interchange were
considered in the DEIR(refer to page 4-7): 1)a diamond interchange;and 2)a hook-
ramp interchange.The hook ramp altemative would minimize impacts on the existing
Rowell Ranch. The DEW analysis assumed the hook-ramp option.
Appendix E of the DEW further analyzes the interchange options. The hook ramp would
be located west of the park's service entrance on Dublin Canyon Road. This alternative
would not create direct impacts on existing park and picnic areas but would require
acquisition of some land for right-of-way. The land necessary for this acquisition would
involve the loss of parking on the periphery of one lot(Page E-11 of the DEW). It may be
possible to minimize this impact by modifying the alignment of Dublin Canyon Road.
This will have to be further analyzed during a separate environmental review of the
interchange and subsequent discussions with HARD.
B:V914RCP RC-3
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29,1992,Continued
P-14 Comment:Traffic mitigations-Eden Development. Ms.Marti Buxton felt that the
mitigation measures noted in the traffic/circulation chapters were well written and Eden
Development could abide by them.
Response to Comment P-14:This comment is acknowledged.No response is needed.
P-15 Comment:Cronin Ranch-compatibility with Silvergate Highlands. Mr.Bill Banse
was opposed to the Cronin Development and hoped the Commission would consider the
reduction of homes being proposed on that property. This would create a more desirable
area which would be compatible to the Silvergate Highlands development.
Response to Comment P-15:Chapter 17 of the EIR includes alteratives to the project
which would have fewer units.In particular,the Cluster Development alternative(Section
17.4)would have 74 units.
P-16 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety. Mr.David Bewley had concerns regarding
the Brittany Lane road extension. He referred to page 4-10 in Volume 1 and page B-36 in
Volume 2. He reiterated Mr.Anderson's concerns regarding safety hazards. This road
will be the longest road in the development and steepest road in the City of Dublin. He
felt that the road was in violation of the General Plan,as amended,and referred to Section
5.1d. He concurred with Glenn Brown's comments about the emergency vehicle access
and noted that the EIR did not focus on the impacts of the surrounding streets connecting
through Brittany Drive.
Response to Comment P-16:several issues are raised in this comment.
Safety hazards.See response to comment P-6.
General Plan policy.Policy 5.1d of the current General Plan deals with levels of service at
intersections.The road would not be in violation of this policy.The comment may be
referring to Policy 5.1d of the original General Plan,which was renumbered to Policy
5.1.0 in the current General Plan.This policy is not proposed for amendment,and states,
"Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and
collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the least friction."This policy does
not apply to the Brittany extension,since it is a residential street.There would be no
violation of this General Plan policy.
Emergency vehicle access.See response to comment P-4.
Impacts of the surrounding streets.Chapter 4 of the EIR is a comprehensive analysis of
traffic impacts.The purpose of this analysis is not to identify all existing traffic problems,
but to note where significant new impacts would be created by the project.The addition of
500 vehicles per day was not viewed as a significant adverse impact on other streets.
e:wiuea RC-4
Response to Dublin Planning Commission Hearing-January 29, 1992, Continued
P-17 Comment: Brittany Lane- liability for City. Mr. Bewley stated that there was a
potential liability issue regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He felt that the City
might become liable for any future accidents that may occur because the City allowed the
construction of the road.
Response to Comment P-17:
(to be completed)
B:\8914-RCP RC-5
P-18 Comment:Brittany Lane-alternatives. Mr.Emmett King had concerns regarding the
traffic impacts associated with the Brittany Lane road extension. He did not feel that it
would be a wise decision to extend that road.There were other alternatives available.
Response to Comment P-18: Available alternates to Brittany Extension are described in
the EIR,and include the following.
• Substitute a street over the ridge for Brittany Extension.See comment P-5 for an
explanation of why this alternate street is not included in the Specific Plan.
• Reduce the number of Cronin Ranch units to 74 or less,as described in Chapter
17,under the Cluster Development Alternative(Section 17.4).The Brittany
extension would no longer be required as a second access.
• Other street alignments would have greater impacts than Brittany Extension.
P-19 Comment:Project status. Cm.Zika clarified to the audience that the Planning
Commission has not made any decisions regarding the proposed project. The
Commission was listening to everyone's concerns/comments and the document has not
been finalized.
Response to Comment P-19:This comment is acknowledged.Chapter 1 of the EIR
describes the planning process for Western Dublin.
P-20 Comment:Brittany Lane-traffic safety,and other environmental concerns. Ms.
Stephanie Leonard indicated that she lived at the end of Brittany Lane. Several vehicles,
such as garbage collectors,use her driveway to turn around. She was concerned that if the
street is extended,this would create potential traffic accidents. She was also concerned
with the destruction of the beauty of the area,such as the woods,canyons and streams.
Response to Comment P-20:Two issues are raised in this comment.
Traffic safety-see response to comment P-6.
Destruction of the beauty of the area.Chapter 5 of the EIR includes a detailed analysis of
visual impact.
P-21 Comment:Cronin Ranch-traffic counts. Cm.Rafanelli asked...what the traffic
counts would be if the main road out of the Cronin development was the road over the
ridge and the emergency access road was the extension of Brittany Lane.
Response to Comment P-21:The EIR is based on the project as described in the Draft
Specific Plan,which does not include a full street connection over the ridge.Assuming a
50-50 split of traffic between Hansen Hills access and ridge road access,traffic on the
affected Hansen Hills streets would increase by about 630 vehicles per day.
P-22 Comment:Cronin Ranch-traffic on Hansen Subdivision road. Mr.Brown indicated
that there would be an increase in traffic on the Hansen Subdivision road;however,it
would not exceed the capacity of the street,which was 3-4,000 trips.
Response to Comment P-22:See response to comment P-21.
P-23 Comment:Future development in hills. Mr.King indicated that there would
eventually be more than the proposed 125 homes built. There would possibly be
thousands of homes in the future which will create serious traffic concerns. The City was
opening a can of worms if they allow homes in the hills.
Response to Comment P-23:The Specific Plan is written to provide safeguards so that
no additional units could be built.Policy 3-4 states:"The Westem Dublin Planning Area
shall be planned for a maximum of 3,260 housing units."Action Program 7.9A includes
•
restrictions so that open space is retained permanently.
P-24 Comment:Road over ridge-potential traffic problems. Mr.Corallo commented that
young drivers tend to be less experienced and more reckless and would be more prone to
drive on the long downhill streets rather than streets with a lot of stop lights or signs.
Therefore,this will accentuate more problems on any road over the ridge.
Response to Comment P-24:This comment is acknowledged.The Specific Plan does not
include a street over the ridge,for traffic and other reasons.See also response to comment
P-5.
P-25 Comment:Cronin Ranch-Visual concerns.Mr.Brown discussed skyline effect,
performance criteria,roadway shown in exhibits. He agreed with the performance
criteria.
Response to Comment P-25:
Performance criteria.This comment is acknowledged.No response is required.
Skyline effect:The computer simulations in the EW do not show a skyline effect for the
Cronin project,from the particular viewpoint selected.From other viewpoints,however,
there is the potential for homes to be silhouetted,due to their location at an upper exposed
ridgeline elevation.It is impractical to simulate all possible viewpoints to demonstrate this
point.Mitigation measures are provided in the EIR to avoid this occurrence,since this
would be in conflict with General Plan policy.
Roadway shown in exhibits.Visual performance criteria are included in Chapter 5.
P-26 Comment:Cronin Ranch-development on ridge. Marjorie LaBar,PARC,had
concerns with design of the Cronin Ranch. She questioned if the design was in
compliance with the General Plan being that the development was so high on the ridge.
This project needs to be redesigned and suggested that the alternative,allowing 74 homes
with one access road be a place to start.
Response to Comment P-26:The EIR includes a detailed visual analysis of the Cronin
Ranch in Chapter 5,and includes Mitigation Measure 5.3-9 which generally eliminates
development above 740'elevation.Chapter 17 of the EIR includes alternatives with one
access road and reduced number of homes.
P-27 Comment:Visual impacts across the freeway.She commented on the visual impacts
across the freeway.
Response to Comment P-27:Chapter 5 of the EIR includes a detailed visual analysis of
views from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park across I-580 from the project.
P-28 Comment:Brittany Lane-visual impacts. John Anderson had concerns that Chapter
#5 did not discuss the visual impacts of the Brittany Lane extension. You can see the
saddle from Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road and it is much more visible that the
skyline ridge. He proposed that this impacts should be part of the visual analysis.
Response to Comment P-28:Impact 5.3C in Chapter 5 of the EIR discusses the visual
impact of the Cronin Ranch development for viewpoints in Dublin.Impacts of the
Brittany extension are covered under this analysis.Text has been added to this section to
clarify this point.
P-29 Comment:City's image-additional homes in the hills. Robert Patterson had concerns
with the visual impacts of additional homes in the hills. He indicated that this impact does
nothing for the City's image or the general area.
Response to Comment P-29:Chapter 5 of the EIR includes detailed visual analysis of
the proposed project.
P-30 Comment:Project consistency with General Plan. Paul Speroni,representing Save
Our Hills,had concerns with visual impacts of the project. He indicated that these
impacts are shared with all residents,not just the people in the project vicinity. The
project should be consistent with the existing General Plan and not require any
amendments. If amendments are required,they should be voted upon by the City
residents.
Response to Comment P-30:The proposed General Plan Amendment for Western
Dublin is described in Chapter 1 of the EIR.The comment regarding a vote on the General
Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
P-31 Comment:Unavoidable impacts of the project. Ms.Nancy Nilssen had concerns with
the unavoidable impacts of the project. The impacts were unavoidable if the project was
allowed to be developed. She questioned what the positive aspects were of the project.
Why change the City's policies regarding steep slopes and ridges.
Response to Comment P-31:Chapter 16 of the EIR summarizes the unavoidable adverse
impacts of the FIR.Positive aspects of the project described in the Specific Plan include
such features as provision of a regional trail,addition of a golf course to the City,and
inclusion of housing in an area where housing is in short supply.
P-32 Comment:Development of the hills. Mr.Don Kelley indicated that there was a lot of
land that could be developed;however,he felt that the hills should be left alone.
Development of the hills cannot be reversed and future generations will not be able to
enjoy the area. The City needs to consider these issues.
Response to Comment P-32:This comment is acknowledged.
P-33 Comment:Brittany Lane-visual impacts. Mr.Bewley reiterated that the Brittany Lane
road extension was not mentioned in the FIR as a visual impact and should be addressed
as one. He felt that the road would be an adverse impact.
Response to Comment P-33:See response to comment P-28.
P-34 Comment:Open space management. He asked what would happen to the project if the
open space was not adopted into an assessment district/maintenance or other mechanism
for management.
Response to Comment P-34:FIR Mitigation Measure 7.6-18 requires that arrangements
for long-term maintenance shall be specified before development approval.See also
response to comment P-62.
P-35 Comment:Integrity of open space areas. Mr.Bewley noted then that the integrity of
the open space and resource areas were vital. He reminded the Commission that the
Brittany Lane road extension cut across a resource protection area and the open space is a
vital concept of the plan.
Response to Comment P-35:The EIR includes a detailed analysis of open space issues
in Chapter 7.
P-36 Comment:Brittany Lane-possible emergency access road. Mr.Bewley indicated that
the Brittany Lane road extension could possibly become an emergency access road and
merits consideration. He noted that what changes are made today does not guarantee they
will remain that way forever. What guarantee was there that the emergency access road
would remain one?
Response to Comment P-36:The Specific Plan does not propose Brittany Lane as an
emergency access road.The Specific Plan would need to be amended to change the
classification of a circulation route,with necessary environmental clearance.
P-37 Comment:additional homes in open space. Ms.Marti Buxton commented that people
had some concern that there would eventually be thousands of homes built on the
proposed open space. She indicated that Eden Development had no control over the
Milestone development of Cronin Ranch;however,the open space is part of the total
project and would be approved as a total project.
Response to Comment P-37:See response to comment P-23.
P-38 Comment:visual impacts-Eden development. Ms.Buxton indicated that in regards to
visual impacts,the Eden Development project would not have any adverse impacts. The
area would look the same except for the emergency access road which is required.
Currently,the open space is privately owned. The open space will be available for
everyone once the project is approved. It's important to consider everything in context.
Response to Comment P-38:This comment is acknowledged.The FIR does not identify
any adverse visual impacts of the Eden component of the project on the east-facing slopes
of the Eden property,as viewed from Dublin.
P-39 Comment:Cronin property-number of homes.Cm.Burnham asked Staff how many
houses could be built on the Cronin property without any grading or to stay within the
current City guidelines.
Response to Comment P-39(at hearing):Mr.Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to
Chapter#17(Figure 17-3)which indicates that approximately 16 homes could be built
with minimal grading.
P-40 Comment:Cronin property-number of homes below 740'elevation. Cm.North
asked how many homes could be built if the development stayed below 740 feet.
Response to Comment P-40(at hearing):Mr.Dahlin[EIR consultant]estimated that it
would be about 30-40 less than proposed,or about 85-95 homes.
P-41 Comment:oak woodland loss. Mr.Anderson had concerns regarding the preservation of
oak woodlands. He indicated that the current General Plan specifies that the oak
woodlands should be preserved. He felt that we presently had a limited amount of
woodlands and should not eliminate them further and noted that if we took the same
general direction as has been happening since 1950,we only have 15%left. This is a
national problem and should be considered so that we can preserve what we still have.
Response to Comment P-41:The FIR includes a detailed description of impacts on oak
woodland.Mitigation measures and alteratives to the project are available to reduce these
impacts.The E]R also includes standards for replacement of trees which are removed.
P-42 Comment:Wildlife corridors-Brittany Lane area. Mr.Anderson had concerns
regarding the wildlife corridors. He reiterated the fact that the proposed Brittany Lane
road extension would cut off the resource protection area. It also captures a stream
corridor which exists at the bottom of the cliff on Brittany Lane. There are a lot of
animals living in this area. Both the road extension and the emergency access road would
cut off the wildlife. Mr.Anderson invited the Commission to view the area near the end
of the existing Brittany Lane.
Response to Comment P-42:The area in question is on the eastern edge of the Planning
Area,and includes parts of Martin Canyon and Clark Ridge.The EIR includes a
discussion of impacts on wildlife corridors in Chapter 6,together with mitigation
measures to reduce these impacts.Mitigation Measure 6-19 would apply to any major
habitat areas in the Planning Area.
P-43 Comment:Environmental impacts and alternatives. Mr.Doug Abbott was opposed to
the massive grading,cut and fill,and destruction of riparian habitat that will occur with
this project. He stated that there was nothing positive about the proposed project. He
urged the Commission to consider the alternatives noted in the EIR so that various
impacts could be avoided.
Response to Comment P-43:The EIR includes a detailed analysis of impacts noted in
this comment.Alternatives are discussed in Chapter 17.
P-44 Comment:loss of oak woodland and other amenities. Mr.Mike Lutz was concerned
about the loss of the oak trees. There are no current programs to replace them. One
alternative would be to force the Developer to plant additional trees.He was also
concerned with the loss of the wildlife,natural habitat,scenic environment,and the
instability of the hills. These hills are not suitable for development.
Response to Comment P-44:several points are raised in this comment.
Tree loss(at hearing) Cm.Zika referred to page 6-9,item 6-7. He quoted"...removed
trees shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio." There is a requirement to replace the trees.
Loss of wildlife and natural habitat are covered in EIR Chapter 6.
Scenic environment:visual impacts are discussed in EIR Chapter 5.
Instability of hills:slope instability is covered in EIR chapter 9.
P-45 Comment:Access streets and island habitats. Ms.Marjorie LaBar reiterated comments
from the last three speakers. She had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension and
the possibility of a regularly traveled road over the ridge. These roads make a convenient
place for people to dump garbage. The Fish and Game Department discourages island
habitats.
Response to Comment P-45:See responses to comments P-42(habitat)and 4-2(road
over ridge).
P-46 Comment:loss of habitat. Ms.LaBar was also concerned with the loss of riparian and
wildlife habitats and grading. There is no adequate mitigation for the loss of these
habitats. She indicated that once the habitats are gone,we cannot get them back.
Response to Comment P-46:The EIR covers loss of wildlife habitat in Chapter 6,and
grading issues in chapters 5 and 9.
P-47 Comment:water supply concerns. Mr.Abbott referred to Chapter#18 regarding water
allotments. He felt that the State's allotment was inaccurate. Zone 7 has made comments
that refute DSRDS's assurance that there was enough water for this project. The
additional water will cost a lot more money and present homeowners will need to pay for
the water needed for the West Dublin project. He felt that there should be more
information regarding the amount and cost of additional water supplies before a
commitment is made.
Response to Comment P-47:See responses to comments 3-1 and 3-3.
P-48 Comment:water,sewer,and infrastructure funding concerns. Ms.LaBar had
concerns regarding water supply allotments,package sewage treatment plants and
infrastructure funding from Mello-Roos bonds. She hoped the City would look into these
concerns before going through with the project.
Response to Comment P-48:Issues raised in this comment include:
Package treatment plant.The project does not include an onsite package treatment plant.
While this was discussed at one time,the current proposal would provide for treatment of
wastewater at the existing DSRSD treatment facility in Pleasanton.Appendix G provides
more information on the selection process for wastewater treatment facility location.
Water supply allotments.See response to comment 3-1.
Infrastructure financing.Chapter 10 of the EIR provides a fiscal analysis of the project,
including an analysis of infrastructure financing.Performance standards for financing
techniques are included in Mitigation Measure 10-3.
P-49 Comment:reservoir-impact on wildlife. Mr.Anderson referred to page 7-6. He
indicated that the water treatment is to be held in a reservoir which is supposed to re-
supply the ponds for the wildlife. He asked if a study has been done on what kind of
impact this would have on wildlife.
Response to Comment P-49:Recycled water will be stored in Powerline Canyon
Reservoir.This water would meet stringent state health standards,and would have no
adverse effects on wildlife.Mitigation Measure 6-16 includes a recommendation on use of
water from this source for wildlife.
P-50 Comment:water supply-adequacy: Cm.North referred to newspaper articles that
indicated that DSRSD cannot supply sufficient amount of water to this project. He asked
Staff if they could get a statement from DSRSD regarding this concern.
Response to Comment P-50:See response to comment 3-1.Appendix N has been added
to the FEIR to clarify this issue.
Dublin Planning Commission Hearing:March 2,1992
P-51 Comment:EIR-public comment period. Cm.Zika asked if the 45-day public
comment period for the draft EIR was to expire today(March 2,1992).
Response to Comment P-51(at hearing):Ms.Gillarde[City consultant]indicated yes.
The Final EIR would be discussed during the City Council's review of the project. There
would be amended pages incorporated into the draft EIR.
Ms.Libby Silver,City Attorney,explained that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR,
and the comments/responses received. The Planning Commission will have an
opportunity to review everything before it goes before the City Council.
P-52 Comment:water supply-adequacy of EIR. Cm.Zika asked if the Commission could
reject the EIR if they were not satisfied with the comments received from the Dublin San
Ramon Service District regarding the water supply for this project.
Response to Comment P-52:(at hearing)Ms.Silver indicated that the Commission
could incorporate their comments and make revisions to the Draft EIR before the City
Council starts their review of the project.
P-53 Comment:fiscal impact of project. Cm.North indicated that according to ERA's letter,
the project would"marginally"pay for itself. Did Mr.Spickard have any comments
regarding this matter.
Response to Comment P-53(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated yes,the project was
right on the margin of being fiscally sound. The County will try to maximize its income
and minimize the fiscal benefit to the City.
P-54 Comment:fiscal analysis-effect of Proposition 13. Cm.North asked if a decision
regarding Proposition 13 from the State Supreme Court would have an effect on the fiscal
analysis of the project.
Response to Comment P-54(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated that any change in
legislation could affect the analysis for this project.
P-55 Comment:time required for project buildout.Cm.North asked how long it would take
to build 3,000 homes.
Response to Comment P-55(at hearing):Mr.Spickard estimated that it would take
about 10 years,assuming an absorption of approximately 300 units[per year]. The
infrastructure would be phased during this time period.
P-56 Comment:property tax revenues-assumptions in EIR. Cm.Zika asked if the tax
revenues were based on a percentage of appreciation of the property and what was the
source of this information.
Response to Comment P-56(at hearing):Mr.Spickard explained that it depended on
the market rate of real estate. It was based on 7%real estate appreciation minus 5%
inflation,which would have a net 2%growth.
P-57 Comment:fiscal analysis. Cm.Zika indicated that this analysis assumes everything says
the same. This was a pretty close call.All of the reports were tight projections.
Response to Comment P-57(at hearing):Mr.Spickard concurred. It all depended on
fine tuning certain policies. Some aspects of the project were more flexible,i.e.,open
space maintenance. The management of open space could fall under a homeowner's
association. Adjustments can be made later on.
P-58 Comment:fiscal analysis-inclusion of open space costs. Cm.Zika asked if the
documents included the open space areas.
Response to Comment P-58(at hearing):Mr.Spickard indicated yes.[A preliminary
estimate would be that]it would cost the City approximately$180,000 a year to maintain
the area.
P-59 Comment:fiscal analysis-conservative assumptions. Mike McKissick stated that the
fiscal analysis created by ERA had very conservative standards. He explained that there
could be a development agreement requiring a private homeowner's association. The
streets could be made into private streets where the homeowners would be responsible for
the street improvements and maintenance. Landscaping maintenance could also be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association. The letter from ERA was a worse[worst]
case scenario.
Response to Comment P-59:In preparing the fiscal analysis for the EIR,ERA has
purposely chosen to use conservative assumptions regarding sales prices,property values
and absorption rates in constructing the fiscal analysis.As the land use economist
protecting the City's financial interest,it is prudent for the consultant to be conservative.
This role often leads the consultant to be more conservative regarding market assumptions
than is the developer proposing the project.On the other hand,ERA's analysis is not a
worst case.The worst case would be an infeasible project.ERA has been careful to
construct a reasonable,mid-range analysis.
P-60 Comment:water supply-adequacy. Elliot Lee,Betlen Drive had concerns regarding
water supply and availability. He indicated that past performance is no indication of the
future.
Response to Comment P-60:See response to comment 3-1.
P-61 Comment:infrastructure financing. John Anderson had concerns regarding the cost of
infrastructure. Would the homes be assessed by a Mello Roos district?
Response to Comment P-61(at hearing):Ms.Silver[City Attorney]indicated that
assessment districts could be established. Mello Roos was a special tax within a particular
district. The City Council would make this determination.
P-62 Comment:open space management. Harvey Scudder had concerns with open space
management. He indicated that homeowners associations do not have the money to
maintain the amount of open space for this project.
Response to Comment P-62(by City Attorney):Section 7.7 of the proposed General
Plan Amendment,titled"Open Space Maintenance/Management",contains Guiding
Policy A which requires open space management and maintenance programs.Open space
management is discussed much more specifically in the draft Specific Plan_and draft EIR.
In the Specific Plan,Action Program 7.1A and Table 7-1 reflect the requirement for and
content requirements of a comprehensive open space management plan for both private
and public open space(see pages 7-2 and 7-3).While ownership and management
responsibilities are suggested in Table 7-1,those relationships would have to be finally
established in the approved open space plan.Related text on page 7-1 as well as the action
program description reflect the Specific Plan's emphasis not only on acquisition but also
on long-term management of the open space.
In the draft EIR,loss of on-site open space is a significant impact for which the Specific
Plan open space management plan is a mitigation measure(see pages 3-28 through 3-30).
The mitigation requires the open space plan to be approved by the City,while the Specific
Plan requires that plan preparation be a condition of approval on Western Dublin
development projects.
P-63 Comment:liability for City. Doug Abbott asked who was liable for repaying the bonds
if the project fails. The City should protect itself.
Response to Comment P-63(at hearing):Ms.Silver[City Attorney]explained that the
bonds were secured by the property. Only property in the assessment district could be
taxed.There were several mechanisms available for the issuance of bonds. The bonds
would be spent only when needed.
P-64 Comment:water availability. Bert Michalczyk,DSRSD,gave an overview of the future
availability of water for this project. He confirmed that,currently,there is enough water
to supply a population of 74,000,which could be consumed within 9-14 years from now,
maybe 3-4 years after that. These figures are based on the State allotting 2/3 of the
promised water.
Mr.Michalczyk indicated that ground water would be drawn in the drier years. The water
needs can be met for 9-14 years.
Response to Comment P-64:See response to comment 3-1.
P-65 Comment:water availability-State Water Project. Cm.North asked for clarification
on the State's participation in providing water to the area. He indicated that the State has
not delivered its percentage of water in past years.
Response to Comment P-65(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that three
years ago the State delivered all of the water it promised. Last year,the State delivered
20%of the allocation. This year,the State may deliver 20%,maybe 40%,of its
allocation. He stated that there was no guarantee that the drought would not last longer;
however,it has never happened in the past.
Mr.Michalczyk indicated that the Los Banos reservoir project would support more people
in the next 15-20 years. Zone 7 was studying the use of recycled water,water transfers
and additional storage uses. DSRSD was responsible for protecting the current water
users,reducing the demand and using recycled water wherever possible.
Mr.Michalczyk stated that there was water available. The water may cost more,but it
was available.[See also response to comment 3-1].
P-66 Comment:water-cost. Cm.North asked if the cost of water would increase and would
the new residents bear the cost.
Response to Comment P-66:Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that water costs would
go up with inflation. The new water users would play their fair/equitable fees.[see also
response to comment 3-3].
P-67 Comment:recycled water-regulations.[Mr.Michalczyk-continued].Recycled water
was very important to the success of this project. He reiterated that recycled water would
meet all of the federal and state's strict regulations.
Response to Comment P-67:No response is needed to this statement.
P-68 Comment:wastewater-treatment plant failure. Cm.Burnham asked what would
happen if there was a failure at the treatment plant.
Response to Comment P-68(at hearing):Mr.Michalzyk explained that there were
guidelines in case of a failure. There were holding basins at the treatment plant.
P-69 Comment:reservoir overflow. Cm.Burnham asked what would happen if the reservoir
overflowed.
Response to Comment P-69(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk indicated that a discharge
permit would address overflows. There was a possibility if there was an extreme storm.
[See also response to comment 1-52].
P-70 Comment:recycled water-use on sports grounds. Cm.Zika asked if recycled water
would be used on sports grounds.[This does not involve Western Dublin].
Response to Comment P-70(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated that this
was still an open issue. The City Council would need to decide whether to allow this
program.
P-71 Comment:water quality. Cm.Zika had concerns with water quality and asked if it
would get better.
Response to Comment P-71(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]explained that the
Tri-Valley area produced hard water. The salts came from ground water and cannot be
prevented until the drought situation lets up.
P-72 Comment:ownership of recycled water. Cm.Rafanelli asked who would have
ownership of the recycled water.
Response to Comment P-72:See response to comment 1-47.
P-73 Comment:reservoir-fencing. Cm.North asked if the reservoir for the recycled water
would be fenced off from wildlife habitats.
Response to Comment P-73(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk[DSRSD]indicated yes;
however,the district was open to other alternatives.
P-74 Comment:recycled water-content. Harvey Scudder had concerns with recycled water
and asked what was the components of the water.
Response to Comment P-74(at hearing):Mr.Michalczyk explained that the water
would be filtered tertiary treated water.
P-75 Comment:water quality. Elliott Lee had concerns with the quality of water. The water
has improved over the years. He hoped the standards for water quality would not
diminish.
Response to Comment P-75:This comment is acknowledged.No question was raised in
regard to the EIR.
P-76 Comment:water supply-possible rationing. Mitch Alires had concerns regarding the
drought. The statements from DSRSD were based on too many"ifs." He felt that the
project could not be approved when there was a possibility of future water rationing. This
project could impact future water needs.
Response to Comment P-76:See response to comment 3-1.
P-77 Comment:grading and landslides. John Anderson had concerns with grading and
landslides. He referred to page 9-8 and indicated that it was against the Specific Plan
policies to allow the massive grading.
Response to Comment P-77:Page 9-8 of the DER describes proposed grading for the
project.The Specific Plan establishes standards for grading.Policy 8-4 states:"Grading in
the Planning Area shall be kept to an absolute minimum necessary to achieve
development objectives.Grading shall be planned to minimize visual impacts and tree
loss."Action programs in Specific Plan Chapter 8 provide more detailed standards for
grading.
At the same time,the Specific Plan(page 1-5)acknowledges that the Western Dublin site
poses challenges for development,including difficult terrain.The Specific Plan notes that
"massive grading and considerable tree removal would be necessary to build proposed
housing on the site".The Specific Plan notes that these environmental concerns need to be
balanced with the opportunities for development in the Planning Area,including
convenient freeway access,strategic location within the Bay Area,and the opportunity to
provide innovative recycling of water and other resources.
P-78 Comment:grading,geologic hazards,and City liability. Doug Abbott had concerns
regarding the amount of dirt being moved for this project. The City was liable for all
geologic hazards that might occur. He recommended having a hazard abatement district.
Response to Comment P-78(by City Attorney):This is a complicated question with
different answers in different circumstances.
1. Approval of the GPA,SP: The City is generally not liable for its legislative
decisions,such as approval of a GPA,SP or RZ(see Government Code 818.2).
B:\t9l4BCP RC-18
2. Approval of Project Permits: The City is generally not liable for the issuance of a
discretionary permit,such as development plans and tentative maps(see
Government Code 818.4). The City should nevertheless make sure that all
environmental and other applicable regulations are followed,e.g.proper findings
made and supported through feasible mitigation measures.
Policy 8-4 and Action Program 8.2A of the Specific Plan(page 8-7)require a detailed
geotechnical investigation for any proposed development in Western Dublin. Draft DEIR
mitigation measures,especially mitigations 9-3 to 9-11,also require detailed grading and
geotechnical study. The purpose of these investigations is to avoid the slides about which
Mr.Abbott is concerned. The question of whether slides are inevitable,and if so,what
the extent of the slides would be,as well as recommended corrective measures,should
perhaps be addressed in the investigation.
[Mitigation Measure 9-4 has been revised to include an explicit requirement for a detailed
geotechnical investigation. The mitigation monitoring program described in Chapter 1 of
the E1R will clarify the timing of geotechnical investigation.]
[See also response to comment 3-5].
P-79 Comment:air quality-construction dust. Mitch Alires had concerns with the amount
of dirt and dust that would be created from the grading and construction of this project.
Response to Comment P-79(at hearing):Cm.Burnham indicated that there were
mitigation measures that would take care of the dust and dirt.
Mr.Tong[Planning Director]explained that there were standard mitigations requiring
certain limitations.With a project of this magnitude there would be a certain amount of
dust and dirt in the area. Staff would be responsible for monitoring mitigation measures.
Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to Chapter#12 of the EIR. The Developer was
required to water down the area twice a day. This project was quite a distance away from
existing residential neighborhoods and would not create as much dust and dirt.
Mr.Tong indicated that the Public Works Department would be responsible for taking
care of any dust complaints. The water spraying had short-term benefits.
[see also response to comment P-80].
P-80 Comment:air quality-construction dust. Elliott Lee had concerns with the dust and
dirt issue. He indicated that Dublin was a windy area and the dust would carry from the
west.
Response to Comment P-80:Mitigation Measure 12-7 of the EIR has been augmented to
emphasize the need for effective dust control
P-81 Comment:air quality-construction dust. John Berlan concurred that dust would be a
major problem.
B.M91MBCP RC-19
Response to Comment P-81:See responses to comments P-79 and P-80.
P-82 Comment:geologic hazards-Brittany Lane extension. John Anderson referred to
page 9-10 and indicated he had concerns regarding visual impacts and geological
mitigations. It was impossible to mitigate the hazards associated with the Brittany Lane
extension. There could be secondary effects and quake damage and asked if a study had
been done regarding earthquake impacts. He asked who would be paying for damages
occurring from earthquake and/or landslides.
Response to Comment P-82: The EIR(pages 9-8 and 9-9)states that all geotechnical
hazards of the project can be mitigated to an insignificant level,through application of
stringent and detailed mitigation measures.See response to comment P-5 regarding
liability.
P-83 Comment:schools-potential impacts. Cm.North asked if there were potential impacts
on the schools,such as the Castro Valley School District.
Response to Comment P-83(at hearing):Mr.Tong[Planning Director]indicated that
the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools needed to make a decision on the
district's boundaries.[This topic is covered in Chapter 7.7 of the EIR.Potential impacts
are noted,with mitigation measures to resolve the impacts.]
P-84 Comment:Noise-Schaefer Basin. Cm.North referred to page 11-18 and indicated
there were no mitigations shown for noise levels in the Schaefer Basin.
Response to Comment P-84(at hearing)Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]indicated that
there were no residential areas proposed in that vicinity. The commercial standards for
noise decibels were more relaxed[for proposed commercial development in the Schaefer
Basin].
[Noise impacts and mitigation measures for Schaefer Basin are included in Chapter 11.
Specific mitigations for Schaefer Basin are noted on DEIR pages 11-13 and 11-14].
P-85 Comment:air quality-fireplaces. John Anderson referred to page 12-11 and asked if
catalytic converters would be installed in the fireplaces.
Response to Comment P-85(at hearing): Mike McKissick[Eden project applicant]
explained that the Regional Air Quality Control Board might eventually restrict the use of
fireplaces altogether. There were adjustments being made now.
Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to page 12-13,mitigation 12-3. The catalytic
converters would be required if the Federal Environmental Protection Agency required
them.
P-86 Comment:solid waste. Harvey Scudder had concerns with solid waste management
plans occurring now. There were regulations for compost and pest control.
Response to Comment P-85(hearing):Dennis Dahlin[EIR consultant]referred to page
7-10. These were State mandated issues.Mr.Tong[Planning Director]indicated that
B^2914-BCP RC-20
there were County-wide waste management plans occurring now. There were regulations
for compost and pest control.[See also responses to comments 6-1 through 6-4.]
P-87 Comment:water-availability. Doug Abbott had concerns regarding water
supplies/resources.He felt that a detailed analysis needed to be done and questioned if
there was enough water available for the project.
Response to Comment P-87:See response to comment 3-1.
P-88 Comment:Parks-access. Mitch Mires had concerns with the park areas. He felt that
there was a small amount of usable parks and wanted to see more accessibility to the park
areas.
Response to Comment P-88:Impacts on parks and recreation are presented in Chapter 7
of the EIR,with mitigations to reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
P-89 Comment:Open space-quantity.Cm.North asked how much open space was within
the project.
Response to Comment P-89(at hearing):Mr.Tong indicated that at least 60%of the
site was in open space. The East Bay Regional Park District was interested in creating a
regional trail system within the proposed site.
P-90 Comment:Brittany Lane extension-alternatives. John Berlan had concerns regarding
traffic impacts on Brittany Lane and asked if there were alternatives to the proposed road
extension.
Response to Comment P-90:See response to comment P-18.
P-91 Comment:additional hearing for clarifications. John Anderson recommended that
another session be held to clarify various issues.
Response to Comment P-91(at hearing):Mr.Tong indicated that there would be
another opportunity for comments on the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment at
the March 16th meeting. Staff was recommending that the public hearing on the
Environmental Impact Report be closed at tonight's meeting.
eSest+-RC? RC-21
n n
l