Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2009 PC Minutes~ ~ ~. • • • • ~~~~~~~ Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 8, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Swalwell; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Melissa Morton, Public Works Director; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Brown the minutes of the August 11,.2009 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 STUDY SESSION: The California Environmental Quality Act - An overview of the California Environmental Quality Act and the role that it plays in the decision making process. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager introduced the subject of the study session and also introduced the presenters Kit Faubion, City Attorney and Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (traffic). Ms. Faubion presented the information regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer presented information regarding Traffic Modeling. The study session goals were: • Provide an overview of the principles and processes of CEQA; • Role of CEQA in the decision making process; and • Role of the Planning Commission in CEQA. Ms. Faubion introduced Cm. Schaub asked when talking about traffic is it referring to circulation in general or just traffic. Ms. Faubion answered circulation in general. ~~,; ~Po~;...~~, z~a 156 Ms. Bourgeois answered that usually the word "traffic" is vehicle oriented but Staff looks at the entire transportation system including .all modes of travel when doing a study. Cm. King asked if the City of Dublin has a Traffic Forecasting Model that projects at certain points in the future. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes - a Travel Forecasting Model or the City's Traffic Model, which is the City's own version, looks at 2030 conditions and a separate version that looks at 2015 conditions as an interim future scenario. Cm. King asked if the document exists separately from any specific project. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes. Cm. King asked if the developer would compare the effects of traffic from their project with the City's Traffic Forecasting Model to see what the overall, accumulative effects would be. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes. Cm. Brown wanted to clarify the term 2030-2015 is in reference to 30 years or 15 years in the future. Ms. Bourgeois answered the year 2030 refers to 21 years from now... Ms. Bourgeois stated that typically Staff tries to look at a specific time in the future. She stated that Staff has a good idea of what types of transportation improvements will be occurring over the next 20 or 30 years as well as land use based on the General Plan. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there are possible projects proposed in eastern Dublin, i.e. a hotel and condos and the Kaiser facility, neither of which. was expected to be as large as they are proposed. She asked how the model would work for these projects and would Staff have to redo the CEQA findings. Ms. Bourgeois stated there is the ability to tier off the EIR's that have been approved but if the proposed project is different and would create impacts that were not previously identified then new analysis would be required. She continued if the old analysis is outdated then it would justify a new analysis to bring it up to date. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager stated that Staff looks at the accumulative effect of the various projects that have already been approved and they would be factored into the model when an additional project is evaluated. Cm. King asked if the model is a computer program and if it is easy to play "what if" games. ,~' d>., ~:, ..~~~ ,? 157 Ms. Bourgeois stated that it is not easy and to execute a model because it typically .runs overnight. She continued that to some degree we can look at different alternatives but it is very labor intensive and time consuming. Cm. Schaub asked how Staff would take into account the slow but steady increase in traffic that is not associated with a large project, for example a shopping center where there. are now more restaurants than was originally planned for and asked how to go back and fix it. Ms. Bourgeois answered that the City model is created from a Regional Traffic Model. Then when a new project is submitted Staff would revise the model to bring it up to what we know today. She continued that within a specific shopping center if an insurance office was changed to a restaurant, which didri t require an environmental review and would be a nominal change, they would not change the model, but larger projects would be reviewed in more detail. Cm. Schaub felt that a small change to a shopping center might be insignificant to the City but for example the fitness club where Good Guys was previously located and if the Planning Commission had approved it there is a more significant impact on traffic then the previous tenant. He felt there would be big impacts to other projects if the new use is approved with more intense traffic. Ms. Bourgeois answered that new a project located in the downtown area would be reviewed and then the model would be updated to what is current. Cm. Schaub asked if the project were approved would the parcel be changed in the model. Mr. Baker answered that Staff would evaluate whether it requires additional traffic analysis and that would be incorporated into the review that is brought to the Commission and if approved that would be factored into future development. Ms. Bourgeois stated that the modeling works by trying to replicate existing conditions within a certain margin of error. Staff then can produce the volumes and compare. that data with actual traffic counts that have been collected on the street which should be within a certain margin of error for it to be a valid model. She continued that once the process is complete Staff would feel comfortable using that model to project future conditions. Chair Wehrenberg asked when projecting conditions does Staff look at side street access or only main thoroughfares. Ms. Bourgeois answered Staff includes major roads and collector roads in the model. She continued that residential streets would be considered together within a single neighborhood into a "traffic analysis zone." She continued when reviewing a certain project Staff would ensure that the access points into the project are correctly reflected in the model to be able to show the number of cars coming into the project from each access point. She stated that beyond the immediate project area some combining occurs to simplify the model. Cm. King asked if the basic idea is to identify potential traffic bottlenecks with the model. 158 Ms. Bourgeois stated the model would examine key locations. of the project whether it's the entrance point to the project or critical locations throughout the City or adjacent cities where Staff believes there is a potential for an impact. Staff would then review the impact as part of the process. Ms. Bourgeois spoke regarding trip generation which estimates the number of trips in and out of the project site. She stated that one in-bound trip is counted as one trip and one out-bound trip is counted as another trip. She continued that Staff estimates the number of trips during peak hours and over the course of the day. She stated that if published data is not available they would need to survey similar locations in the area. Cm. Schaub felt that restaurants generate more trips than a strip mall. Ms. Bourgeois spoke regarding "Level of Service' (LOS) which is most commonly used to measure the effectiveness of an intersection. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City has the capability to modify the light sequence for certain times of day. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes. She continued the City has different time-of-day plans on Dublin Blvd and other locations throughout the City. The analysis will take into account the signal timings however a consultant would ask for the current timing plans and use those to calculate LOS for existing conditions. Cm. Brown asked if the LOS for the intersection of Dublin/Dougherty measures all directions and the turning lanes. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes, the input to the calculations include all the turn movements and takes into consideration the number of lanes. The calculations take the volume, the lane configuration and the signal timing into consideration to estimate the average delay. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the timing for Martinelli Way and if it is there for traffic calming. Ms. Bourgeois stated Chair Wehrenberg was referring to the signal that rests in red, between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. She stated that it was installed as a traffic calming feature for a wide road built to accommodate development which was not built. She stated that the signal rests in red but will change to green when approached if the vehicle is traveling the speed limit. Ms. Bourgeois stated that within the City of Dublin there are two policies adopted as part of the General Plan that identify a LOS D standard. She continued the first is that a "good faith effort" would be made to maintain LOS D on road segments or intersections located on routes of regional significance. This is an agreement established as part of the regional planning efforts within the Tri-Valley area. ~, 159 Cm. Brown asked if when determining the criteria for LOS D would Staff look at what it would take to make the roadway LOS C. Ms. Bourgeois answered Staff would not usually review that but sometimes the mitigation does improve it to a LOS C but it would not be required to be LOS C because that is not the policy. She continued that by trying to maintain a higher level of service there would be impacts to pedestrians. She continued the wider the road the better the LOS, but then the City would have to add turn lanes or additional travel Lanes which will have a negative effect on pedestrians trying to cross the street. Chair Wehrenberg felt the City has the authority to require large companies to provide shuttle buses for their employees or something to lessen the impact to the streets. Mr. Baker stated that there are a variety of mitigations that could be imposed on a project and Staff would review the impact and what mitigations would need to be imposed. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and stated that the developer could be required to pay for extra bus service or a shuttle bus to keep the LOS at a level D or better. Ms. Faubion stated that in the CEQA process the LOS D is anot-to-exceed standard, but as part of the CEQA process, would not be required to mitigate the project to more than that threshold. She continued if a developer wanted to be able to say there will be better performance at a particular intersection then there is nothing to keep them from doing that, but the LOS D is the legal standard that must be met. She also stated that some large businesses that provide employees alternate forms or modes of travel can propose any number of mitigations that in combination might get the project where they want it to go. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she has never known the City to deny a project at a LOS E or F. Mr. Baker stated that the Council could adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration when they feel the benefits of that project outweigh the impacts. Ms. Faubion stated that would be accumulative scenario where the impact wori t happen right away but when there is a LOS E monitoring would be put in place to see if it .will actually happen over time when the project is complete. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Cm. King voted against a project because of the Level of Service. Cm. King stated his concern was the Arroyo Vista project and how the Camp Parks project would effect the intersection of Dougherty Road and the entrance to Camp Parks. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Camp Parks was unknown and was that project factored into the traffic model. Ms. Bourgeois stated that Camp Parks was included in the model for the Arroyo Vista project based on what was known at that time. 160 Cm. King felt there was no determination at that time where the main entrance for Camp Parks would connect with Dougherty Road. Ms. Bourgeois stated that was correct. Cm. King asked if the Commission can add a condition to a project to force them to take steps to improve the level of service at a particular intersection or roadway in their project. Ms. Faubion answered mitigations can be imposed to improve the LOS if it is a commercial use but there are statutory limitations that can be imposed. She felt that the current status is the limitation of imposing a particular mitigation that could affect the employees. She felt the statute does allow a suite of mitigations which is consistent with the actual practice where it is not just one measure that will reduce trips but several. She felt that increasingly employers offer their employees commute alternative encouragements. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a number of employees where the employer would be required to mitigate for traffic impacts, such as 500 employees, etc. Ms. Faubion did not know of a particular number. Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission reviews a Negative Declaration but does not agree with it can the Planrung Commission disagree that there is a negative impact. Ms. Faubion answered that it is possible but did not believe it had ever happened in Dublin. She continued that when the Planning Commission receives the document it has been worked on for a long time and the negative declaration is a legal conclusion put into writing as an attachment to the Initial Study. She stated that the Negative Declaration is within a lengthy Initial Study that answers each question specific to the project and gives the reason that it won't effect the environment. Through the Initial Study all the data is therewith the technical reports attached when the Planning Commission receives the Initial Study with the Negative Declaration they will also receive a recommendation to adopt along with the evidence to support it. Cm. King asked what the requirements are to include written public comments. Ms. Faubion answered that any comments submitted during the public review period becomes part of the record and should be included in the final document. Cm. King asked if someone could do their own study and that would be included because it is a comment by the public. Ms. Faubion answered that would be considered a comment on the draft document and should be included. Cm. Schaub asked what the term "notice" means. ,„ ,~`a',tP~t1J~?'t~, "pit} 161 Ms. Faubion answered the notice under CEQA is not a 10 day notice but is notice there is a document available for review. She stated there is no public hearing required therefore the notice that is sent out only indicates the public review period dates asking for written comments. Cm. Schaub asked who is noticed and is it the same as the 300ft radius listing used for public hearings. Ms. Faubion stated that the notice is sent to a different group of people, typically the applicant, property owner, interested parties, agencies, the state clearing house, and posted at Alameda County. Cm. King asked if the public at large is noticed. Ms. Faubion answered not for the CEQA part of the process. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the document would be on the City's website or would they have to come to City Hall to review it. Mr. Baker answered the document would be posted on the website or CD's would be made available for the public to review. Cm. King asked if there is a specific list of people who have requested to be notified or would the list be associated with a specific project. Mr. Baker stated there is a list of people who requested to be notified of all documents or public hearings and a different list of individuals on a project specific list. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City ever extends the review period. She was concerned because the State agencies have experienced furloughs which gives less time to review. documents. Ms. Faubion answered there have been instances where the review period has been extended but not recently and it is not common because there is a lot of time to review the. document. Cm. Schaub asked how would the City of Dublin account for another city's actions or lack of action. Ms. Faubion answered those issues -are usually reviewed through cumulative analysis. .She mentioned that the Eastern Dublin EIR reviewed the potential urbanization of San Joaquin County because of its proximity to the freeway which made it relevant at the time. She continued Staff would review other general plans as appropriate. Cm. Schaub asked if San Ramon, in going through their process of development, is required to update Dublin regarding what will be built at the city/county line and how it will impact our community. .~n,~,H~ . 162 Ms. Bourgeois stated that the City will ensure that the model reflects what the current assumption is for the development or roadway network. She continued more regionally the city's model is updated periodically to reflect the latest regional land use assumption based on data from the county. Cm. Schaub asked if Ms. Bourgeois was aware of how many cars would cross over from San Ramon to Dublin at the county line. Cm. King was unsure if the information the Commission received included projections for San Ramon. Ms. Bourgeois responded if he was referring to the Arroyo Vista model it would have taken into account regional traffic crossing the county line and projected out to 2030. Mr. Baker added that surrounding jurisdictions, when they are approving a large project, provide Dublin with a copy of the EIR during the notice period so that Staff can review the document to ensure impacts to the City of Dublin are adequately addressed. The City of Dublin will also provide surrounding jurisdictions with an EIR during the notice period for their review as well. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City of Dublin can assess an impact fee at that point. Ms. Faubion answered yes. Melissa Morton, Public Works Director stated that mitigation from project to project varies significantly. She stated that in the case of Dougherty Valley the City is collecting fees for major arterials that are affected such as Dougherty Road. She continued .that the City of Dublin participates in the Tri-Valley Transportation Commission and there is a regional transportation fee assessed which addresses regional transportation demands. The City also participates in the Tri-Valley Triangle Study which reviewed all the modes of travel on I-580, I-680 and Route 84 and coordinated with the other cities in the corridors on not only funding but prioritizations for the projects and how they affect each other. Ms. Faubion continued with the presentation regarding Results of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cm. King asked on what basis would the Commission not recommend approval of one of the documents and is it the Commission s job only to ensure that all issues have been addressed not that the Commission agrees that it is sufficient. Ms. Faubion answered the purpose of the Negative Declaration is for the decision maker to make an informed decision. She continued that a common misconception is that approval of a Negative Declaration automatically means the project will be approved but that is not the case. The Negative Declaration is only one of the various considerations for a project. 163 Cm. King asked if the Commission is only reviewing the sufficiency of the information provided. Ms. Faubion answered yes. Cm. King commented that Ms. Faubion did a wonderful job of .giving the Commission concise answers. Cm. Brown asked if the Initial Study checklist is completed before a general exemption is determined. Ms. Faubion responded the Initial Study is completed only after it has been determined that an exemption does not apply. If there is an exemption under any. one of the three types of exemptions CEQA compliance is complete and nothing else is needed but CEQA compliance is not the same as approving the project. She continued the project may be exempt but would still need to go through the approval process. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the other Planning Commissioners attended the CEQA workshop at the Planner Institute. Cm. Schaub stated he downloaded a PDF regarding how to read an EIR but found that it was not very clear. He intended to forward the document to Jeff Baker. The Planning Commission felt the presentation was very clear and concise and commended the presenters. CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS -NONE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - • Cm. King asked about an email from Jeff Lawrence, Braddock and Logan. Jeff Baker stated the email was regarding Braddock and Logan has entered into an agreement with KB Homes to sell the remaining, undeveloped portion of Cantara. • Chair Wehrenberg stated she was nominated to review the RFQ's for Camp Parks but the meeting was postponed and asked for an update. Jeff Baker answered that the Sun-CaI and the Army are still in negotiations and the project is on hold for the moment. • Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the September 1 City Council meeting where Toll Brothers withdrew their appeal of the Promenade. She shared a letter from Charter Properties received by her daughter regarding the appeal. ~. 164 • Cm. Schaub mentioned that a newspaper article stated that the Windstar project is gone and the City may be buying the land. Mr. Baker responded that Windstar's lost their equity partner and the bank now owns the property and it is not known if the property has been sold as yet. OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doreen Wehrenb Chair Planning Co ' sion ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: \ MINUTES \ 2009 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 9.8.09. doc n .xe~enr~r~~, 204`)¢3 165