Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-1997 PC Minutes' A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the October 14, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEAR1NG 8.1 PA 96-038 (Dublin Ranch - "Area A") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone. Project/site address: 352 + acres north of the 1-580 Freeway, East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, et.al.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staffreport. Mr. Peabody gave a brief statement about the project. He stated there were two projects to come before the Planning Commission this evening. This was a large project and Staff has taken time to prepare a complex presentation. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, gave a very detailed description of the project. She stated that the proposed planned development was consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan and Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution of the Planned Development. A detailed description of Tasha Huston's presentation are attached to these minutes as part of the record Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer. He stated this project has be a long time coming. He stated his design team has been working about 12 years towards this evenings decisions. He introduced his design team for the project. He stated that the Lin's acquired approximately 1,200 acres and 1,000 of it was annexed in 1994. He stated that this project will change over the years as the applicant will want changes as well as the City. He stated the maps and photos around the room were a Regular Meeting 98 October 28, 1997 [10-28 pcmi] freeze frame so that the project could be looked at in manageable sections. He stated they had severaI issues that have come together. He stated that they are confident that they will start the grading of phase 1 as soon as the weather permits. He asked Many Inderbitzen to explain some of the issues on hand. Martin Inderbitzen, commended Staffon the great job they have done. Their commitment of time was shown in the staff report and conditions of approval. He stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval with one exception. He showed some overheads of the project and explained the size of the lots. Area A consists of two components. The fa-st is the residential component and the golf course. It has the potential to be a gated community. They are concentrating on higher densities in the south an west portion of the property and will move to lower densities towards the north and east. He stated there would be and undercrossing to allow for golf carts and pedestrians to cross Fallon Road without stopping traffic. He stated that they were committed to fie timing of the golf course with specified timing of units. He stated the only conflict was with condition number 46 which shows a pedestrian access of the golf course to Fallon Road. He stated that the access was intended for elementary school children and he felt that generally K-5 children were driven to school. He felt a crossing was not warranted and there would be safety concerns with keeping children offthe golf course. That was the one item they would like deleted from the conditions of approval. He asked if anyone had any questions or comments. Cm. Hughes stated that to his understanding, there wasn't any way for children or adults to leave that area on, foot to the west, without going to the extreme north or the extreme south. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that was correct. Cm. Hughes stated that whether or not there was a trail, isn't it fair to assume that the kids would use that route anyway. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they would marshall the course in the two locations to keep pedestrians offthe golf course. He stated that they had oriented the residential project so it does not open up to the golf course. It encourages people to use the surface streets and the pathways created in it. He stated that there was an 80 foot grade and it would be a challenge to get pedestrians across the golf course. Mr. Peabody stated it was approximately 2,000 feet from the north and an equal distance to the south (if residents must take an alternate route to get to Fallon Road). Cm. Hughes stated that he understood that the elementary school on the east side of the project may never be built. If that was the case, the elementary school on the west side of Fallon would be the primary school. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that one school would not be able to handle all the kids. The school district has indicated that the~-e would be a need for another school out there. Cm. Jennings wanted to comment on the statement that kids would be driven to school, but the concept of the Eastern Dublin plan was to encourage people to walk and bike fide. Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district required a designated pedestrian path that was consistent with a bike route to the schools. His feeling was the benefits of the short cut was less important than the liability issue ora child getting hit in the face with a golf ball. Cm. Hughes asked what the topography was for the middle of this pod (nei~borhood). Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the whole area was elevated from the road. Cm. Oravetz asked what would prevent kids going out any of the access ways and crpssing the golf course. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that it would be posted adequately and there would be marshall's monitoring it. Cm. Oravetz wanted to go on record as stating kids K-5 and golf courses don't mix. He stated that it would be a safety hazard. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that state and federal law requires the course be ADA accessible. Regular Meeting [10-28 pcmi] 99 October 28, 1997 Cm. Hu~?jaes asked if the City considered an elevated foot path. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that would exacerbate the elevation problem. Cm. Oravetz stated the golf course was a 5,000 yard corn:se, and asked if the golf course could be championship len~-~_h, or if they were restricted by open space area. Mr. Inderbitzen stated they don't own the property to the north and it gets steep. They tried to stay out of the environmentally sensitive areas and were confined with the mount of area they have. It may not be championship in len~-~th, but will be a lot of fun. Cm. Oravetz stated the course should be championship lengxh. Tyde Butler, Robert Jones Associates, stated that given the amount of area they have and topographical configuration of the site, it was not achievable to get a championship level golf course on this site. Cm. Hughes asked if some of the homes were eliminated, could they do it then. Mr. Butler stated that the potential would be greater. ooin¢' in the area. He stated that this course would be Ted Fairfield stated they were sensitive to the number of golf courses faster and every bit as challenging. He said they gave up 100 lots that could have been adjacent to the golf course. He felt further reduction in density would defeat the purpose of the plan. Ms. Huston responded to the Fallon Road and access issues. She felt it was important to promote alternate modes of transportation and promote pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. She stated that areas L4, L2, L3 and L5 would generate 150+ students. Even if elementary students were driven to school, the middle and high school students would use other ways such as walking and biking. She felt kids will find a way across the golf course even if there was not a path. She stated there were examples everywhere where there are paths in golf curses. Cm. Oravetz asked what kind of pedestrian crossing was Staff proposing. Ms. Huston stated Staffhad considered a pedestrian bridge. She stated that there were two runnels to the north and intersections to the southern edges of the project that would have signals and cross walks. Cm. Johnson asked the distance between the green on 17 and tee on 18 between the development and the street. Mr. Inderbitzen stated about 700 feet. Ms. Huston stated it was about 200 ft. to Fallon Road as the crow flies, but 60 feet in elevation change. Mr. Fairfield stated that if ADA requirements apply, they were limited to a 12-1 slope. Ms. Huston stated that there were many factors to consider in terms of topography. Fallon Road increases in elevation as it goes north. The golf course is lower, Fallon Road is in a valley and then the golf course raises up to the west side of Fallon. Cm. Musser asked if it met ADA standards. Mr. Peabody stated that ADA was not always required, otherwise there would not be any paths up the hills. Keith Hatvorson, Consultant for Public Works, stated that there was debate on whether it should be fully ADA accessible. In terms of the two paths, it would be beneficial to grade separate the path that the kids travel and the path that the golfers would travel on. .-.-Z-. Cm. Oravetz asked if Mr. Halvorson had experience in building paths across golf courses. '( ~:..:_: Reg'ular Meeting [10-28 pcmi] 100 October 28, 1997 Mr. Halvorson responded no. He stated that there was one a few miles away, the Iron Horse trail in San Ramon and it has many areas that people can cross. He felt it could be done. Cm. Hughes asked how they would get to the path. Mr. Halvorson stated that it was a problem trying to take up that kind of elevation. He stated that he has done an ADA path at 5%. Staff has not done an in-depth study, and think it could be done. Cm. Hughes asked if it was 200 feet from the west end to Fallon Road or across Fallon Road to the development on the other side. Ms. Huston stated to Fallon Road. Mr. Inderbitzen felt that they should not be engaging in the technical exercise of designing the path. It would be a challenge and would create a significant conflict between golfers and non-golfers. He stated the school district does not encourage the path, and felt they would not want to design it here tonight. Cm. Hu~es stated he played on several golf courses and there will be pedesn'ians on the golf course. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that it was always a challenge to keep pedestrians off, but when you invite them on to the golf course, it is creating a whole level of conflict. The Iron Horse trail parallels the golf course, it does not cross it. This golf course has crossings designed into it. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Hughes asked if Staffhad come up with a feasible way to actually build this path. Ms. Huston stated she believes you could start the path further back and slope down. She suggested it would run along the back of the homes. It could be done with adjustments to the golf course. Cm. Musser suggested that the condition be modified to state the applicant and Staff will work towards a solution for the path. Cm. Oravetz asked who would be liable if someone got hit with a ball. Libby Silver, City Attorney stated it would not be the City. Cm. Oravetz wanted entered into the record that golf courses and kids do not mix. He didn't think there was a way to design a path without hurting the integrity of the golf course. He stated that the school district was against the path anyway. Cm. Jennings stated that she did not hear that the school district was against the path. She asked Mr. Inderbitzen for clarification on the subject. Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district was not encouraging the crossing. Cm. Hughes stated that he has seen a lot of kids on golf courses that did not give a hoot about a path. He hates to see a plan disrupted for something that may not work anyway. Cm. Jermings asked if the proposal would be approved if it was disfiguring to the golf course. Ms. Huston stated that was not the intent. The language of the condition could be changed. The issue could be studied, and ifa solution could not be arrived, it could come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Peabody stated it could be reworded, but it was the Planning Commission's decision if they want it or not. Cm. Jennings suggested that wording be placed in number 46 of exhibit D of the staff.report. Regular Meeting 101 October 28, 1997 [10-28 pcmi] Cm. Hughes moved to adopt the resolution with revision of number 46 of exhibit D, requesting the City and the developers work together to fred a safe crossing across the golf course yet not affect the working of the golf course at the time of tentative map. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 97- 23 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE CONCERNING PA 96-038 DUBLIN RANCH AREA A The Planning Commission took a five minute recess. All members of the Planning Commission were present when the recess was over. 8.2 PA 96-039 (Dublin Ranch - "Areas B-E") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment. Project/site address: 453+ acres north of the 1-580 Freeway, East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, et.al.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Ms. Huston gave a details description of areas B-E. She used overheads to show the areas B through E and stated what would be in each area. She stated the project site was covered by the EIR. An initial study was prepared for this area. Traffic, visual, and biological issues were studies, and would be addressed in the earlier EIR. She stated staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolutions for areas B-E. A detailed description of Tasha Huston's presentation are attached to these minutes as part of the record Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they concur with the staff report and he had nothing to add. Cm. Oravetz asked who developed the community park. Mr. Peabody stated the City. Cm. Oravetz asked what the grade was in that area. Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was relatively flat with some hills. Cm. Jennings closed public hearing. On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hughes and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 97-24 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, APPROVAL OF AN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE CONCERNING PA 96-039 DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B-E Regular Meeting 102 October 28, 1997 [10-28 pcmi] NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule Mr. Peabody stated the next meeting will be November 10, because November 11 was a City holiday. All Commissioners stated they could be there. He stated that a Planning Commission meeting was scheduled on December 23rd and asked if everyone could make it. The Planning Commission stated they could. 9.2 Discussion on what the Planning Commission would like to see in the way of Planning Commission packets Mr. Peabody asked if Staff was giving the right amount of information in the Commissioner's packets, and if they want to continue getting all the information. Cm. Hughes stated that he does not look at all of it. A discussion was held on what information to give to the Planning Commission. The consensus was reached that they all like to get all the information so that they can review the entire package. Cm. Oravetz reported on the Downtown City Task Force meeting. He stated that one major issue was competition with the business owners with Eastern Dublin. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Community Development Director Respectfully s~ubmitted, 'P[an~in~ (~ommission C~rp~rs~n' - - Regular Meeting 103 October 28, 1997 [10-28 pcmi] Staff Report presentation - Areas B-E (PA 96-039) The proposal now before you is the Planned Development for Areas B throuqh E, which occupies approximately 450 acres Of the Lin property. The Areas B-E project has been processed as a separate project from Area A for two main reasons: 1) the site planning for Areas B-E has not been done to as great a level of detail as Area A - it is purposely left at a conceptual stage. Also, the Areas B-E PD involves minor land use amendments from those shown in the SP for the Elementary School site, the Community Park, and for a small portion of land within the Livermore Airport Protection Area, which was previously designated residential. I would like to describe the development concept, and then summarize the land use and environmental analysis conducted by staff. Following my presentation, I believe the applicant's representative, Martin Inderbitzen, would like to say a few words, and of course, we will be happy to answer any questions. The proposed development involves both residential and commercial development, along with a Community Park, Neighborhood Square, two partial school sites, and 32 acres of Open Space. The residential areas would support 1,875 units in eleven distinct neighborhoods accommodating a range of housing types. Single-family detached homes, on lots ranging in size from approximately 2,000 to over 6,500 square feet are expected to be the predominant type of housing in the Medium Density neighborhoods, although some attached units are permitted as well. Medium-High and High-density neighborhoods will likely consist of multiple-family developments of attached units, including condominiums and apartments. Rural- residential/Agricultural uses are designated for 99 acres. The General Commercial and Campus Office uses would occur on nearly 86 acres of the site, and be similar to that found in the newer commercial and business park areas of the Tri-valley area. The project also involves an intermittent stream corridor and public trail system, and two Community Parks totaling approximately 85 acres. The site topography involves mainly open grassland on a varied landscape including flat plains near the freeway, a region of gentle slopes and low foreground hills beyond, where the large Community Park site is located, and increasing in elevation toward the upper hills to the north. The intermittent stream corridor also rims alongside the Community Park site and through the project. The ridgelands of the property are located in Area D, in which environmentally sensitive resources are preserved for low-intensity rural residential/agricultural uses. This area also includes a stream valley, which is designated for another community park site. Residential development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the foreground hills. Some of the more predominant residential development concepts include conventional small-lot single family, courtyard or cluster single-family, and townhouse/condominium projects. Apartment developments of up to 31.4 units per acre are anticipated in the flattest portions of Area B. Provisions have been made to encourage access from residential neighborhoods to parks, trails and open space, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents. The development concepts are depicted in the Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-l, which has been provided to you tonight in bound format. As with Area A, this Land Use and Development Plan will complete the second stage of zoning for the property, which was prezoned as a PD District when the area was annexed to Dublin. However, the Areas B-E plan is more conceptual in nature, to allow greater flexibility in the development of the property. In order to provide this flexibility while gaining the assurance of high-quality and appropriate development, a detailed set of design guidelines and development standards has been developed for the Areas B-E project. With these standards, staff believes that the City can ensure that future developments occurring on the site will be appropriate in nature for the community. Subsequent planning approvals and other permits which will follow this application include a Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Site Development review, and Building Permits. As a part of the proposed PD Rezoning, minor amendments to land use diagrams of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan were necessary for several reasons. The development proposed for Area C includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land which is proposed to be changed from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The adopted Specific Plan anticipated such an amendment, because the area is located within the Livermore Airport Protection Area and residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially incompatible. The proposed Commercial land use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The magnitude and intensity of development that could occur if the amendments are adopted are substantially consistent with the development envisioned for the Specific Plan. The Planned Development also includes adjustments to land uses previously designated for an elementary school site and for the southern community park. This results in additional areas proposed to be designated for Medium Density Residential, including 10 acres no longer needed for the elementary school, and approximately 16 acres previously designated for the Community Park (amount of parkland needed for development in the Specific Plan has decreased). Because the precise acreage needed for the Community Park is yet to be confirmed by the City, 13 of these acres adjacent to the park have been designated for Medium Density Residential or a Community Park. The area can be considered for residential development only after the City Council determines that this portion is not needed for Community Park land. In addition, the proposed project involves a shift of 8 acres from the General Commercial designation to the Campus Office designation. The shift would translate into a decrease of approximately 83,000 square feet of commercial space and an increase of 130,000 square feet of office space, but the proposed shifts do not involve an increase in the overall acreage of these two land use designations. The Specific Plan anticipated the need for flexibility in developing these land uses (see EDSP, Chapter 4.5). The proposed modifications and amendments would result in a long-term development pattern consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan Staff believes the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the City's guiding documents for land use decisions (General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance). The project provides a coordinated plan for development of a variety of land uses. It provides for this development through a framework of protective development standards that reflect the sensitive biological, aesthetic, topographic, and other features of the site. The project's Land Use and Development Plan uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more intense development in the appropriate site areas, and less intense or no development in the more sensitive areas of the site. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing open spaces among development areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing recreation facilities to serve the community. This project site is also covered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or EIR), prepared for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Extended Planning Area program EIR, which anticipated future development such as this PD Rezone. The adopted statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program discussed earlier also relate to this project. An Initial Study was prepared for the Areas B-E project, to evaluate potential project-specific impacts, and determine whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR. The Initial Study's focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic, noise, visual, and biological effects, and public service issues such as wastewater and schools. In each case, studies have determined that the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated in the earlier EIR. As with the Area A project, staff is asking the Commission to verify whether staff's recommendations regarding the project's use of the mitigation measures is appropriate. For example, A noise study will be required prior to any development occurring, to ensure the project complies with the City's noise standards. The condition of approval for this project also states that if the noise study identifies undesirable noise attenuation (such as a 12-foot high soundwall) that greater setback distances may be required and the intensity of the residential development may be affected. This means that in residential areas where noise sources are reaching threshold levels, units may need to be concentrated away from the noise sources, leaving room for noise buffers, such as land berms, or simply larger setbacks. This could be accomplished through detailed site planning, however, and no additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project. A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for this project to examine the proposed development concept. It determined that the project concept generally complies with the City's scenic corridor policies and related mitigation measures of the EIR. Several design guidelines and development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and made conditions of approval. As long as future development is consistent with the concept analyzed in the visual study, No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR should occur, and additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would not be required. Staff has therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation of the potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for project level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's plans, policies, and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed Planning Commission resolution for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Planned Development. This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that the applicant's representative may wish to speak. 4 ~ ~informatidn'and many-'complex issues.:;~ We';haYe been wOrking'on this project for about a ;~:Year dealin'g :With these'i~Suesland Witl~:th~"~(~'(~perati0n 'hr'the apPlicantS',` their Planners and : )-~:.architects'i-~e- have done a t~Orough anaiY~,is Of the pr°P0.~al.' ~Be~aus6 the project is So '.~ CompleX,. my'CommentS'Will by necessity be technical in 6rdei' t° appropriately describe the -~? project and make the record'Clear. Still, although the process has been lengthy, we have successfully assembled a set of recommendations for this project which I believe both the Staff and the applicant can support.' .~ · ' Thesite is East of Tassajara Road, and north of the 580 freeway. The Lin family owns over 'r 1,000 acres of land Which was annexed to the City in 1995, after approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plam'A portion of the Lin property received City approval for a Planned Development of 847 homesin January 1996, and is known as Dublin Ranch Phase I. Grading on the Phase I site has not yet begun, but groundbreaking could occur this spring. The current proposal is for the second phase of Planned Development applications. The Area A development is to the east of the Phase'l site, and involves 573 single-family detached homes, a golf course, and 145 acres of open space. Site planning for Area A has been completed to a fairly detailed level of design, and includes actual lot and street layouts. This Planned Development includes a Land Use and Development Plan, 'consistent with the City's zoning requirements. Subsequent planning approvals and other permits which will follow this application include a Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Site Development review, and Building Permits. I would like to briefly describe the development concept, and then take a few minutes to summarize the. land use and environmental analysis conducted by staff. Following my presentation, I believe the applicant's representative, Martin Inderbitzen, would like to say a few words, and of course, we will be happy to answer any questions. The proposed physical development consists of 573 homes on lots ranging in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet; an 18-hole golf course; an intermittent stream corridor and public trail system, and open space; on approximately 352 acres of land. Seven distinct neighborhoods are proposed, with various densities of single-family detached homes. The site topography involves a combination of hilly knolls, ridges, and valleys. Development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the hills and on the tops of the lower knolls. The upper hillside areas are designated for Rural-Residential/Agricultural uses, and the undeveloped slopes surrounding the development are reserved for open space. Perimeter residential lots are oriented to have views of the golf course and open space areas, and openings for view corridors and access to trails and open space have been provided, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents. The development concept is depicted on the Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-1. The Land Use and Development Plan has been provided to you in bound format, and consists of the following: - a written project description, - a land use plan, (labeled LUDP/DPDP) - a site plan (showing lot and street layouts), - design guidelines (including land use and development standards), - design concepts, (preliminary architectural drawings), - and other supporting text and diagrmns which illustrate the development The sprial bound version consolidates these items from the binders which were distributed previously for your review. As mentioned earlier, the adoption of this Land Use & Development Plan is the second step in implementing the zoning for a Planned Development District, and includes identifying the land use designations for the site. These must be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Pre-zoning designations applied to the site when it was annexed. Your confirmation of the consistency of the proposed land uses is one of the key actions before you tonight. The Staff Report contains a complete discussion of staff s recommendation for this consistency, but I would like to summarize the proposed land uses and the issues analyzed by staff. First, the Land Use diagram shows about 135 acres of proposed residential development. The site plan lays out these units at an overall density of 4.4 units/acre across the project site, consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan maximum density for Single Family Residential. Second, The Land Use diagram designates nearly 145 acres of Open Space land. The Open Space includes undeveloped grassy slopes between development areas, a segment of the planned intermittent stream corridor, and the proposed multi-use trail and bicycle path along Fallon Road. It also accommodates the proposed 18-hole golf course. The proposed golf course would occupy portions of the Rural Residential/Agr. areas and the Open Space between development areas. The golf course and accessory clubhouse would be open to the public on a fee basis. Through the low intensity golf course development, the LUDP provides for outdoor recreational opportunities for project residents and the public. It also maintains large areas of green space which buffer the sensitive ridgeland and stream corridor areas, and which contribute to maintaining a rural quality for the project site. This proposal has been analyzed in light of the Goals, policies, and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, and staff believes that it i__s consistent with the goals of providing open space for outdoor recreation and for resources preservation. However, your recommendation and validation of this assessment is needed. Alongside a portion of the golf course, next to Fallon road, is a 12-foot wide multi-use trail. This trail continues to the south and links with a 100-foot wide open space corridor, containing an intermittent stream, and provides for north south connections through the Dublin Ranch site, and also to off-site locations such as future schools and community parks. The stream corridor also preserves a continuous open space area and provides an environment for wildlife movement. The multi-use trail is one of the features shown on the "Recreation Amenities" diagram included in the "Design Guidelines" section of your binders. This exhibit shows some of the trails and pedestrian connections which are part of the project's planned "greenbelt-type" circulation system. One of the primary goals of the EDSP is to provide a circulation system which is convenient and efficient, and encourages alternate modes of transportation, to promote a less auto-dependent community. Paths for pedestrian and bicycle circulation are an important component of such a circulation system. It is for this reason that one of the conditions of approval requires that an additional safe route be provided across the open space area between neighborhood L-3 and Fallon road, through the proposed golf course. A pedestrian and bicycle trail is needed across the proposed golf course, to provide the children in these neighborhoods a convenient route to the elementary school in Phase I. Finally, the project proposes no development on the visually sensitive ridgelands in the northeast and easterly portions of the site, designated for Rural Residential/Agricultural areas. The Planned Development is consistent with the Specific Plan intent to preserve sensitive areas for visual resource value and to provide open space for passive recreation. The Development Plan includes gentle slopes for both natural and landscaped open spaces and buffers around and along virtually all of the residential neighborhoods. The project uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more intense development in the residential neighborhood areas, and less intense or no development in the Open Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture areas. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing an open buffer between development areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing limited development for recreation in less sensitive areas. For the next part of my presentation, involving the project's Environmental Review, I would like to refer to a summary of previous project actions, which outlines the environmental review history for this project. I know this is alot of text, so I have highlighted the key actions relating to my comments. This project site is covered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or EIR), prepared for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Extended Planning Area, certified in May of 1993. The EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin, including the PD Rezone for this project. The EIR identifies impacts from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan, some of which were not able to be mitigated, and so, upon certifying the EIR, the City adopted a statement of overridin~ considerations for several impacts, some of which relate to this project ..... For example, the visual impact of development upon an area which is currently rural in nature, cannot be avoided, and the City acknowledged this impact when it approved the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City also adopted a program to monitor conditions of the EIR and ensure mitigation was applied where appropriate. These mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages in the development process, some occurring prior to approval of this PD Rezone, and others occurring later in the development process. For example, the EIR required that to help mitigate the impacts from altering the visual quality of the hillsides, grading techniques should be used which minimize alteration of the topography. This is required to be demonstrated by the grading plans for the Planned Development and tentative maps. Part of the analysis by staff, which you are being asked to certify, is whether the project adequately demonstrates use of these techniques. Finally, a focused Initial Study was prepared for the project in June of 1997, to evaluate, at a project- specific level of detail, whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project, beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR. The Initial Study's focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic, noise, visual, and biological effects, and public service issues such as wastewater and schools. Each of these issues has been the subject of supplemental environmental studies addressing this specific stage of the project. In each case, studies have determined that the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated in the earlier EIR. For example, A supplemental noise study was conducted for the project to determine whether any additional noise impacts would occur, or whether any additional mitigation measures were needed. The study established outdoor noise goals based upon the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan standards, and identified areas in which 6-foot tall sound barriers would be needed to achieve these goals. The requirement for these barriers is a standard condition for residential development near arterial roadways, and has been incorporated into the project. No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project. A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for the project at a project-specific level to determine whether the project design complies with the mitigation measures of the EIR and whether any additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would be required. The artists renderings displayed before you illustrate views of the development at buildout. A computer-generated visual analysis also evaluated the project design in terms of the Specific Plan visual policies .... Several design guidelines and development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and made conditions of approval, to require such things as grading refinements as the project proceeds. Staff has interpreted the EIR and Specific Plan policies, and concluded that No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project. Standard Traffic, Biological, and Public Service/infrastructure Studies have also been completed for the Dublin Ranch project, as discussed in the Staff Report. In each case, because Recommendations and requirements from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and reflected in the conditions of approval, No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project Staff has therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation of the potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for project level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's plans, policies, and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed Planning Commission resolution for the Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development. This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that the applicant's representative may wish to speak.