Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-20-1996 PC Agenda III • PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting-Dublin Civic Center Tuesday-7:30 p.m. 100 Civic Plaza,Council Chambers February 20,1996 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS-January 16,1996 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION-At this time,members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item(s)of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed,or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore,a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Director(no later than 11:00 a.m.,on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting)to have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)Study Session The project involves a request for residential and commercial development including 474 homes and 11 acres of retail/office uses on approximately 500 acres west of the Dublin City limits. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment,PD Rezone,Annexation,Subdivision Map,and Development Agreement. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and receive comments from the Planning Commission and the public on the draft EIR and the project.No action will be taken. This item was continued from the January 16, 1996 meeting. 9.2 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards The City has completed a draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. This document complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,which requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road,1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and adopt a set of scenic corridor policies,and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. This item was continued from the January 16,1996 meeting. 10. OTHER BUSINESS(Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) 11. ADJOURNMENT (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) eIN 01 ,‘Oz‘ \\\ CITY OF DUBLIN - (.5 �/ .... . __ . P.O.. Box 2340. Dublin, California 94568 • City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, Californa 94568 FAX #833-6628 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET J--- DATE: ( 16 ( 9C,0 F #OF PAGES SENT ( INCLUDING COVER SHEET) TO: ' -.a , e. FAX #: , • inn ' FROM: 'i� Lu(Q�,( im) J DEPARTMENT: t�1t 1 rr8 SUBJECT: -PI.a4'lnl irl. brnm3z--» on A9 er d(L , . COMMENTS/DIRECTIONS: NOTE: IF YOU ARE NOT CLEARLY RECEIVING THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CALL (510) 83.J CO CO l . THANK YOU. c:\planning\forms\inhouse\fax-form Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Inspection (415) 833-6620 Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415) 833-6610 Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415) 833-6630 • Recreation (415) 833-6645 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: February 20, 1996 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner Ok" ((L(/ SUBJECT: PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Project Draft EIR BACKGROUND This project site is part of an area that the City of Dublin has designated as the Western Extended Planning Area. The Dublin General Plan states that specific development in this area will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies. Previous planning in the Western Extended Planning area began in 1989, with the preparation of a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992. However, the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment were rejected in a City referendum that year. The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. The proposed plan was designed as the result of the input provided by concerned citizens, governing agencies, and service agencies in numerous meetings during and since the previous planning efforts in the Western Dublin area. The City Council, in July of 1994, authorized the Staff to conduct a General Plan Amendment Study for this project, including preparation of an EIR. The EIR document is the result of studies conducted over the past 14 months to assess the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to the project. For additional information on the history of the Schaefer Ranch project, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report from the January 16, 1996 meeting, attached as Exhibit A. A Study Session and Public Input meeting was scheduled before the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996. The Commission heard a brief presentation by Staff, and provided an opportunity for the public to comment on the Draft EIR. However, due to the meeting running late, the Commission requested that further discussion on this item be rescheduled to the next available Planning Commission meeting. The Schaefer Ranch Draft EIR has been scheduled for review and input at the February 20, 1996 meeting, and the period for public review of the Draft EIR has been extended to this date. DESCRIPTION A project description was included in the Staff Report for the January 16, 1996 meeting, and is attached as Exhibit A for further information. As mentioned in the previous staff report, there will be no formal action by the Planning Commission regarding the Schaefer Ranch project at this meeting. The purpose of the February 20 meeting is to provide additional opportunity for public input on the Schaefer Ranch Draft EIR. ITEM NO. `T. COPIES TO: PA 94-028 FILE CAROL CIRELLI TASHA HUSTON SCHAEFER HEIGHTS,ASSOC.-ROB YOHAI JIM PARSONS ADMIN.FILE PAGE_'OF 7 This meeting was designed to occur during the official "public comment" period for the EIR, and intended to provide the opportunity for public involvement in the planning process, consistent with the objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public comments are encouraged at the public meeting, and written comments can be submitted to the Dublin Planning Department. As the planning process proceeds, several steps will be taken as the various aspects of the project are considered. The processing steps and estimated schedule for the City's consideration of the project and EIR is as follows: December 27, 1995: EIR Public Comment Period Begins January 16, 1996: EIR Public Comment Meeting and Study Session before the Planning Commission February 20, 1996: Second Public Comment Meeting held, and EIR Public Comment Period Ends March 12, 1996: City Council to consider Contract Amendment; Consultant begins responding to Comments on EIR April 1996: Final EIR Distributed; General Plan Amendment (GPA) Document under review May 1996: Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GPA adoption begin CONCLUSION For the purposes of the February 20 Public Meeting and Study Session on the EIR, Staff recommends that the Commission consider the information presented, and use this opportunity to comment on the Draft Schaefer Ranch EIR. This public meeting will also provide the Public with the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the EIR and the project. Written comments are strongly encouraged, and will be accepted through the end of tonight's meeting, which constitutes the end of the public comment period (ending on February 20, 1996). The development proposal and requested entitlements will be analyzed and discussed in greater detail at public hearings to be held after the Draft EIR is reviewed, and when the Final EIR and the General Plan Amendment document are considered for certification and adoption this May. RECOMMENDATIONS: FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff, Applicant, and EIR consultant presentations 2) Open public comment session 3) Take testimony from the public 4) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 5) Close public comment session and discuss 6) Adjourn study session ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Report from the January 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting (g:\pa#\1994\94028\SRPC2-20.doc) 2 PAGE OF-Z EXHIBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: January 16, 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner 7 CI—C1 SUBJECT: PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Project and EIR GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: The Applicants are proposing residential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling+500 acres west of the Dublin city limits. The proposed project includes the following: • A General Plan Amendment for the +500 acres of land under the control of the property owners,changing land use designations from agricultural to various urban land uses. In addition,General Plan policies may be added or amended. • Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Agreement and subsequent Annexation. • Annexation and/or detachment from various Service Districts, possibly including the Castro Valley School District, Dublin School District, and Dublin-San Ramon Services District. APPLICANTS & PROPERTY OWNERS: Schaefer Heights,Inc., (Otto Schaefer,Jr.,Robert J.Yohai, Sal S.Zagari), Schaefer Heights Associates,and Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. LOCATION: Schaefer Ranch Road,Alameda County(Adjacent to and West of City of Dublin) ASSESSOR PARCELS & PARCEL SIZE: OWNER PARCEL# ACREAGE Schaefer Heights Associates 85A-1000-001-14 24.49 " 85A-1000-001-16 32.45 " " 85A-1000-001-17 76.51 941-0018-002-02 47.00 " " 941-0018-002-03 32.05 941-0018-005-00 2.67 941-0018-006-00 73.51 Otto Schaefer, Jr. 85A-1000-001-18 155.87 Robert J.Yohai & Sal S. Zagari 85A-1000-001-09 5.51 CC 85A-1000-001-11 2.07 Dennis &Laurie Gibbs 85A-1000-002-04 48.0 ITEM NO. %t7` 1 COPIES TO: PA FILE OWNER/APPLICANTS SR.PLANNER 2 PROJECT PLANNER C . ADMIN.FILE PAGE Qj r , GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Western Extended Planning Area EXISTING ALAMEDA COUNTY ZONING AND LAND USE: Agriculture; Cattle grazing with a few rural homesites SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Cattle grazing; Alameda County Agricultural District South: Interstate 580 Freeway East: Grading underway; Planned Development District with residential use approved (Donlon Canyon project) West: Cattle grazing; Alameda County Agricultural District HISTORY: July 11, 1994 City Council approved a request submitted by James Parsons on behalf of Schaefer Heights Associates which authorized and initiated the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study. The Council defined the study area boundaries, which initially included approximately 452 acres, and directed Staff to prepare a consultant contract for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the project. October 24, 1994 City Council approved the Contract for Consultant Services for preparation of the Schaefer Heights General Plan Amendment EIR, and Amended the General Plan Amendment Study Area to include approximately 48 acres adjacent to the project site, owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. March 21, 1995 A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed by the City to public agencies potentially affected by the project, and to interested individuals, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. June 13, 1995 City Council approved the first Amendment to the Contract between the City of Dublin and WPM Planning Team, Inc.,to add a specialized fire service study to address fire protection impacts and issues raised in response to the Notice of Preparation distributed for the project. October 5, 1995 City Administration Staff approved a minor revision to the Contract between the City of Dublin and WPM Planning Team, Inc.,to add supplementary Noise and Traffic analyses. December 21, 1995 A Notice of Completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)was mailed to affected public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. A copy of the EIR was mailed to affected public agencies and made available for public review, and the public comment period was opened. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to this project. The California State Government Code also regulates several aspects of this project, including but not limited to the amendment of the Dublin General Plan, annexation of a project area to the City, subdividing land, and other development entitlements. 2 PAGE OF BACKGROUND: This project site is part of an area that the City of Dublin has designated as the Western Extended Planning Area. The Dublin General Plan states that specific development in this area will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies. Previous planning in the Western Extended Planning area began in 1989,with the preparation of a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992. However,the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment were rejected in a City referendum that year. The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. The proposed plan was designed as the result of the input provided by concerned citizens,governing agencies,and service agencies in numerous meetings during and since the previous planning efforts in the Western Dublin area. The City Council,in July of 1994,authorized the Staff to conduct a General Plan Amendment Study for this project,including preparation of an EIR. The EIR document is the result of studies conducted over the past 14 months to assess the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to the project. ANALYSIS_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the EIR analysis,the Schaefer Ranch project is defined to include the Schaefer Heights project component and the Gibbs project component. The Schaefer Heights component properties are mainly under the control of Schaefer Heights Associates, and comprise approximately 452 acres. The Gibbs project component,comprising one parcel owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs,involves approximately 48 acres. The Schaefer Ranch project studied in the EIR proposes the following land uses: 474 housing units 10.7 acres of retail office uses 33.9 acres of public/semi public land(includes major street rights-of way) 162.6 acres of parks and recreation uses 89.0 acres of other open space(includes areas owned and maintained by homeowner's association) At buildout,the project site would have a maximum of about 1,517 residents. The overall project density would be less than one unit per acre. About 11.5 acres of woodland would be removed by grading,and the proposal includes plans for contour grading with 3:1 slopes to create softer,more natural appearing landforms,reduce erosion,and improve revegetation programs. The Applicants have also proposed a number of restoration and environmental education efforts, including: -revegetation of native grasses and oak woodlands, -protection or enhancement of three existing ponds as aquatic and avian habitat, -introduction of State-protected wildlife to the enhanced habitats, -creek restoration program to enhance riparian habitat currently degraded by cattle grazing, -creation of an"eco-camp"site for learning experience in environmental and natural sciences. 3 PAGE, OF Z PROJECT ISSUES As required by State Law,several aspects of the project are analyzed in the EIR in considering the environmental impacts of the project. Through this analysis,several issues have been raised and are discussed further in the EIR. A partial list of the issues which have arisen through study of the project to this point appears below: A. Project grading on steep slopes B. Protection of woodland areas C. Provision of Public Safety and fire protection services D. Access to the remainder of the Western Extended Planning Area PROJECT ACTIONS There will be no formal action by the Planning Commission regarding the Schaefer Ranch project at this introductory Study Session meeting. As the planning process proceeds,several steps will be taken as the various aspects of the project are considered. The Schaefer Ranch project will include the following actions: General Plan Amendment: The Dublin General Plan map would be amended to accommodate the project site. Land use designations would be changed from agriculture to various urban uses. In addition, General Plan policies would need to be added or amended. The specific revisions and policies affected by the project are contained in the Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment document which has been prepared as part of the project analysis. Prezoning: The site would be prezoned from the existing County agricultural zoning to a City Planned Development(PD)District. Annexation to City: The City will make a request to LAFCO to approve annexation of the site to the City. Annexation to Special Service Districts: The project site would need to be annexed to the Dublin-San Ramon Services District and to the Alameda County Zone 7 Water Agency for provision of water, wastewater,and drainage services. Securing approval of permits from various agencies: Various permits include,but are not limited to, California Department of Fish and Game,Caltrans,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Regional Water Quality Control Board,etc. Securing approval of plans and permits from the City of Dublin for other aspects of development: Various permits include,but are not limited to,a Development Agreement,Subdivision Map,Site Development Review,etc. Other actions associated with project approval will be taken as necessary. The EIR document contains a more comprehensive discussion of the actions associated with the project. 4 PAGE W OF 7 PLANNING PROCESS The purpose of this Study Session is to introduce the Schaefer Ranch Project and EIR to the Planning Commission and public,and to provide an opportunity to inform and receive public comments on the project. This meeting was designed to occur during the official"public comment"period for the EIR, and intended to provide the opportunity for public involvement in the planning process,consistent with the objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Public comments are encouraged either verbally at the public meeting,or in writing,submitted to the Dublin Planning Department. The processing steps and estimated schedule for the City's consideration of the project and EIR is as follows: December 21,1995: EIR Public Comment Period Begins January 16, 1996: EIR Public Comment Meeting and Study Session before the Planning Commission February 12, 1996: EIR Public Comment Period Ends March 12, 1996: Contract Amendment-Consultant begins responding to Comments on EIR April 1996: Final EIR Distributed;General Plan Amendment(GPA)Document under review May 1996: Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GPA adoption begin July 1996: Final Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GPA adoption CONCLUSION For the purposes of the January 16, 1996 Public Meeting and Study Session on the EIR,Staff recommends that the Commission consider this report as an introduction to the Schaefer Ranch Project. The public meeting format will provide the opportunity for questions and comment from the public regarding the EIR or the project. Public comments on the EIR will be accepted through the public comment period,which ends on February 12, 1996. The project will be analyzed and discussed in greater detail at public hearings to be held after the Draft EIR is reviewed,and when the Final EIR and the General Plan Amendment document are considered for certification and adoption later this year. RECOMMENDATIONS: FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff,Applicant,and EIR consultant presentations 2) Open public comment session 3) Take testimony from the public 4) Question Staff,Applicant and the public. 5) Close public comment session and discuss 6) Adjourn study session (g:\pa#\1994\940281SRPC 1-16.doc) PAGE OF ., 5 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: February 20, 1996 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff ifn n PREPARED BY: Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards ENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: The City has completed a draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. This document complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,which requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and adopt a set of scenic corridor policies, and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. LOCATION: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ANALYSIS: This item was continued from the January 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting,the Planning Commission received a staff presentation,which included a brief presentation from Linda Gates of David L. Gates and Associates,who prepared the draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. Due to the desire of the Planning Commission to have the last agenda item heard,and to have additional time for the staff report and document review,the Commission continued the item to the February 2Oth Planning Commission meeting. Since the January 16th meeting,staff and the consultant met with two property owners that had concerns with some of the scenic corridor standards. As a result of that meeting,staff and the consultant revised certain responses to comments as depicted with underlines and strikethroughs on Attachment 1. Both property owners concur with these changes. Item No. I.2- Copies To: Project File Admin.File Senior Planner PAGE I OF tL Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution Exhibit C recommending that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and recommending City Council approval of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards(Exhibit A from previous staff report), and the Response to Comments document(Exhibit B from previous staff report and Attachment 1 from this staff report). The document's policies and standards comply with the policies and action program requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: FORMAT: 11 Hear staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from the public. 3) Question staff and the public. 4) Deliberate. 5) Adopt Resolution Exhibit C relating to the official adoption of Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated Scenic Corridors and the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards;or give staff direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated Scenic Corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards;or give staff direction and continue the matter. To approve the project as presented, a Planning Commissioner may make a motion such as: /move to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and 1-580);1-580(portion that abuts the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area);and Fallon Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and 1-580),as designated Scenic Corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards(see January 16, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report) Exhibit B: Responses to Property Owner/Staff Comments(see January 16, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachment 1 of this Staff Report) Exhibit C: Resolution Recommending City Council Approval ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Responses to Property Owner/Staff Comments-Revisions Ig:\Eastern Dublin\scenic\2-20pcsr\crc 2 "AGEaOFIL_ RESOLUTION NO. 96 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALLY ADOPT I-580, TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD AS DESIGNATED SCENIC CORRIDORS AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES AND STANDARDS WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on November 2, 1993; and WHEREAS,the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains an implementation measure (Action Program 6Q) that requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors; adopt a set of scenic corridor policies; and establish review procedures and standards within the scenic corridor viewshed; and WHEREAS,the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards (Policies and Standards) document implements Action Program 6Q of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is consistent with the policies and action programs of Chapter 6 - Resource Management of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the Policies and Standards will promote the preservation of important visual resources within the Eastern Dublin area; and WHEREAS the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. and no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the project that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the project is within the scope of the FEIR. The project implements mitigation measures of the FEIR and an initial study will be conducted for each development application that is required to comply with the Policies and Standards document; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the official designation of Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fallon Road as scenic corridors, and the approval of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and 1-580); I-580 (portion that abuts the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area); and Fallon Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and I- 580), as designated scenic corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1-16-96. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director g:\eastdubl\scenic\2-20pere\crc EXHIBIT c PAGE-2 OF LL Comments on Administrative Draft of Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards Comments have been received from four sources, Elizabeth H. Silver, John DiManto, Robert Harris, and the Dublin Planning Staff. Minor changes such as spelling and simple rewording that did not affect the meaning of the text have already been incorporated. Comments from the various sources are attached, and have been numbered, and the following responses apply to those numbered comments. The responses in plain type are modifications that will be made to the final document, if approved. The portions of the responses that appear in italics are explanatory comments. aril PAGE T OF 1 1 . • Responses to Comments Responses to Comments of Elizabeth H. Silver 1. Figure references will be added throughout. 2. See response to#1. 3 - 5. At Subsections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.2.1, first bullet, after"sections," add"as is appropriate". 6 - 13. At Subsection 2.1.2, first sentence, omit"also," and after"submit," add", in addition to the requirements of Section 2.1". Language in Subsections 2.1.3, and all subsequent Subsections which contain the same language shall be changed in the same manner. Responses to Comments of John DiManto 1. Add" - example"to Figure 13 and Figure 15 captions. These graphics are presented as examples, only. They are not meant to restrict the possible range of alternatives for meeting the standards, but only to illustrate some options. 2. Figure 6: Viewpoints, is modified to indicate views more precisely. In addition, a graphic will be added showing the building heights allowed within these shaded areas. For Viewpoints 2 and 3, the view cones indicated by the shadowed areas (as modified) are not very restrictive, due to the fact that those Viewpoints are located on the overpasses for Tassajara Road and Fallon Roads. These Viewpoints are much higher than the adjacent Scenic Corridors. For Viewpoint 2, a 40 foot building located at approximately 50 feet north of the freeway, would not screen views to the ridgeline, and a 60 foot building, set back 400 feet, would not screen views to the ridgeline. Given the general commercial land use designation, and the percentage of parking required, it is unlikely that a situation would occur where more than 25% of the view would be screened. 3. Alternative footprints are certainly possible; this illustration is meant as an example, only. 4. At Section 2.2, first bullet, reword as follows: "Plans demonstrating that buildings are sited and designed in a manner consistent with gateway prominence." Responses to Comments of Robert Harris 1. Modify as suggested. 2. Modify as suggested. 3. Add, at the end of this definition, "that is visible from the Scenic Corridor." 4. Modify Figure 4 to show the Community Park off Fallon Road, and the Neighborhood Park adjacent to Tassajara Creek. • 5. Page 18 is the back of a figure page. PAGE 5-- OF I 6. Add, at the end of the second bullets under Standard 1.1 (for betli Viewpoints 2 and 3): "The total horizon line shall be defined as the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from the Viewpoint." This provision shall be further clarified with the attached"Viewpoint 2" graphic, which will be referenced on "Figure 6: Viewpoints". Delete, in the third bullet(for Viewpoint 3): "the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25% of the total horizon line or". 7. Add, at the end of the third bullet under Standard 1.1, after the previous addition: "The horizon line of the foreground hills is generally defined described as that part of the horizon which rises above an elevation of 450 440 feet." This provision shall be further clarified with the attached"Viewpoint 3"graphic, which will be referenced on "Figure 6: Viewpoints". These foreground hills are discussed at pages 71- 72 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, where it states that "In particular, no development shall extend above the natural ridgeline of these low-lying hills." Given that the ground elevation of most of the area between the Viewpoint and these hills is 360, and that the Viewpoint itself is located on the overpass, at a much higher elevation, and given the parking ratios for the neighborhood commercial development expected to occur in this area (as set forth in the Specific Plan), the application of this provision to horizon above 450 4449 feet should not be restrictive. Within most of Viewpoint 3's shaded area, , a building would have to be more than 40 feet tall to obstruct the view. 8. At Standard 1.2, add a second bullet stating: "Any structure which lies within a viewcone of a Viewpoint described in Standard 1.1 shall adhere to the provisions of Standard 1.1 only. The provisions of Standard 1.1 shall supersede the provisions of Standard 1.2 for those structures." The 25% restriction applies to the areas shaded on the Viewpoint Map, and represents the total view blockage allowed. Again, because these Viewpoints are located on the overpasses, some 20 feet above the ground level, this provision should not be restrictive. 9. Some of the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are in fact inconsistent. These Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards are intended to clarify and resolve some of these inconsistencies as they apply to visual resources in relation to Scenic Corridors. 10. No longer applicable, because wireframes are not being used in this document. 11. At Standard 3.1, fourth bullet, after"recommendations," delete "including" and add the following sentence: "The following provisions from the Specific Plan Design Guidelines are incorporated into this Standard as requirements:" 12. At Standard 6.2, first bullet, change "15 degree angle"to "10 degree angle," and at the second sentence, after"creek crossing," add "building". We have reviewed the setback with this change, and while it does affect the extreme rear portion of one large corner lot, is does not seem to conflict with the plan submitted for Dublin Ranch. No redesign should be necessary. 13. The word "recognizably"has been deleted. 14. -Revise graphic to state "30 ft. average setback." PAGE to OF The fencing setback in this illustration is derived from the Tassajara Road cross section in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Community Design Guidelines. By using the word "average,"flexibility is added. It is the intent of this Standard to be flexible about the means of achieving the semi-rural ambiance described. The words "such as" indicate that hedgerows, informal clusters, or orchard patterns are not exclusive means to achieve this. It should be noted that in this section of the Scenic Corridor, there are no significant views of a natural feature, so the scenic quality of this segment must be achieved by establishing and maintaining the scenic quality of the right-of-way itself To this end we have suggested the semi-rural ambiance as the primary scenic feature. 15. Modify by adding the following bullet to Standard 11.1: "Strive to minimize visual impact of reservoirs in these areas through siting, design, and landscaping." 16. At Standard 11.3, first sentence, after"maintain," add"generally." This area is almost entirely open space and rural residential. 17. See Response#7 4-1. 18. At Standard 12.2, first bullet, second sentence, after"Beginning," add "approximately." 19. Modify as suggested. 20. The two bullets under Section 1 indicate that if the applicant shows that the project will not be visible from the Scenic Corridor or from the Viewpoint, it will not be subject to Scenic Design Analysis. If the project is within the 500 - 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor, or is within a Viewpoint's shaded area, it is the burden of the applicant to show that the project will not be visible. 21. At Implementation Section 1, first bullet, after"that," add, "at the time of the application,". At Implementation Section 1, second bullet, first sentence, after "that," add, "at the time of the application,". 22. At Implementations Section 2.1.3, change the first sentence to read"Applicants whose project is located in the shaded area described as Viewpoint 3 shall also submit:" Map has been modified to respond to comment. See also Response# 74-1. 23. Modify as suggested. 24. At Implementation Section 2.4, second bullet, after"the," add"design," and change "Policy 10.1," to read"Policies 10.1 and 10.2." At Section 2.4.1, delete "adjacent to" and substitute "falls entirely or partially within a shaded area at" 25. Modify as suggested. 26. Modify as suggested. 27. At Implementation Section 2.6.3, after"Zone,"eliminate"north of the foreground hills" and instead add"between the foreground hills and Gleason Road." Responses to Comments of Planning Staff 1. On page 1, third paragraph, after the third sentence, add: "While the applicant should generally comply with these standards, the City may allow some flexibility with meeting these standards only if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, compliance with the overall intent of the policies and standards." PAGE 2_OF I 2. Modify as suggested at pages 3, 9, 10, 21,47. 3. In the margin of page 9,below Policy 6-33, add Policy 6-30: "Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive ridgelands -no development") are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors." 4. Visual features will be identified on photos, as suggested. 5. Standard 1.1, fourth bullet, delete "adjacent to" and substitute "within;" after "viewsheds described," add"or framing those views,". 6. Standard 6.2, third bullet, at end of sentence, add"through articulation of building mass, landscape treatment and selection of colors and materials to blend with the setting." 7. Standard 8.1, last bullet, delete end of sentence, after"north." 8. Modify Standard 13.1, third bullet, to read: "At the Fallon Village Center, use storefront architecture and streetscape design which enhances the pedestrian experience." 9. Modify as suggested. Comments from Planning Staff 1. The document needs a general comment to allow flexibility. 2. It is confusing to have the Corridor described using a range of 500 to 700 feet. It would be better to just use the"700 feet", dropping the "500 to" altogether. 3. Specific Plan Policy 6-30 is significant, and should appear in this document. 4. Beginning on page 19, where there are photos of Viewpoints, the visually significant features that are identified in the text discussing that Viewpoint(such as the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, Tassajara Creek, foreground hills, knolls, etc.), should be identified in the photos. 5. On page 21, second bullet: "adjacent to" is too vague. 6. On page 30, second bullet, the term"rustic" needs clarification. 7. On page 32, last bullet, reference to "foreground hills" is confusing because these hills have not been identified on the visual features map. 8. Page 43, last bullet,the term"neighborhood scale" also needs clarification. 9. Page 51,Implementation Section 3 should be moved up to become Section 2, with the current Section 2 and subsections renumbered accordingly. Ui,,CE 7 OF__ N t > t Q1 N W lila z"eeeilWA‘ igkeitimstrolt ovev vicivrorveovi.. PAGE OF I I I—r Z l � 5 rai IN __} \''s\\ , N \\ g _D ® / 9 ktN V tu 3 00 ei A h - ,i- eille 2 c A4 g T 000 .. 4 .3 4 .;.:.:' ' . _ _ o• ....: ..:. .:.. :. :. ® 4 ,r4. :.. .::: _„______ . 'I ' J dii, ..:...- .... :..-. lit ...- .:.... :. Y' CI bati ► „� �� .: ...:.. '1 ��� ® • Q H ® r> ® D 1 Z io n PA GEL.oF1L.