HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 EDublinScenicCorridor
....., ". if"
CITY CLERK
File # IIElEJroJ-~
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 26,1996
SUBJECT:
,
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor Policies and Standards to J t'/ ' ,
(Report Prepared by Carol R. .Cirelli~-:-, ,
__ - __~.........- - . I I
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
"It' .
Exhibit A:
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Standards (distributed with prior Council packet)
Exhibit B:
Resolution Adopting Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridors and Approving Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor Policies and Standards
Exhibit C:
Related Eastern Dublin Specific Plap. Actions
Programs, Policies and EIR Mitigation Measures
Exhibit D:
Revised Figure 7 - "Viewpoint 2- Building Heights
within Viewcone"
.
RECOMMENDATIONM
1) Hear staff presentation
2) Take testimony from public
3) Question staff and public
4) Deliberate
5) Adopt Resolution EXhibit B. relating to the official adoption of
Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated Scenic
Corridors and the approval of the 'Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor Policies and Standards; or give staff direction and
continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City has been initially covering the consultant contract costs for
this project. The City is in the process of establishing a method for
rebovenng any costsas~oci~ted with iltlplementing the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. These contract costs will be recovered
through the processing offuture development projects within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
-----------------------------------------~------~---~--~-----~-----
COPIES TO: Project File
SenjorPlanner
. Admin. File
ITEM No.LL
g:\casldubl\scenic\eesr3\ere
BACKGROUND:
Staffpresented .this item 'at ~.las,t...MarcJi 12, .1996 City Council ,meeting. At that meeting ._
property owner Mr.. J()hri DiManto (Dbblin'Larid' Company) expressed concern with the Viewpoint 2. .
development standards. Two'Couneilmembers also question.edthe appropriateness ofpreserving~ttof..
the hills and~gesfiom the freeW.Y and the potential impacts on copunercial development along I~S8Q'.:
The Councilagreedfu.continue#leitetn to.Whenafull Council would be present for item considerati.on. '
The ite~ waS then continued,to tneMarch 26th meeting. .
=::.' =::: ..::====." : .1 ii
ANAL YSI$:, .
'., " Th" Cityis.;~q1.lile41~, ~ol1lply wi$~ab.:Eastern Dublin '8pecificPUI.n policies and EIR mitigation
mtasUres. ':,EXlUbit; Aqf the staff teport oorilplies with Bnd' hnplentents the mitigation measures and' ...
Specific Plan polici.~teiat'@.1~thep~ation ()fimportartt ,"ualresources, such as the, visually .
sensitiveridPlandsfro~3'~certiecorridors': I..S80,tttSSajantRoad and FallonRoad. The City Council
can a:pplY'sOme;di~cieti6n ih.~~lpmtingthe:$Peoifi~ Plan policies and establisbingappropriate
implementing 'policies and:d~velopment staildatds that woUld preserve the ridgelands view. .F or exmnple,
Specific PlanP<>liqy-6..30 states t',batthe.views oftheri~gelands from .1..580 shall be Ugenerally
maintained.",-~,~ouhCildan,PrOvi4e'~itectipnon~\\tto interpret "generally." The Specmc Plan._
policies and ':BIRnlitigadoninettSuieS. ht)wev~,~otbe eliminated unless>,the.Council amends.the
SpecificPlartt\tldp~.ttshpplemtmiaJ. EIR. . .
Eastern Dul'>lin:~~cifi~,PI~;'fA1d' Em.'
The EIR for the Eastem Dublin General Pl41\ AmendmenttUld .specific Plan assessed ~Specific'
Plan's potential effectS'~()n ,the visttal oraesth:~tic qtuditie,s, or rescnlrces, and addreS$ed Iilitigationmeas1.lres
.. that would helppt~~rve these,intpo:rt8ntri$Ual<te$OUrCeS(te~.hiUsides and ridges; watercourses). The:'
EIR's "Visual;~utces'~'chap~t,i~tified V~().~.inlpactS 'associated with developing the Specifi~ Plan
area'sueh^ztsat~g.the; n1taUopon,~e~suaJ.;charac~er;?~~curing, distiri~tluitura1features; altering
visualq~'()fri41e.; '~tering:DUbJi1'l~~;"isua1:identity'asafrecsta1\di11g city; altering the character of,.., "
existing scenic vl~snd,poSsiblYQbs6WingimporuUit sishtlm~s; andsignific$t1y altering the visual
experience of traveler$ ()ri"steuic.rOutesine~Dublin. "
Some ofitbo' signiilcontna.tur'81 features id~iItifi~dfor preservation within the Eastern Dublin
project area, .,thebiUsides,aftd ridges.Ba.ttem Publm's visually sensitive and prominentridgelan4f are
depictedin,F~~ 6~3:oftheS~c,Pl~~dfigtu:c2ofthe draft f;astern PUblm :Sc::enie Comdor '" ....
Policie~ ana. S,tai1dards:'Tb~ EIRid~ntifiC${mitiption-tneasureslhat pre$~e ~s of designated qpen- ,
space areas and ~ebaCkdr~p':9f'natutal tidgeliae';, FOfeXaJ:DP1~,~~:MeaStIl'e 3.8/5 states '
"...( d~~lopmetjt) Wi;llbr:permittedollth~ f,~$J:Ound :hills andrl4gelapds if a backdrop~f natural
ridgelines remala VJ.siWe whenfv1twed',ftpm. de$ignatedseenic'routes:and appropriate measures are taken"
to minimize viswtliti1paet" -Mitlgation~QUrej:.,8IS.1. statCim ~~StruCtufes shall not be located wbere:they
would obstrUct sceni(:vi~s,ora'p~~ t() ei(tendat>ove:aniden!ified scen,icridgetop (Le. silhouetted) .
when.^view~. fiom, desigIlated sceriicroute$;t~:iinallY,:Mitigation Measure 3.8/8, states ,that ~:<:itysball
. officii11y'~pt,J..SaOt,-T~ara ~:~F8Jl().:R'<>ad asdeSignated,$cenic corridors. .
" "; ,';" , : .... \
These mitilatibn,me~ures:'~v~aI$6'h~,~luded asSpecifio PlanpoHcies 6..28,6-29, .and6-3b
and Action Prognpns6Rand6S (see E~ibit C). These policies promote the preservationof:the "natural
open beauty of thehills'~: btherfm-portant resourCes.)~.. Po{icy6..30 regulates development that Mil be ._
built near designatedcorn~;iso tjiat "views of the b8ckdropridge (identified in Figure 6.3. as "Visually.
. ",:;';.~~ii >" 2 .
"
'. .
'."
.,
"..:"{
.', :'. \~};/;;<;:
'....'.; "5::
; ~( I,',
'" \
., , "."
Sensitive ridgelands - no development") are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic
't*~~~""
Viewpoint 2 Analysis
. As stated above, the Specific Plan and EIR requires general preservation of ridge land views from
1-580. Viewpoint 2 (Tassajara Road and 1-580 overpass) was selected because not only does it provide a
panoramic view of the ridgelands, but when development standards are applied at this location,.they
would be less restrictive than if applied along Tas~ara Road or other locations along 1.580,due to its
substantial elevation above surrounding grades. While other viewpoints could be se1ectedinstead of
Viewpoint 2, there would be a greater impact on development. __~ .__. _
_ _~_ _._.......-- _ It.' . .
The intent of the document's (Exhibit A's) policies and standards is to allow project development
to,~c~ur while generally maintaining the views of the important natural resources. The document is
intended to clarify Specific Plan policies to ensure a consistent, predictable interpretation of the policies.
The document is also required by Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.
. . The attached revised Figure 7 (Exhibit D) depicts possible building heights. for commercial
development near Viewpoint 2. The graphic illustrates building heights at various distances from the
1-580 freeway without blocking am: view of the ridgelands. Futthennore, the standards allow buildings to
extend above the horizon line of the ridgelands for 25% of the total ridgeland horizon, line. For example,
25% of a building that is within the 60 foot height zone can exceed the 60 foot building height. When
applying these standards, the property owner (Dublin Land Company) would be able to build a
commercial project that takes advantage of the maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed by the Specific Plan
(.nO) and still complies with the proposed standards.
LCOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit B and approve the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Comdor Policies and Standards document, Exhibit A. The document's policies
and standards comply with and implement the policies, action program requirements of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, and mitigation measures of the Specific Plan EIR.
.
3
.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
(Distributed with prior Council packet)
.
.
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
..
-..
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY ADOPTING 1-580, TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD AS
DESIGNATED SCENIC CORRIDORS AND APPROVING 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, 1-580, 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 Planning Commission held two public meetings on January 16, 1996 and February 20,
1996, to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the PI arming Commission recommended 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; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting to consider this project on March 12 and March 26, .
1996;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 City Council officially adopt Tassjara
Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby officially
adopt Tassajara Road (between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and 1-580); 1-580 (portion
that abuts the EastemDublin 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 EastemDublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards as defined in Exhibit A of the City Council Staff Report dated 3-26-96.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g:\castuubllscenic\3-12ccre\crc
EXHIBIT B
..
.
Other Related Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Programs. Policies and ErR Mitigation Measures
The Specific Plan Action Programs 6R and 6S identify some preliminary procedures and standards
that should be implemented. Program 6R requires projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to
submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications, e.g. graphic simulations and/or
section drawn from affected travel corridors through the development parcel, representing typical views of
the parcel from these scenic routes. Program 6R further specifies that the "graphic depiction ofthe location
and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to
__ ~~.. .____. - . I ,
minimize the visual impact." -. - - -- -. ' , .
. Program 6S requires the establishment of techniques for implementing the long term preservation of
o'visually significant portions of hillsides, including density transfers, homeowner association maintenance,
private ownership with public maintenance by assessment on homeowners, or dedication of land to a public
agency, such as the East Bay Regional Park District.
The following are Specific Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures related to this project:
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.
.
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridge line that borders the planning area
to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridge lands.
Minor interruptions of views ofthe main ridgeline by individual building masses
may be permissible in limited circumstances where all other remedies have been
exhausted. *
MM 3.8/5.0: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area
to the north and east, but will be permitted on the foreground hills and ridge lands if
a backdrop of natural ridge lines remains visible when viewed from designated
scenic routes and appropriate measures are taken to minimize visual impacts
(relates to Policy 6-29). *
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 ridge lands - no
development") are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
MM 3.8/5.1: Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to
extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e. silhouetted) when viewed from
designated scenic routes (relates to Policy 6-30).
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible
from designated scenic corridors.
* The scenic corridor policies shall not preclude development with some visual impacts, as long as the
development incorporates sensitive design features that recognize the rural/open space character of the
Specific Plan area.
.
g: \eastdu bJ\scenic\m i ti meas
EXHIBIT C
~
~
~~ I
im ~
.t (i
. I~ fi
' ~~ ~
~ ~ . I~ i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\,
~
...
.::: ~,
'"; ....
- c
-= 0
.... ~
~ >-
. ~
IN .~
"'"
::: =
...... .iIIiIIi
O~
f'.~
6
..... $.
;>fo
.. .,.,..
1'"" c:.>
....
l:lll-
~
-
~!
~it
~-
>t!.
- ~
tS_
39:
~~
~8
-:::: =-..- __n~ _
~r
~~
"'t:%-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
o~ ~'Q"r~'v1.
-"...- ..
~ I~-"
.::
.g
<>.
::;
'"
:a: .
l;! :.
-e :
t.:l :
..:i .
.
~ :
~ :
- .
.t' :
E :
to .
t ~
.
.
~ EXHIBIT D
Jt\
,