HomeMy WebLinkAboutDublin Downtown Specific Pln & Assoc. GP Amndmt
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 16, 1987
SUBJECT:
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated
General Plan Amendment.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1.
2.
Transmittal Letter from Joe Devane,
D.I.S.C. Chairperson
Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan (Under
Separate Cover)
Draft Negative Declaration
Excerpts from League of California Cities'
Planning Commissioners Handbook reo General
Plans and Specific Plans
3.
4.
RECOMMENDATION, tli:)
1.
2.
3.
4,
Open public hearing.
Hear Staff and Consultant presentations.
Hear public comments.
Continue to Adjourned Regular Meeting on
Thursday, March 19, 1987.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
To be determined through Budget and Capital
Improvement Program process.
DESCRIPTION:
I. Background
The Dublin General Plan established an overall goal of maintaining the
downtown as the commercial center of the Tri-Valley area. To implement this
goal, the City Council appointed the Downtown Improvement Study Committee
(D.I.S.C.). The D.I.S.C. is made up of local business persons, local
citizens, and a Dublin Chamber of Commerce representative. To help provide
planning, engineering and architectural expertise, the City Council, in the
Fall of 1985, approved the hiring of three (3) consultant firms:
1) Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons (Larry Cannon)
2) Laventhol & Horwath (Elliot Stein)
3) TJKM (Chris Kinzel)
Over the past 15 months, the D.I.S.C. Staff and Consultants regularly met
and conducted detailed land use, traffic, and market studies; attempts were
made to contact each major property owner; and a joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting was held to discuss the major downtown plan concepts.
On February 19, 1987, the D.I.S.C. reviewed the Draft Plan, made several
revisions, and recommended approval of the Draft Plan as revised.
II. Issues
The Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan has five major sections:
1) Specific Plan Policies
2) Circulation/Parking
3) Development Plan, including Land Use and Central Block Improvements
4) Urban Design Improvements
5) Implementation
ITEM NO.
~.J..
COPIES TO: D.I.S.C.
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Planning Department
The primary goal of the Draft Plan is to maintain and further develop the
downtown area as a vital and competitive regional retail center. Specific
focuses in the Draft Plan include:
- Central Block Improvements around the Mervyn's - Ward's (Toys R Us) -
Gemco (Target) Area
- Restaurant Row Concept along Amador Plaza Road
- Joint Promotional Program for Downtown Businesses
- Urban Design Improvements, including Entry Signage, Banners,
Landscaping and Street Furniture
- Public and Private Sector Implementation, including identification of
about $3 million in public sector projects
The Draft Plan includes several minor changes to the General Plan which
are scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on Thursday, March 19, 1987.
The General Plan Amendment is needed in order to have conformance between the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The changes include:
1) Changing the area west of 1-680 from Retail/Office and Automotive to
Retail/Office.
2) Eliminating the designation on the General Plan Map of a new inter-
change on 1-680 at Amador Valley Boulevard, but maintaining the
flexibility to accommodate such a facility.
3) Changing the area at Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard from
Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office.
In response to recent discussions with BART Staff, the existing General
Plan designation of future BART parking on Golden Gate Drive will remain as
is. The change indicated in the Draft Plan will not be considered at this
time.
III. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Hear presentations by Staff and Consultants. The Planning
Commission may want to go through the Draft Plan on a section by
section basis.
2) Hear comments from Joe Devane, D,I.S.C. Chairperson, other D.l.S.C.
members, as well as other public comments.
3) Continue public hearing to Thursday, March 19, for consideration of:
additional discussion on the Draft Plan; hearing on the General Plan
Amendment; action on the Negative Declaration; and action on the
Draft Plan.
-2-
Development Services
P,Q. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Building & Safety 829-0822
Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
March ll, 1987
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
Planning Director
FROM: Joe Devane, D.I.S.C. Chairperson
RE: Transmittal of Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
On behalf of the Dublin Downtown Improvement Study Committee (D.I.S.C.), it is
with great pleasure that I transmit for your consideration the Draft Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan. Over the last 15+ months, the D.I.S.C., Staff and
Consultants have devoted hundreds of hours and considerable thought and effort
in producing a plan that should benefit the Downtown and overall City for many
years to come. By concensus, the D.I.S.C. strongly recommends that the City
adopt the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
JD/LLT/ao
~' 1
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 1987
DUBUN PLANNING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR:
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION AND
PROPONENT:
The project area is located in the City of Dublin, close
to the junction of Interstate 580 and 680.
The project proponent is the City of Dublin.
DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the designation and implementation of
a Specific Plan for the downtown area of Dublin.
FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief ~iscussion
of the following environmental components: Publ ic Services,
Transportation, energy, air quality, noise, seismology, and liquifaction.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
None requi red.
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
DP 83-11
3
PRELIMINARY DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
March 10, 1987
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project consists of the designation and implementation of a Specific Plan for
an area located in the City of Dublin. Dublin is located approximately 35 miles east of
San Francisco at the junction of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. The proposed project
would designate about 220 acres of the downtown as part of a Specific Plan area.
Downtown Dublin lies at the southern edge of the City adjacent to the intersection of
Interstate Highways 580 and 680. (See Project Location, Figure 1, page 2.)
The approximate boundaries of the Specific Plan Area are San Ramon Road on the west,
Amador Valley Boulevard on the north, Village Parkway on the east, and 1-580 on the
south. The Specific Plan's boundaries are shown in Figure 2, page 3. The Specific Plan
project area is approximately 220 acres in size and contains close to 2.5 million square
feet of building area devoted to a variety of commercial land uses. Primary uses include
general retail, restaurant, automotive retail, finance and office. Major occupants of the
downtown area are large retailers such as Albertson's, Payless, Mervyn's, Montgomery
Ward, Handyman, and Gemco (recently vacated). Approximately 10 percent of the Plan's
land area is currently vacant.
There are many privately owned parcels within the Specific Plan Area, however a large
percentage of the area is owned by a relatively small number of property owners.
The Specific Plan Area is surrounded on the north, east, and west by residential
development within the City of Dublin. The City of Pleasanton lies across the southern
Plan Area boundary and contains a mix of uses adjacent to the site, the focus of which is
the Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center.
Four major arterial streets serve Downtown Dublin and provide direct access to the retail
stores and services within the downtown area. They are Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon
Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Village Parkway. Three lesser streets, Regional
85155
1
SITE LOCATION MAP
\
\
~~
'10
~'l
') -
, ~-
'\.--- - <.,
~o
Ie
<!~
'\. \ ~
, \c
'-.. Ii
'- "'-4"... <""'"~
......... "AI 1_
~C--
:""'''0
0\-
FEET
o
COUt401'i_ .,.,.,...
COS1"'_____ -
Otf,1Vo'" ::..---- -'\J ,",,1'"
Co _- CO
..':'0'"
>\.>
DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA
PLEASANTON
SOURCE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
4000 ~
tOOO
2000
./
MILES
o
10
FIGURE 1
SOURCE: EIP ASSOCIATES
t
20
40
eip
~
~
:;;
'"
DUBLIN DOW~ .l OWN BOUNDARIES
FIGURE 2
------ Specific Plan Boundaries
FEET
1
o 200 400
1000
eip
~
~
~
'"
Street, Amador Plaza Road, and Golden Gate Drive are important to the vehicular
circulation within the downtown area. Direct freeway access to the downtown area is
provided only at the site's southwest corner where on and off-ramps provide access to 1-
580.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The population of Dublin is approximately 18,000 residents. Dublin, along with the
adjacent communities of San Ramon, Pleasanton and Livermore is frequently referred to
as the Tri-Valley area. The population of this area is approximately 170,000 residents.
Over the coming fifteen years the City's population is expected to increase to 40,000
residents and the Tri-Valley Area's to 210,000.
Downtown Dublin serves a major role as a regional retail center. Interstate 680 connects
Dublin to Pleasant on and Santa Clara County to the south and cities in Contra Costa
County to the north. Interstate 580 provides access from San Francisco and Oakland to
the east and Livermore to the west.
As growth has accelerated in the area, surrounding cities and large private developments
have stepped up efforts to capture a greater share of future retail spending. In most
cases, new competing shopping areas have been planned as integrated developments with
interrelated parts, a high degree of visual appeal, well designed common areas and
substantial pedestrian amenities.
In 1985 a General Plan was adopted for the City of Dublin and it reflects the goal of
maintaining the Specific Plan Area as the "downtown" for the Tri-Valley area. In
recognition that Downtown Dublin needs to improve its overall image in order to enhance
its competitive position in future years, the City conducted a thorough analysis of the
downtown area and prepared a Specific Plan to establish standards, controls and
implementation programs tailored to the area.
A Specific Plan is a tool authorized under California Government Code Sections 65450
through 65457 to give communities greater control over guiding community development.
85155
4
In the case of Downtown Dublin, many of the existing land use regulations had been
adopted from the County's standards which were on effect prior to the City's
incorporation in 1981. The Dublin Downtown Specific Plan examines the opportunities and
constraints which are unique to this area and establishes standards and programs to keep
Downtown Dublin commercially competitive.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan seeks to establish the following general goals:
o Maintain Dublin as a strong regional retail center.
o Enhance Downtown Dublin as a source of pride for the residents of the City.
o Maintain and enhance the current sales tax base of the downtown area.
o Update development standards inherited from the County.
o Achieve a greater identification of the area with the City of Dublin.
Beyond these general goals, the Specific Plan sets out specific goals for circulation,
parking, land use, urban design, and implementation and funding. Specific Plan policies in
these areas are summarized below.
CJRCULA TION
While Downtown Dublin is strategically located at the intersection of two major
interstate highways, its very location creates ingress and egress problems because of peak
hour traffic flows. Future development would be limited to a level supportable by a
reasonable and affordable level of street improvements which emphasize the maximum
utilization of existing rights-of-way and the avoidance of visually unattractive and
expensive traffic solutions.
Provisions would be made for the accommodation of a future transit station in the
downtown area.
85155
5
Pedestrian circulation within the Downtown would be encouraged and enhanced with
special emphasis given to Amador Plaza Road, the Central Block Shopping Complex, and
the major areas connecting the future transit station site to major shopping and activity
areas.
PARKING
Parking studies reveal that past standards have resulted generally in a substantial
oversupply of parking within the downtown. The results have contributed greatly to a
downtown environment dominated by large paved parking areas with a minimum of
landscaping. The plan would revise parking lot landscaping, encourage additional
development without additional parking where conditions warrant and allow for the
reduction of required parking for mixed use projects. The plan also would encourage the
placement of additional landscaping within existing parking lots to improve the overall
visual quality and shopper amenity level of downtown.
LAND USE
The plan emphasizes retail development on the ground floor of structures and encourages
office and residential uses on upper floors. Specific Plan development standards would
allow an approximate 30% increase in building area (675,000 square feet) within the
downtown. To accomplish this, eleven Special Development Zones would be established
within the downtown area. Development standards will vary slightly for each of the zones
in order to tailor future development to the City's downtown objectives. Market
projections have indicated the likely demand for around 500,000 square feet of new
development over the next 15 years.
All properties within Downtown Dublin would be designated as a Planned Development
District to replace current zoning categories. Land uses, development standards and
interim uses are outlined in the Specific Plan for each Downtown Development Zone.
Permits for new construction and other property improvements will be contingent upon
Planning Commission approval of a Land Use and Development Plan for each property.
Development intensification locations would be controlled to avoid the overloading of
critical street intersections and controls would be established to reserve land for parking
to serve regional transit.
85155
6
Interim use standards would be established for key sites which may continue to operate
with current uses for some time but for which more retail -oriented uses are desired if
and when the current uses move.
A Dublin "Restaurant Row" with restaurants, specialty shops, entertainment uses and
second story offices would be encouraged along Amador Plaza Road.
Other specialty requirements would be established to improve the visual appearance of
downtown, protect adjacent residential areas and encourage increased pedestrian
connections among projects.
CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS
The area bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Amador Plaza Road, Amador Valley Boulevard and
Regional Street is the Central Block and hub of Downtown Dublin. Located within this
superblock are a number of large anchor stores which have established the image of
Dublin.
The plan encourages greater vehicular and pedestrian access among the various portions
of the block, a clearer identification of entries from adjacent streets, and additional
landscaping to improve the visual environment. It further encourages intensification of
development by the selected infill of buildings where a substantial oversupply of parking
spaces exists.
The major feature of the concept is the potential for creating a structure and/or plaza
space for a combination of public and private use. Since the downtown area does not
currently contain an area where public events can be held, this element of the concept
could assist in creating a greater civic focus within the area for the benefit of both city
residents and downtown businesses.
URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS
The image and identity of downtown with the City of Dublin would be enhanced by a
series of public urban design improvements. They would consist of improvements to major
downtown entries, the creation of continuity theme elements located in the medians of
85155
7
the major boundary streets, entry pylons to major projects, and landscape and pedestrian
amenity improvements along the proposed Dublin Restaurant Row.
Designs would emphasize colorful banners which may be changed seasonally to support
downtown promotional efforts and the repetition of a downtown Dublin logo.
IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
The Specific Area Plan implementation emphasizes a public/private partnership that
utilizes a variety of funding sources and methods. Costs of implementing the downtown
improvements are estimated to be approximately $4,600,000, for which $1,470,000 of
funding has already been allocated under current Capital Improvements Program.
85155
8
CITY OF VUBLlN PA N~
ENVI~ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM / lN1ERlM
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.)
Based on the proiect information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be comp 1 eted by the PLANN I NG STAFF
Name of Project or Appl icant: Dubl in Downtown Specifi c Pl an
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETT1N G - Description of project site before the project, including
information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and
scen ic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures The proj ect sHe is a
previously developed urban area approximately 220 acres in size located in
downtown Dublin.
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals;
historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or
development. Residential development is 'adiacent to the project area on its
west, north and east sides. Interstate 580 borders the ro'ect area on tts
u 51 e.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" ere re- ,
quired on attached sheets.
~'T IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPAcr
NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOim
NO I . .
l~ I 15
1 1 J H
p:: ~ 0:: 8
o I 10 1:5
~I~I~IO
I , ,~
I I I \
1.0~ I
I 1 J
1.1 HydrologIc Bolonce Will construction of the project elrer tJ,e hydro- X ! ! ! i
loaic bo lonce?
1.2 Ground Water Will the proied affect the quality or quantity of y ! ! ! -J
ground woter supplies? I
1.3 Dep,h /0 Wot.r Tabla Will the rate of wo~cr Vlithdro~l change the depth X I l I
or gradient of th-= woter table?
1.4 Orainage and ~onnel form Will comlrudian imped~ the nalural drainage pattern I I I
ar couse alteration of sfream channel form? X I .\ I
1.5 Sedimcnto~ion \"/ill construction in an orca result in major sediment X I l : 1
Influl( into adjacent wafer bodie~?
1.6 Floodio9 Wilt there be ri,k of Ion of lire or property due : T I
t()fl~;n(1? X I I I
- -
'A
"
.
ro'1l?CA'IlliNT '.l,1'iPAC'I'S seA... - OF IMPAcr
NO QUALIFIID YES UNKNCWN
NO I T I
1~1 ,~
I I ,H
~ ~ ~ 8
01 1015
~~~!~!~
1.7 WOfer QIJ<J"1ity Doe, drinking wore' suP?ly foil to mee' stote Clod X : I I
federol ,tandards?
Will sewage be ir\(J.~~1'JOtcly occ:.ommc~oted and I I I
treoted? X I I
Will receivin!J wooten fnil to ment 10:::.,1, ".-:'c ond l 1 I j
Federo I standards? X
Will ground woter surfer conrominotion by w,ru:e i I l
Jeep':!;.), intrusion of )ah or polluted y,oofer from I
adjacent worer bodie" or from ono~het r.on~.''T\int')fcd 1 I I
ot.,.,irer? X ! ! !
,--
2,0 AIR I t I
I I I
2.1 Air Pol!ution Will there b~ 9~nerolio;"l 0:"1<':1 rliipcuiol'" l")r F")lIutonts I I I
by prcojed related octi,.itics or in pm:..c:r.' it'J tr, t~~e I I I
project which ",ill c:"':ecd ~atc r.; r::::~i ,~o o;~ I I t
quol ity stor:dord\? X I I I
2.2 Wind Alteration VlilI structure O:"l-d terr"in"impedc p;c..'(.;ilirs; win-j i .- I
flow co.aing channeling along ce-rroin r:orri:l).s.." I
X I !
obstruction of wind mo....e-:Ttents? i
J.O EARTH I I I
I 1 I
J.I Slope S",b;l;,y Are there potential dong"!r) related to d:lF~ f.,i1'Jres? X I I I
J.2 Foundation Support Will th~re be rhk r.:> life or property '')c':o'J:,e of T i
excenive d~ro'mo,ion of rnoteriob? V . ! !
J,J Consolidation V/ill there be risk to life or propcrt-; !'c:::ow,e cr X I i J
cxcessi'Je consolidotion of foundothr r.v1t",'ioh? :
J.4 Subsidencn h thzre risk of major ground subsidl:n,:n I)1\'1( iotcti X ! ! !
wit;' the proiec~?
J,S Seismic Activity Is there rhk of dornage or Ion re-snltillfl frr:m ~arth- X! I !
qt1O~C activity? I
J.b liquefaction Will the pr()jcct co'.Js~ O~ be ~xrosc:l ~n liqu:':~ocHon xl I !
of soib in slc?~s or undr.r founuctirns 7
3.7 frodibility Will there b~ s..;bstonticl Ims of VJi! r.'::~ ~o cr,:'\- l I 1
slruc:ion procrice\: X
J.B rermeobility Will the permeability of soils onoc:o' ~r! wi~~-. th~ I I I
project present od....er~o condit ions I elot;....e tc d~- I I I
velopment of well~? X I 1
3.9 lJniqVCt Features Will any unique geologico' features 1m domcJC'Q j I I
or de:stro)'.ed by ?~oied octi"itil!!s 7 X I I ,
J.IO Mineral Resources Are Ihoere geologic deposits of pl')tenti.,1 r:"'l:';'l~ercinl I I l '-(
value c1me to the prniect7 X ; ; :
4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS I I I
I I I
4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rore or endong::-red specie\ p:"r~nf? X I I t
Arc there species pre.:.:::"!t w~ich ore p':l-tic'Jlnrly X i I t
susc,=pticlc to impact from humon activity?
b there "f'3etoHon pr.r:s~nt: the !o\_; vf whkl-: will . I
deny ro~ or h':lbitot to importo!'!t wildlife ~?cci':!:;? X ! ! !
Arc th~rc nui<;.ence :rc-:.ies of plor.t or n,irr::::s fnr ! ! !
which conditions will be improved hy tre p~oicct7 X
4.2 Vegetati....e Community Types Are there ony unusual populotions of plnt'lh th'lt may X ! ! !
be of scientific intcre:t?
Are there ....e9::-rotj"e comr:wnity tYr~~ \'/nich o:"c X ! ! !
porfic:Jlorlj' :st.'~c.eptibfe to impact frr::n llu-non cdivity?
Are th::re IT.ojor trces or mojor vcot!tntk., tho~ will ! ! !
~o c:l...c:"Y"I}' nfr~c.k--i h'l thr: rroi"ct? }.
'. f.rr: thc~-:: v,::~]:":.::;:i...~ r:-tmrrunity ty:'l~~ ru.'....:".. t~r. IrJ;;'\ I I I
or which ",ill deny f"..,-:!..,r ho::ito' tl'". j-T'"'-':Ir.r y:i~-:ili{r': 2-- I I I
spC'lcics. ('If to 0 :u~!.t-=:t1ti,:,'" nu,,,~"'- o~ ,':::"'. 'I'l-,~ ::'l::-;'l'Jb'. --
4.J Di....ersity Is there '\UblfO:"l~i{l1 diversity in th-.' n":":n: ~'r.':',;,nn;~'I I I I
0':1 reFfected in the n,.mbr:r ond typ:' ...,r ",l":lf =~ ('1(',i:r'"!1 X' I I I
spccics p.esent or rhe Ihrc:-:-rlim.-:n:.inr.r.1 Clrr":'"~'1""r.":""": I I I
of plont ~.pecies prcscnr? I I t
I I I
I I t
I I I ;
I I I
I I I
! I I
, I
~- -
\0
'.
o:MPONENT IMPACl'S SCALE OF IMPAcr
NO QUALIFIED ""YES UNKNO-m
" NO I T T
1~ I 15
I I JH
ex: ~ p:: 8
01. 10 1:5
~~2!~!~
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES : 1 T
Educationol Facilities Will projectrd enrollments adversely aFfect the ax- I I I
5.1 1 I I
bting or 5Y.o~scd Facilities in terms of ~ocing tor I I I
011 activities, Including classrooms, recreotional X I ! !
orto', end' starring needs?
Will the project impoct rh. pOJpil/teocher ratio so I I I ,
01 to impede the learning proeen? X I I I
Is. the sc~ool locor~d such thnt it prescnts 0 hardship I I 1
for 0 portion or the enrollment in terms of trove I time, X I
dislonce~ or sofety hazards? I I I
I I I
5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and access to I I
commercial ro.cililici (or the project? X I I I
5.3 llquld Wo,', Disposal Arc provhionJ for se'W'Q~e capacity inadequate tor I i I
the needs of the project without exceeding quality X ! ! ~
stondardi?
Will th~ .,roject be expmed to nuisances and odors X ! ! !
oi1Ociated with wodewater trt'Ofment plonts?
5.4 Solid Wo.t. D;sposai Is there inad.equoto provision for dis.posol or solid I ! !
wostos generated by the project? X
5.5 Water Supply Is there inodequate quantity or quality or water l ! !
supply to meet the needs or tl-:" project? X
5.6 Storm Woter Drainoge 'Hill slorm .....oter draino9': be inadequate to preven' I I I
downdrecm Flooding and to meet Federal Stote and l I !
locol standard,? X
5..7 Police Will the project" additional population, racilities, I I I
or o~her fcolures generate cn increcuc in police service X I J I
or create 0 police h:l::::ord? I i
5.8 Fire Will the projt;ct's additional population, focilities, I 1 I
or other feoturel gene-refe on increcse in Fire ser....ices X I
or create 0 fire hozerd? I I I
5.9 Recreation Will the project hove inodeqvote facilitie, to meet I T T
the recreational needs of the residents? X I
5.10 Cultural Facilities \ViII cultural Facilities be unavailable to the project I I I
reiidents ? , X : ; :
6,0 TRANSPORTATION I I I
6:i Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demonds on adjacent roads currently I I I j
I I I
01 or above capacity? If not, .....i11 the traHic sen":' I I I
elated by the proje.:t COUle the cdjacent roods to I xl I
reach or e:ltceed capacity?
Are the other tran~OItation facilities which serve the I I J
project inadequate to accammodate the projec:t') X ! ! !
travel demonds 7
6.2 . Circvlation Conrliets Will desig, of th~ project or conditions in the surrounC~ I I I
ing creo increo)C accidents due to circvlation con/licts? X I 1
6,3 Rood SoFety ond Desfgn 'NiII p.oject r~'5idents and users be exposed to incr~sed I I. I :
occidenl rilks dUr) to roadway and street design or lack X I I
of troffir. controls? ! I !
I -,- i I
7.0 HEALTH I I
Will the project be ~)Cpos~d to or genorate ony infense I I I
7,1 Odors X l l 1
odors? I
7.2 Crowding and Density V/illlhe residents and users be exp~:.ed to crowding or 1 1 l \
high den-:ity in their physic;ollivj"3 environmel'lt? v !
7.3 Nuhonces Will the project be cxpowd to or generate factors tho, I I I
rnoy be considNcd as nuisances? v I I
7.4 Struc~u'al Safety Will de,ign and propoled construction techniques fait I T I
to meet 51ate and tocol building c.odes? X , ! !
B.O NOISE t t I \
- I I I
B.1 Noise lev.,15 Will the project bo e.xpo~rl tn N ocnctote od....erse I I I
noi~e lev,..ls 7 X I I I
B.2 Vibrotior"l1 Will the rr"icd bo expo:;erllo vibrations I'\nnoying to T T T I I
humans? I I
I I I I I
I I I
X ! I I
. I i I
.-" ~ '-' ,
\\
<X:iMPCNENT IMPACTS ..,cALE OF IMPAcr
NO QU1\LIFIED YES UNKNa~N
NO I I I
I ga I 15
I I IH
gjl~I~15
f3IBI21~
~I"<""<"
9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER : I I '
I
9.1 Community Organization Will the project diu-upt on cxhtino 1"):1 o( I I I
orgonizoriO"i or group\ within th~ co~'munity? X l l !
9.2 HomogeneIty and Oivenity Will the project change the character or rho I I I
community in terrn, of c!i1.tribution or concentration X I 1 !
of income, ethnic, housing, or age group?
9,3 Community Stability and Will the project bo e)(pos~d Il) or g<enC'rotc on I I I
Physicol Conditions areO o( poor ,'ability onJ phf>icol conditions? X I I I
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY i i I
I 1 I
10.1 Views Wilrresidcnh or the svtfoundinlJ area b.,. odvenely X I I I
affected by view:. of or (com the project? I I I
Will the project residconts be od...endy offecte~ by X I I I
views of Of' (,om the wrroundin!) orca 7 .
10.2 Shodow> Will the project be expo\ed to or generate cxcen;vl! i i !
shodoW1 ? X i' i
11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTlHAL 1 I I
I I J
RESOL.\(CES I I I
11.1 Hhtoric: and Cultural Will 1M proi~cl involve ,he destruction or oher- I I I
Resource, otion of 0 hhtoric reK)urc~? X ! ! !
Will the project re,ult in hobrio:'l of a hi!.toric X ! ! !
r(uourc~ im", its svrrounding envi,onment?
Will the project intro-iuce phy\icotl visvol, audible I I I
o~ o~mt:'~~heric elements thnt orc l'Iot in cl,orocter with ! ! !
o historic resovrce or i~s loCtti:1g? X
11.2 ~rehoeo!ogical Siles Will the project involvc ,ho:: destruction or alteralion I ' I !
and 5tructvrel of on orchoeoloJicol rc~ure(' 7 X i
Will ,he project res:Jlt in inlution of on archaeological I I 1
resource? X
Wili th~ prnjcct in!ro-i'Jco:' p~ysic':ll, visual, ouciible I I I
or olmos?hcric clements thot orc not in character with I I I
on orc.hoc-olonical 'e50vrc~ or ih setting? X I ! I
, I
12,0 E NER GY 1 I I
I I t
12.1 Energy Rl!'quirernenh A~!: t~ere poten'ial problelTl\ w:th ,he supply of I I 1
energy rcq'.Jircd for ti,e project? X ! ! !
Will .h':l' ~~~rsy requirement! uc.r.cd the capacity X I ! !
of the $,:rvicc utility company?
\'1ilt there be 0 net incrc:ose in t:"nN!JY V\eo (or the xl I I
project comp.,rcd' to the no proi-:ct cltern~five?
12.2 Conservation Me:aures Docs the pr.:-jcct planning ond d:.'si0" rnil to include I I I
cvoibb!c cfler:Jy CO!'l::.crvn,ion m~Q'.ur,.;? X I I 1
13.0 LAND USE I I I
I I I
Sitc ....c:.::nds Do:> conditions of th~ site, pr?poscd site developm~Mt, I I I
13.1 I I 1
or sultounding ore-o c.ri'!:lle potentially ho;:ordous situ- X I I I
otions? -L-t I
13.2 Phrs i co I Threo t. WiI! the pr~icct or the 5urroundinIJ ar~ ercnte 0 feeling I. I I
of insecurilt and physic.allhrcol O:TlonoJ rhe rc\idt:"oh I I I
nnd us~r5 7 X I I I
13.3 Semitef)' landFill Will :h~ project h~ ~Xr05~~ to strur:turn! d"\rnnoe, I I I
noi\c, oir, or SlJrf.:JCt:' nr.n c~olJnd .,...c,tcr pollution I
~r l'J,her nuisnn.:~~ cJ\\~c::iate,j .....ith 0 5o"itory landfill '? X ! ! !
13.4 \'loter......oys w;n th~ praicd affect on e)(i~tin'J w::tcrwoy throu;;jh i I I
filling, dredgin~1 droinino, culv..:rtinal ...,"'l':.tc dis- I I I
ch.,rgcs, leu o( vis\,.l~1 quality or ot"..~r fund u~c X ! ! !
prC"c.tic~:;?
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I 1 I
I ' ! ! !
\"1../
ro1IDIDlT "IMPACIS ~ -ALE OF lMPAcr
NO QUALITIID YES UNKNam
NO -\ . ,
I~ I 15
I I I~
t51~1~1=S
~~2!~!~
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I !
:
i
I
I
I
I
I
I I
, T I I
Other Envitonmental Componenh': i ,j i
I I
I I
T 1 1
!.
! ! !
I I 1
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SlGNIFIO\NCE
(1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or end'angered plant or animal
or el iminate important eX!'Enples of the maior periods
or California history cr prehistory?
(2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goo Is?
(3) Does the project have impacts which ore individually
, limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resour:::e is relatively small, but
where the effect of the toto I of those impacts on the
environment is sign ificant.)
(4) Doe~ the proiect hove environmental effects which
wit I cause substantia I odverS8 effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
1:3
,.
CUALIFIED
NO NO YES UN'Kt-.x:wN
-
X
X
X
,
! ;
X I
,
---1
r
#
D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e the significant effects
identified, if any:
.'
E. DETERMIN/\T10N - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[Xl Th~ City of Dub I i 1'\ finds that there will not be any sign ificant effect. The par-
ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation :neasures incorporated into
the design of the project pro.,jd.~ ~hCl r':Jctual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION !S ~;:QUIRED.
o The City of "Dubl in finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
Signature and date:
Name and title:
** NO I t: Y'/nere a project is revised in response to an IniHal Study so ~ht1~ P()~i~:l~iol Od'l8;58
effects are mitigated to 0 point where no signific<1nt environmental effects would occur:
revised Initial S~udi' 'Nill be prepared o-;:;-d a Negative Declaration will be req~;red i 1s"ecd of
an EIR. l--\
IMPACTS
1.7 Water Quality
The Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) provides sewer treatment for the City of
Dublin. Dublin currently has 100,000 gallons per day of sewer capacity earmarked for
non-retail commercial development. An expansion of plant capacity will be complete by
the end of 1987, increasing treatment capacity from 9 million to 11 1/2 million gallons per
day.
A more serious constraint than treatment plant capacity is the ability of local treatment
plants to dispose of treated wastewater. Various alternatives are now being studied by
the Tri- V Alley Wastewater Authority (TW A) on ways to export wastewater from the Tri-
Valley area. An export pipeline route will be chosen by the end of this year.
Development of the Specific Plan Area will occur over a period of 15 years. Sewer
capacity for downtown development is currently available and the DSRSD anticipates that
sewer capacity will not be a problem in the future. 1
2.1 Air Pollution
The project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin which is a
nonattainment are for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulates. Nonattainment refers to
the fact that Federal ambient air quality standards are violated in the region. Data from
the Livermore air quality monitoring station is most representative of the air quality in
the vicinity of the project. Ozone and particulate violations have occurred at the
monitoring station. There have been no carbon monoxide (CO) violations monitored.
During site preparation and construction, particulate levels would be elevated above
ambient levels within 150 feet of the work zone. Standard dust control practices such as
spraying water should be included in individual project plans. Construction activities
would also result in pollutant emissions from gasoline and diesel powered equipment. It is
not expected that these emissions would be significant at the regional level.
Development and intensification of land uses in the Dublin Downtown would encourage
more vehicle travel to the downtown area. The impact of project related motor vehicle
exhaust emissions would be considered insignificant.
85155
15
The majority of the new auto trips to the site would be made to take advantage of
increased retail and commercial services allowed under the Specific Plan. These auto
trips would be made to other competing commercial-retail centers in the Tri-VAlley area
or outside of the area if the Specific Plan development did not occur. Placement of
additional commercial and retail facilities close to Dublin's and Pleasanton's residential
neighborhoods could result in a net decrease in the driving distances for residents. Also, a
portion of the projected traffic, particularly during the peak hour, would be from parking
facilities for BART. These BART related auto trips would result in a net decrease in auto
mileage by commuters who would park and ride transit rather than commuting by
automobile.
3.3 Seismic Activity
Numerous highly active faults capable of producing severe earthquakes transect the
region in close proximity to the project site. These faults include the Calaveras, which
runs along San Ramon Boulevard, the project site's west boundary, Hayward (eight miles
to the east), San Andreas (25 miles to the west), Concord (12 miles to the north), and
Greenville (12 miles east). All these faults are regional strike/slip faults capable of
producing significant surface displacements.
The greatest risk to the Specific Plan Area is from the Calaveras Fault. The westernmost
250 feet (approximately) of the Specific Plan Area, adjacent to San Ramon Boulevard is
located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate special studies zones of
appropriate width to encompass all potentially and recently active fault traces deemed to
constitute a potential hazard to structures. Structures for human occupancy may not be
constructed across an identified active fault trace. The Special Studies Zones Act
requires that structures planned for human occupancy and sited within the Special Studies
Zone have a site specific study completed prior to construction. The study must identify,
or verify the non-existence of any fault traces on the property.
Intensification of land uses allowed under the Specific Area Plan would imply that greater
numbers of people would be working and shopping in Downtown Dublin in the future, thus
exposing them to the hazards of potential seismic activity. This potential hazard would
85155
16
be mitigated by ensuring that all new structures in the area would have appropriate
geotechnical studies completed prior to construction and would be constructed to meet
state and local building code standards. Because of advances in seismic engineering, new
structures generally are safer than older structures.
3.5 Liquefaction
The deep unconsolidated alluvial valley fill deposits in the project area and shallow
groundwater occurrences indicate a moderate potential for liquefaction and lateral
spreading along the Dublin Creek channel south of the project area during intense seismic
activity. Seismic design would be reviewed for new structures on a case by case basis.
All new structures would meet state and local building codes.
5.5 Water Supply
The Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) supplies water to the City of Dublin.
Water is supplied to the DSRSD by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District. The water distribution system adequately supplies the
existing Dublin downtown area. No problems are anticipated with supplying additional
2
water to the downtown area.
5.7 Police
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department for Police
Services. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not by itself create a demand for
additional police services. Intensification of land uses allowed by the Specific Plan would
incrementally increase the demand for additional officers and equipment over time as new
buildings are constructed in the downtown. Dublin's contract with the Alameda County
Sheriff's Department is reviewed periodically. Requests for additional manpower and
equipment would be made as circumstances warrant. Additional downtown development
would be reviewed by Dublin Police Services during the planning stage to identify and
correct potential security problems.3
5.8 Fire
Fire protection is provided for the Specific Plan Area by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District Fire Department. The fire station nearest the site is located at 7494 Donohue
85155
17
Drive in Downtown Dublin. The proposed project would not create any impacts unless
proposed structures are over 35 feet high. Any structures over 35 feet in height would
require that the fire department acquire an additional ladder truck.
Capital improvements for fire service are funded through a capital improvements fund
that each individual development would contribute to based on square footage. Any
building of three to seven stories would pay an additional fee to cover the cost of high rise
f. . t 4
Ire eqUlpmen .
6.1 Transportation Facilities
As part of the Specific Plan process 11 key downtown intersections were evaluated for
their p.m. peak hour traffic capacities. Level of Service calculations (LOS) were made
for each intersection. Level of Service is a volume-to-capacity measure of an
intersection's congestion based on a scale of A (good conditions) through F (capacity or
jammed traffic conditions). A volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 (the borderline between
Levels of Service D and E) is generally considered the highest limit of acceptability.
Two downtown intersections, Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and San Ramon
Road/ Amador Valley Boulevard, currently approach or exceed this 0.90 rating. The most
congested intersection is at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road with a volume-to-capacity
ratio of 0.99. The San Ramon Road/Amador Valley intersection is currently at 0.90. The
other nine downtown intersections examined are operating at LOS C or better.
Traffic improvements would be made as part of the Specific Plan. These improvements
are outlined below: 0 Widening of San Ramon Road to six lanes. 0 Widening of Dublin
Boulevard to six lanes with additional capacity improvements between San Ramon Road
and Regional Street. 0 Realignment and signalization of the 1-580 off-ramps at San
Ramon Road to create an intersection in place of the existing merging lanes. 0 A new
four lane street south of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional Avenue to Amador Plaza
Road. 0 New traffic signals at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road and
Village Parkway/Lewis Avenue intersections.
Completion of these improvements should allow the substantial new development outlined
in the Specific Plan to proceed under reasonable traffic conditions. In a Summary of
85155
18
Traffic and Transportation Constraints prepared for the downtown improvement plan by
TJKM transportation consultants, the traffic from existing development plus already
approved but unbuilt development was analyzed assuming Specific Plan circulation
improvements were made. Under this scenario, all downtown intersections examined
would operate at LOS C or better with the exception of San Ramon Road/Dublin
Boulevard which would operate at LOS D (it is currently operating at E).
The San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will continue to be a major
determinant of future traffic congestion. Estimates of the circulation system's future
capacity were used to approximate the amount of future growth that could occur.
Therefore, the circulation plan's efficiency is a direct factor limiting the amount of
development possible in the downtown area.
In light of this fact, the Specific Plan anticipates approximately 675,000 square feet of
new commercial development in Downtown Dublin or about a 3096 increase over existing
built area. When anticipated future development is added to downtown intersections,
intersection conditions remained stable through 1995 - all intersections operating at LOS
C or better, with the exceptions of San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard at F and San
Ramon Road/Amador Valley which would operate at LOS D (but slightly better than its
current operation also D).
A proposed BART Park/Ride project would place 700 parking spaces adjacent to 1-580
within the Specific Plan Area. Eventually this facility may be upgraded to a BART
station with 1200 parking spaces. When additional traffic from the Park/Ride facility is
combined with development through 1995, three intersections would operate at LOS Dj
San Ramon Road/Amador Valley, Regional Street/Amador Valley and Village
Parkway/Amador Valley. One intersection would continue at LOS F- San Ramon
Road/Dublin Boulevard.
The circulation changes discussed as part of the Specific Area Plan are intended to
improve downtown circulation and accommodate approximately a 3096 increase in
downtown growth while maintaining reasonable intersection Levels of Service. The
planned improvements would allow the addition of a regional transit facility, a hotel, and
85155
19
approximately 675,000 square feet of new development in the downtown area. Regional
market conditions will most likely limit the amount of new development which will occur
over the next ten to fifteen years to a level below these development estimates.
8.1 Noise Levels
Initial noise impacts of the proposed project would result from construction activity.
Construction noise which would include noise from grading, operation of paving
equipment, trucks, and other equipment would increase ambient noise levels in the
construction vicinity. The effect of construction would be temporary and confined to
relatively small areas at anyone time; also, with the exception of any construction
adjacent to residential areas on the north and east, land uses in the downtown area are not
highly sensitive. Mitigation measures would include proper muffling of all construction
related vehicles and equipment as specified in the State Vehicle Code and local noise
ordinances.
12.1 Energy Requirements
The proposed project would allow the construction of additional office and retail space in
the downtown area. Energy would be used during the construction and operation of
possible future buildings, resulting in a net increase in the amount of energy used for the
project compared to the no-project alternative. The Specific Plan Area is within the
service area of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &. E), a public utility which
supplies gas and electricity. Existing and planned PG &. E facilities will be sufficient to
meet future needs of the Tri-Valley area.
1paul Ryan, General Manager of the Dublin San Ramon Services District, telephone
conversation, March 5,1987.
2 \ b'lc:l
:op.-ett:', telephone conversation, March 10, 1987.
3Sergeant Difranco, Dublin Crime Prevention Officer, telephone conversation, March 5,
1987.
4Chief Phillips, Fire Chief, Dublin Fire Department, telephone conversation, March 5,
1987.
85155
20
LOOp.ve:: '. .
7' ., ~
l-fAWt= or CA.OTff""
. rLAN.c.o~W\\SSION -t\PND600~
~.~
r
. '11-8 The General Plan 1
@,
.~,.., "'.
'.1..:-::
The General Plan
r;;?:, \
\s.:~ ;J
Before 1971, a city's general plan was usually considered just a guideline
for growth. In fact, prior to 1971, Government Code ~65860 read: "No county
or city shall be required to adopt a general plan prior to the adoption of a zoning
ordinance."
The major change in California planning law practice since 1971 is the .
growing importance of general plans. State laws now require that approvals be
consistent with city's general plan.
, The general plan has taken on a very important legal meaning. As the
Attorney General stated in 58 Ops.CaI.Attny.Gen. 21, 23 (1975):
"A study of the 1971 and subsequent statutory changes makes it clear
that the legislature intended that local government engage in the dis-'
cipline of setting forth their development policies, objectives and stan-
dards in a general plan composed of various elements of land use.
~~65030, 65302, 65302.2. The general plans and their constituent ele-
ments are now the local constitutions to which all local development in
its many and varied phases shall repair. ~~65302, 65303."
In addition to the Attorney General's opinion, the appellate courts have
discussed the importance of the general plan. .
In City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove [(1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521,
532] the Court of Appeal, in e~plaining the McCarthy legislation of 1971, stated
it has .. . . . transformed the general plan from just an 'interesting study' to the
basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the local
jurisdiction. . . . As a result, general plans now embody fundamental land use
decisions that guide the future growth and development of cities."
In Friends of "B" Street, et at. v. City of Hayward, et at. [(1980) 106
Cal.App.3d 988], the court held that the construction of public improvements
must be consistent with the general plan and stated the general plan is, in short,
a constitution for all future development within the city.
General Plan Elements
L
Under the state planning law, each city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-
term general plan for the physical development of a city and. of any land outside
its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning (Government
Code ~65300). Under state law, each city's general plan must have nine man-
datory elements:
1. Land Use - designating proposed general location and distribution of land
uses; includes standards of population density and building intensity.
2. Circulation - the general location and extent of transportation facilities and
public utilities all correlated with the land use element.
3. Housing - provision for housing improvement and site' adequacy for all
economic segments of the community.
4. Conservation - of all natural resources.
5. Open Space - for preservation and managed production of natural re-
sources, outdoor recreation and public health and safety.
6. Seismic Safety.;. identification and appraisal of all seismic and associated
geologic hazards.
7. Noise - in quantitative terms, identifying noise levels and potential mitigation
measures associated with transportation facilities, industrial uses and other
stationary sources. Includes noise impacts on land use and the preparation
of a community noise exposure inventory.
8. Scenic Highways - identification and protection of scenic highways.
9. Safety - protection of community from fires, and geological hazards.
r P!"'!J"W '" ,~!" 1f ~ :ft! ~ l\ , 1MI
'\. ~ .' ;:,", r,'~ '.,; '" "1 .;.. ", 0";' ~
' <' ';.., L'./' .;~ ",~ " "' ;,...g .
III ). ".,. C~ r.... ',. '., ,~ <0'
. . ;.. ,-,'''! ~. ,- ." . .. '.
t~'~" ~ ~~ t;t:~~ "0: r ~p~ ~:" ~;,';.~;,~. ~ "}j -:
" !j.., i\l a.......".'l ""j:,i::.a;.l'!'i \oj ,;,.
Ii
,..--.- ~
-----~_..._-~"..,.~_._....._..~.._...,.."'-_._-_.~-..-.__.--...--..."'.......~--..,_.........-...--_--.__.--_.- ...,._--
2 11-8 The General Plan
The Nine Mandatory
Elements Of A General
Plan
1. Land Use
2. Circulation
3. Housing
4. Conservation
5. Open Space
6. Seismic Safety
7. Noise
8. Scenic Highways
9. Safety
- ~
c
r
Under the decisions in Camp v. Mendocino [(1981) 123 CA3d 334] and
Twain Harte Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Tuolumne [(1982) 138
Cal.App.3d 664] the elements must meet the requirements contained in state
law, or they will be deemed illegal and no subdivision approval, for example,
can be given. Thus it is imperative that a city make sure that statutory criteria
are contained in its local elements.
For example, the court in the Camp case, in discussing the inadequacies
of the county's noise element stated:
"The so-called 'noise element' of the Mendocino County General Plan
is set out in a separate pamphlet which shows that it was adopted by
the Board in 1976 . . . It includes no 'noise' exposure information. . .
required by Section 65302. It shows nothing "determined by monitor-
ing" with regard to "areas" deemed noise sensitive" as required by the
next paragraph of the statute. It does not include a "community noise
exposure inventory, current and projected," as required by the para-
graph after that. For these reasons and others, it does not substantially
comply with the requirements of Section 65302, subdivision (g). The
County asserts that it is "certainly adequate for a quiet rural county
such as Mendocino," but the test is neither geographical nor subjective:
it is purely statutory, and the county has failed it."
In Twain Harte, the court ruled the housing element was adequate, but that
the land' use and circulation elements were inadequate. It said the land use
element failed to include standards of population density and building intensity
as required by Government Code ~65302(a). The court reasoned that popu-
lation density refers to numbers of people in a given area, and not to dwelling
units per acre, unless the basis for correlation between the measure of dwelling
units per acre and numbers of people is set forth in the plan. Tuolumne County's
plan contained no such correlation. The court further stated that the plan con-
tained no standards for building intensity for the nonresidential areas of the
county. Government Coqe 965302(b) requires the circulation element to be
correlated with the land use element. The court could not determine from the
evidence whether in fact the circulation element was correlated with the land
use element, and thus concluded that it was not.
Other permissive elements may be included in the general plan such as:
. Recreation: mandatory if the city desires to adopt a parkland dedication
ordinance;
. Transportation;
. Transit;
. Public services and facilities;
. Public building;
. Community design;
. Housing consisting of standards and plans for the elimination of substandard
dwelling conditions;
. Redevelopment;
. Historical preservation;
. Such additional elements dealing with other subjects which, in the judgment
of the planning agency, relate to the physical development of the city.
However, once a permissive element has been adopted, it is as important
and legally binding as a mandatory one.
Some cities have adopted their elements individually, a practice that may
create a number of problems, particularly if the elements have been prepared
and adopted over many years. At the very least, it makes internal consistency
difficult to maintain, results in needless duplication and bulk, and makes review
and use difficult.
Some cities have combined two or more state-mandated elements. Where
elements are combined, the document ought to include an explicit statement
of how its contents relate to state planning requirements. The most popular
combinations pair open space with conservation, seismic safety with safety,
~
@.
.4."':00"
..-.<
.,,;,;':
@..,
. ~ -'
. ..~.-.
()
~~
r'
\
or'
11-8 The General Plan 3
and scenic highway with open space. A number of cities have adopted Envi-
ronmental Resource Management Elements, integrating the open space, con-
servation, seismic safety and scenic highway elements. Certainly, other
combinations are also possible, including ultimate consolidation-the adoption
of a single document incorporating all the elements. Further, all elements have
equal legal status; in Sierra Club v. Kern Co. [(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698], the
court voided the "precedence clause," giving one element priority over another.
In 1982 the legislature required cities to bring their general plan, specific
plan, and zoning and building regulations into consistency with adopted airport
land use plans, or else to make specific findings. [Chpt. 1041 '82 S15 (AB2920)
adding Government Code ~65302.3, amending and adding various sections to
Public Utilities Code starting with PU 21670 et seq.]
An Incomplete Plan
Since the mid-1970's every city has been required to have a general plan
with all of the nine mandatory elements, unless it has received an extension
from the Office of Planning and Research. However, an extension does not
validate or immunize a city's prior approval of land use permits from the re-
quirement of conformity to a valid general plan [Resource Defense Fund v. Co.
of Santa Cruz (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 803].
What happens if a city does not have a completed and updated general
plan? The Attorney General commented on this in an opinion:
". . . Consequently, it is our opinion that a county or general law city
must have had a general plan in effect at the latest by January 1, 1974,
with the elements which were then and are now required, in order that
the local legislative body in adopting a zoning ordinance may comply .
with the consistency requirement. Obviously, as the section itself
states, such consistency with a general plan cannot be found unless
'The city or county has officially adopted such a plan: (~65860) [58
Ops. CaI.Atty.Gen. 21, 24 (1975)].
Su'ppose the city lacks a noise, seismic safety, or housing element, or an
element does not meet state law requirements. or its general plan is internally
inconsistent. If the city finds that a proposed rezoning is consistent with those
elements of the general plan that it has, such an action would be void, none-
theless. [See 58 Ops. Cal.Atty,Gen. 21, 26-27 (1975)]. Also, in Sierra Club v.
Kern County [(1981) 26 Cal.App.3d 698, 704], the court stated in part: "Since
the general plan was internally inconsistent, the zoning ordinance . . . could
not be consistent with such plan (G.C. ~65860) and was invalid when passed."
In Resource Defense Fund, supra, the court stated, "Sinc,e consistency
with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan or relevant
elements thereof, preclude any enactment of zoning ordinances and the like,"
In City of Carmel v. Monterey County [(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964], the
court upheld the trial court's decision that a use permit was necessarily void
because the general plan was inadequate. This case would appear to
supersede the ruling in Hawkins v. County of Marin [(1976) 54 Cal.App.3d
586J, where the court held that the issuance of a condi\ional use permit did not
have to be consistent with the general plan.
As to subdivision approval, it is quite clear from case law that if one of the
elements is missing, or if an element is inadequate, there cannot be a legal
consistency finding with the general plan. In Save EI Toro Assn. v. Days, et a/.
[(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 64], the court stated that the city's laws did not contain
ordinances sufficient to constitute a comprehensive and long-range open
space plan, as required by ~65563. The city failed to formulate inventory maps
to be used in conducting an inventory of the open space resources available.
Since the city had not adopted a valid open space plan, it could not approve
any subdivisions.
.~":,~.":'~7.:,.:;-;:::'::::'::"':::"-'::;':-~7:':~~::"'-::::'::;'::;,;'--"" --.--::.:=,:=-.... ~-.-...... ..:-..- ~'. ._~ ....:.:::.:...:~..:.~~:-:..:'!:~. -....,'..~"I:.."':~.......:--==~~:;.~~~---:--:~,-.,,_,.~ ._:~.._a_.._____ __~-:-~~__ -..__, ... ,_ 31="
~ ~
4 II-B The General Plan
c=-'
r
"
In Friends of "B" Street, supra, the appellate court stated that the city of
Hayward could not proceed with a public works project because it was missing
its noise element and therefore the project could not conform to an officially
adopted general plan.
In summary, all zoning by general law cities, all subdivision approval, and
other land use approvals must be consistent with the entire general plan con-
taining all of the nine elements, unless an element is found not necessary
pursuant to,Government Code ~65302.1. Otherwise the city's action is subject
to legal attack. In addition, because of the Hayward case, all public works
projects must be consistent with the entire general plan, or it will be subject to
legal attack.
r'o,
\ " '
Consistency
By law, consistency exists between zoning and general plan when a city
~s officially adopted such a plan and the various land uses authorized by
ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
program specified in such a plan. The Attorney General, in 58 Ops.
Cal.Atty.Gen 21 (1975), stated:
u. . . As a general approach we endorse the statement in the 'General
Plan Guidelines' that 'The zoning ordinance should be considered con-
sistent with the general plan when the allowable uses and standards
contained in the text of the zoning ordinance tend to further the policies
in the general plan and do not inhibit or obstruct the attainment of those
articulated policies: General Plan Guidelines, September 1973, Coun-
cil on Intergovernmental Relations, pagen 11-13."'
Charter cities, except for Los Angeles, appear to be exempt from the con-
sistency mandate because of Government Code ~65803, which provides that " j
the zoning chapter, ~~65800-65912, shall not apply to charter cities. However,
this exemption is only for zoning and not for consistency in subdivision map
approval, for public works construction, or for other land use approval. (For a
good discussion on consistency see "The Consistency Doctrine: Continuing
Controversy," Chapter 6, page 77, Zoning and Planning Law Handbook, Storm
1982, Clark Boardman Co., Ltd.)
In 1982 the Legislature added comprehensive and specific provisions (Gov-
ernment Code ~65750 et seq.), for challenging the adequacy of a general plan.
The action must be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 1085
traditional mandamus. If the plan is judicially determined to be inadequate, the
law specifies which actions of the city are affected: rezonings, subdivision
approval, and the like. It also specifies time limits to be imposed to prepare an
adequate plan. The law also details other relief the court can grant during the
life of the suit. A detailed reading of those sections and Government Code
965009, are needed if a lawsuit is brought on this issue.
Procedure For Adoption
The adoption of a general plan or any amendments must follow the provi-
sions of Government Code ~65350, et seq. The adoption is by resolution and
if a city has a planning commission, at least one public hearing must be con-
ducted by the planning commission and then one public hearing by the city
council. Approval by the planning commission must be done by the affirmative
votes of not less than a majority of its total voting members.
State law restricts amendments to anyone of the mandatory elements of
the general plan to four per year. However, the restriction does not apply to
amendments for affordable housing projects. This requirement prevents con-
tinual general plan amendments every time an inconsistency between a pro-
posed zoning action and the general plan surfaces. This limitation tends to
. --. ".. . ....,..".-.- .".... - -- '..,-.---..'- ".~~-::r.::.~_:~:~.;',~;;~1::'---:7~:~-~;_.~.. ,:~:::_.::.:-~_...-......,-"!":,~.,~ ~ ~_.."..~ :-,.,~--~~=:~ --:'~:~_:-:7:;,-;:~"'..~:-~: :_~_:';:7":;-;' .-:;--'''-'--:~--' :.:::.'-.::....--. "- _.
""
,
~ .
i
o
(0)""
, .
,:'~:,:
further focus attention upon basic land use questions rather than the all too
frequent narrow inquiry, "How good is this particular project?"
Further, before adopting a general plan or any amendment, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be addressed. CEOA guidelines are
applied to a general plan when it is adopted or amended in order to bring it into
conformance with state environmental codes (see Section III of this handbook
for specific CEQA applications). '
(~)
The Housing Element
One of the most detailed and sometimes controversial elements is the
housing element and its various requirements (Government Code ~65580 et
seq). This 1980 legislation described in detail what must be considered by each
city in adopting the housing element of its general plan.
An assessment must be undertaken of the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community and a program must be formulated to meet those
needs. Housing need is determined by calculating the community's fair share
of the regional housing needs. That share is initially determined by the appro-
priate council of governments (COG), or by the Department of Housing and
Community Development in those areas where a COG does not exist If a
community disagrees with the COG's determination, it may include its own
determination in its housing element, with all data justifying its conclusion.
In addition to the assessment of housing need and the development of a
housing program, a housing element must include an analysis of existing
household characteristics, an inventory of land suitable for residential devel-
opment, an analysis of governmental constraints on the development of hous-
ing, an analysis of nongovernmental constraints on the development of housing,
and an analysis of special housing needs such as those of the elderly or
handicapped.
The housing program is developed by identifying adequate sites for a va-
riety of types of housing for all income levels, by addressing governmental
constraints to the development of housing, by conserving and improving the
condition of existing affordable housing stock and by promoting housing op-
portunities for all persons in the community.
The following provisions of the 1980 legislation on housing elements should
be noted:
· The Department of Housing and Community Development's Housing Ele-
ment Guidelines are declared to be advisory.
· All comments made by the Department in its review of local housing elements
are declared to be advisory.
· The burden of proving that a city's determination of its fair share is reasonable
does not rest with the city.
· The legislation states that a city may not be able to provide sufficient housing
to meet the identified need due to fiscal, environmental or other public health,
safety, and welfare objectives. Identification of need does not require fulfilling
that need if other factors interfere with this effort. Inability to meet identified
housing need does not render the housing element or the implementing
zoning unlawful.
The law further provides that a city shall not be required to expand local
revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition;
nor to disapprove any residential development which is consistent with the
general plan.
In 1982 the Legislature added another limitation on a city's power to dis-
approve or conditionally approve a housing development project at a lower
density than applied for. It required that written findings be made based on
specific conditions concerning specific, adverse impacts and the lack of fea-
sible mitigation methods (Government Code ~65589.5). Even though this lim-
itation added to the housing element article, its application is quite broad.
\....
~ !
~.
11-8 The General Plan 5
What Goes Into :li Housing
Element?
· An assessment of community
housing needs.
· A program to meet those needs.
· An analysis of the community's
household characteristics.
· An inventory of land suitable for
residential development.
· An analysis of governmental
constraints on the development
, of housing,
· An analysis of non-governmental
constraints.
· An analysis of special housing
needs, such as those of the elderly
or handicapped.
What The.Housing
Element Does Not Do
· It does NOT force cities to follow
the guidelines set out by the State
Department of Housing and
Community Development.
· It does NOT remove a city's
authority to determine its fair share
of regional housing needs.
· It does NOT require a city to meet
its housing needs if other factors
interfere.
· It does NOT force cities to raise
money to build housing.
· It does NOT require a city to
disapprove any residential develop-
ment that IS consistent with the
general plan.
" .--.' -'~ . . P"
...;," 7_:.:~"."_:'::_:,:.""~ .'- ..~. ...~......-......~...........--.-..._-..._.......:...:', -~. ~:.~._------_.-':""----:----.__ -_.__..,_
iO=
6 11-8 The General Plan
~
Basically, if a housing project complies with applicable general plan, zoning
and development policies at the time the application is determined to be com-
plete, the city cannot later disapprove or approve it at a lower density until
written findings on the existence of specific conditions are determined.
(See further discussion of housing in Section IV. F.)
r,
Specific Plans
The specific plan is an effective but often unused tool for the implemen-
tation of general plan policies and priorities. Because their preparation requires
sophisticated staff or consultant resources, many cities are reluctant to prepare
these plans. Hence, they often request that a project applicant prepare or fund
the preparation of a specific plan which would encompass their project. Be-
cause of their relative specificity and ultimate assurances, they may be pre-
ferred by applicants for large scale development. Specific plans are designed
to define environmentally sensitive areas within the city/county and set the
parameters of development allowed in those areas. A specific plan evaluates
the features of the area (e.g., water, plant, animal resources, etc.) to enable
planners and developers to mitigate any measurable environmental impacts
before development is permitted. They do, however, require a significant "front
end" investment in planning, architectural and engineering fees without assur-
ances that a specific proposal will be approved. Some cities provide for general
"concept review" which, if approved, may provide some basis for a developer's
initial investment.
The authority for specific plans is contained in Government Code 965450
et seq. However, they are not applicable to charter cities unless adopted by
charter or ordinance (Government Code 965700), The plan shall include all
detailed regulations, conditions, program, and proposed legislation which shall -
be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of tlie general
plan.
The procedure for adoption of specific plans is basically the same as for
general plans. The city council may determine and establish administrative d.
rules and procedures for the application and enforcement of specific plans and
regulations, and may assign or delegate such administrative functions, powers,
and duties to the planning or other agency as may be necessary or desirable.
Subdivisions and development agreements must be consistent with spe-
cific plans (Government Code 9966473.5 and 65867.5).
To assist and encourage cities and developers to use specific plans, the
Legislature, in 1979, adopted Government Code 965453.
"The Legislature hereby declares its intent to encourage counties and
cities to undertake the work and responSibility for development of spe-
cific plans. At the time a specific plan is presented to the legislative
body for adoption, the city or county shall also prepare and present a
complete cost breakdown . . . The legislative body, after adopting a
specific plan, may impose a special fee upon persons seeking govern-
mental approvals which are required to be in conformity with the spe-
cific plan. The amount of the fees shall be established so that, in the
aggregate they defray, but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of
development and adoption of the specific plan. As nearly as may be
estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance
with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is
the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge those
builders, developers, and others who benefit from development of spe-
cific plans for the costs thereof which result in savings to them by
reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and
advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to
the specific plan."
__ ..__" _._....__.~_.,._..__.,..._... .<o._..______.___.p_... .,. -.':....._.- -----
-",,"