HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Livermore-Amador Vly Wastewater Plan Study 1030-
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE : March 28, 1984
SUBJECT: Planning Director ' s Report on
Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater
Planning Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Transmittal Letter and Technical Report
from Raymond Yep, CH2M-Hill
RECOMMENDATION: Receive report from Planning Director
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: As part of the Livermore-Amador Valley
Wastewater Planning Study, a capacity Steering Committee was
formed to help develop wastewater flow projections .
On December 12 , 1983 , the City Council directed Mayor Snyder
and the Planning Director to participate in the Capacity
Steering Committee . The Committee met on December 15, 1983,
and again, on February 23, 1984 .
The consulting firm of CH2M 7Hill has sent to the City a
technical report on wastewater flow estimates . Specific
population and employment projections for the City are
discussed on pages 8, 9 , 19 , 20, and 21 of the report .
The 1995 and 2010 employment projections are somewhat lower
than shown in the Draft City of Dublin General Plan. The
report shows the following employment projections :
1995 2010
13 , 500 21, 000
The Draft General Plan would indicate the following:
1995 2010
15, 400 29 , 400
The 1995 figure is based on full build-out, in the Primary
Planning Area, and 1/3 build-out, in the Extended Planning
Area. The 2010 figure is based on full build-out in both .
the Primary and Extended Planning Areas . The total
wastewater flow projections of 3-million gallons per day, in
1995, and 4-million gallons per day, in 2010 (Table 12,
pg. 21) are consistent with the Draft General Plan.
The report also provides for one-million gallons per day
wastewater flow projections for Camp Parks, Santa Rita Jail,
and other development in the DSRSD service area.
With the above adjustments to the employment projections,
and minor corrections to the Sphere of Influence diagram
(Figure 2 ) and General Plan Boundary diagram (Figure 3 ) , the
technical report will include sufficient wastewater flow.
projections to accommodate the develoment shown in the Draft
General Plan. If City Council concurs, the Planning
Director will forward these comments to the consulting firm.
---------------------7---_ ----------------------------------------
ITEM NO. /� .COPIES TO:
CH2M
113 HILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
March 8 , 1984
F17740 .B0
Capacity Steering Committee
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
City Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D
Dublin, California 94568
SUBJECT: Livermore-Amador Valley
Population and Wastewater Flow Estimates
Committee Members :
Attached is a revised report on wastewater flow estimates
for the Livermore-Amador Valley. This report incorporates
comments received at the February 23 , 1984 Capacity Steering
Committee meeting and individual agency comments received
following the meeting.
CH2M HILL is proceeding with the next task of the Valleywide
Wastewater Planning Study. We will be evaluating alterna-
tives, based on flow projections , presented in this report.
Please advise us if there are any questions and/or provide a
written confirmation of your agency' s projection by March 30 ,
1984.
Your assistance is very much appreciated. '
S , ly,
a
Raymo Yep
Project Manager
cft
Attachment
SFC12/064 'C E I
MAR 1 �X, 1984
DUBLIN PLA1%QI1i1-ti,;,
San Jose Office
50 West Brokaw Road,San Jose,California 95110 408/298-8599
DISTRIBUTION:
CSC Members :
Mr. Don Exell
Alameda County .Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Mr. William H. Fraley, Director
Alameda County Planning Department
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544-1395
Mr. Jim Cutler
Chief of Comprehensive Planning
Contra Costa County Planning Department
P.O. Box 951
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Mr. Robert Schroder
Supervisor, District 3
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
315 Diablo Road, Suite 111
Danville, CA 94526
Mr. Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
City Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd. , Suite D
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr. Ron Noble, President
Board of Directors
Dublin San Ramon Services District
7051 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr. Miles Ferris
Director of Public Works
Dublin San Ramon Services District
7051 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr. Dale Turner, Mayor
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
' 1
Mr. Jerry Peeler
Acting City Planning Director
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
Mr. Robert Butler, Mayor
City of Pleasanton
200 Bernal Ave.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Mr. Robert Harris
Director of Planning and
Community Development
City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Ms. Diane Schinnerer, Mayor
City of San Ramon
9 Crow Canyon Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
Mr. Jim Robinson, City Manager
City of San Ramon
9 Crow Canyon Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
cc: Mr. Gary Lee
Lowry and Associates
4637 Chabot Dr. , Suite 101
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Mr. James R. Walker, City Manager
City of Pleasanton
200 Bernal Ave.
Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Mr. Richard Stenquist
Brown and Caldwell
P.O. Box 8045
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Mr. Gil Wheeler
Larry Walker Associates
200 B Street, Suite 200
Davis, CA 95616
SFC12/064
2
LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY CH2M::HILL
WASTEWATER PLANNING STUDY
POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOW ESTIMATES
INTRODUCTION
This technical paper presents wastewater flow projections of
the Livermore-Amador Valley study area to be used in the
Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Management Plan. This
paper presents population employment and wastewater flow
estimates for 1980 and projections for 1995 and 2010 for the
following analysis areas :
o San Ramon
o Dublin
o Pleasanton
o Livermore
As will be described in the text and shown in the accompany-
ing Figures 1 through 3 , the analysis areas generally cor-
respond to General Planning areas. -The unincorporated county
areas are included in the analysis areas. An exception is
made in San Ramon, where the Dublin-San Ramon Services Dis-
trict (the District) only serves a limited part of the pro-
posed General Planning area. In addition to projections for
these analysis areas, separate projections have also been
prepared for proposed future developments that are not in-
cluded in current General Plans.
The scope of this part of the Management Plan Study is lim-
ited to the following tasks:
o Describe the growth management ,programs which reg-
ulate population growth and land use within the
District service area, the City ,.of Pleasanton, The
`City ,of Livermore, and .the unincorporated areas of
the ,Livermore-Amador Valley. Review-. recent and
anticipated residential, commercial, and Indus
` trial development and associated population ;levels.
:estimate of `future population 'levels in .
the.TLivermore-Amador>Ualley through;ethe: year :2010:
J
;"Information`for :this task will beYfrom established '
t
� '.;,r'.General•�_.Plans and,.,,, romr,planning agencies in _the :
, t> Livermore Amador' Valley r ;�
x
i,
METHODOLOGY .
The wastewater flow projections presented -in this paper are
based on:
o Population projections for the analysis areas
o Employment projections for the analysis areas
r
o Estimated wastewater flow coefficients applicable
to the overall study area
For each analysis area, the following tasks were performed
as part of the methodology:
1 . Data sources, such as recent planning studies,
environmental impact reports, and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections-83
(census tract computer printouts) were identified
and studied.
2 . A meeting with the City or County Planning staff
was held to review available data and proposed
methodology.
3 . A projection for the analysis area was prepared
using Projections-83 data. This projection was
compared to other available local projections.
4 . A second meeting was held with City or County Plan-
ning staff to present the results of the initial
evaluations and to obtain their recommendations on
the forecasting assumptions to be used in this
study.
5. Based upon the recommendations of the City or
County staff, population and employment projec-
tions were -prepared. . . ,
The results of step 5 of the methodology are summarized in
this paper. :. -.
,. For the ,overall .study ,area, .:average dry weather wastewater _
:•f low :coefficient' data .were identified and reviewed. Appli-
cable :coefficients ;.were estimated based on these available , s
� _
>>,� MAJOR
ASSUMPTIONS ,:,,-,
aJ J
y rp��� l.y,r1 f. �� k +�{ 3[ t'..;,,� A. •`i1.s o {y ! 5'1�! '{ t a z t - F - -.7}
ra- ,cc
Theprojections`tipresented ;an` this;.p ape rt are°based on a num
assumptions. All._ of ,the `major _assumptions''have been K .;
t
discussed in 'detail�with.:rthe appropriate"city-,or._county..plan-
ning'ysstaffs ��, Recommendations were`tmade byrthe ,'staffs in
selecting among, potentially conflictingtassumptions . ;.For
�z -example,''a. numbe'r`,of, poteiitially;.conflicting assumptions
concerning `,persons 'per"household were `,identified,`' and indi-
';vidual city and :county 'planning '`staffs =reviewed the
2
assumptions and made recommendations based upon their knowl-
edge of local conditions .
A summary of the major assumptions is presented below:
o Population and employment protections for 2010 are
based on Projections-83 estimates of available
acreage for residential and commercial development
within each census tract of the study area. For
example, for each analysis area, the estimated
available residential acreage in year 2000 is com-
pared to the estimated total available residential
acreage in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties
and the percentage share is assumed to be the an-
nual growth share of the analysis area of the com-
bined estimated annual growth of both counties.
Associated acreage demand is calculated for the
period 2000-2010 and verified with available acre-
age supply.
o Acreage is assumed available in each analysis area
to accommodate the growth projections. This as-
sumption is supported by a review of Projections-83
data and conferring with city and county planning
staffs.
o Current growth management plans are assumed to be
in effect through the year 2010 . To illustrate,
the General -Plan for the City of Livermore only
covers the period 1976-2000 . For purposes of this
study the current adopted 2 percent annual growth
rate was assumed to be in effect through the year
2010.
r o :'Based upon the overall .:1980-2000 growth rate . of
the study area in Alameda..County' prepared by ABAG t
(4 '4 .percent) .it .was .,assumed that-;the 2 percent
r"
population growth 'limitation for the ;Cities of
i a
x <, Livermore._,and.Pleasanton 4ould result in the maxi
i „• - :.yr 1H .. .-r
mum2 percent growth annually , `y, �z�f '4 y
j .. > > ,r . '4 y '-4�.,t L ��. x� , Qtk, .� �+y F, •.•[ � s j M ty :,,.,, -ll ._ � t'
._;x r ---:`t�w�4t - - -
, o • y1 t?,Bas6d ,upon •available wastewater "flow data an 'av
+ v .,
erage ,residential flow ,rate was :assumed, to be f;
X80",'gallons :per .d ay :per ca ita dThis '"estimate is
s'„basedon data ::for an;:,average household ,size °be- }
f tween 2, 6: and''3:'0persons:°lper household ::in :the
rLivermore-Amador,Valle* Study Area This would
equate"to 224 gallons per day per .unit on average.
This assumption is consistent with both the Dis-
trict' s design criteria and City of Pleasanton' s
Design Guide, Section 3 Sanitary Sewer System.
3
o Based on available wastewater flow data, an
average employee wastewater flowrate was assumed
to be 70 gallons per day per employee for all
areas except Pleasanton, which was assumed to be
95 gallons per day per employee. These flowrates
are based on assumed values of flow per employee
for five employment categories. The Pleasanton
area has a higher proportion of high water use
industries than does the rest of the study area.
� P:� 1 � f t ;r4� it �.t�t 'k,'y 4 t 2r .t •, �, ..ry ti 's 5 :?a4N t"+ z }�°: �br.K} i�V.� rj� .t';k' ', s�
+ ; �f .,r F a ty�.� t ..� 7 t 7 •, t,a f. -•.; 4r- .y � L S �" �5- ..}Y t t 4+ r y. ,� 't� .i
s -"r
T Y FM1 art ', � ��'�' �r �; r �' c a cn ,t r• d( 5�r � .n» S.+ r}c%a y t�.Jl„ '�3<. � .-�� 3 r�,+t r 5 a,.2 'x ,, r'%
' '+dr y 'x � .A k 4r+,�a�a'7 5 � " rt ia1 �+ ��k> '"'�'.y 3 � •r;,,,. 'Y-r.. r� _ �'� y r -e < � r1=f -'
4 '. �_. c:��'° ��,'� a i .�� `Lft i�� � TY� t� F � F 1 ti ��" 4?r -.+.'+ e ,`s••a�'�l�ts i � �x ��
SFR35/089
SAN RAMON ANALYSIS AREA
INTRODUCTION
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (the District) Sphere
of Influence and actual service boundary in Contra Costa
County are shown in Figure 1 . As shown in this figure, the
actual service area is less encompassing than either the
Sphere of Influence or the watershed boundary. As also shown
on the figure, the Central Contra Costa Service District
(CCCSD) currently serves the remaining developed areas within
the watershed in Contra Costa County. For purposes of this
planning study it was assumed that the CCCSD will continue
to service its existing customers and further expansion of
the CCCSD in the study area would be limited to development
immediately adjacent to the Blackhawk development in the
northeast part of the study area. Consequently, only that
part of the residential population and commercial and indus-
trial employment within the assumed potential District' s
service area within this study' s watershed boundary in Contra
Costa County are incorporated into the projections for the
San Ramon analysis area.
The population and employment projections for the San Ramon
study area are based on a review and analysis of:
P . Projections-83 .'(census tract computer printouts)
.. by _the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
o Personal communications with Contra Costa County
and City of ,San Ramon staff-
Contra Costa County 'file documents
a v.
A' Livermore-Pleasanton` Extension. Study; ..Update Anal
the,-,Bay-Ar a i Tr nsit District (BART)
ysis by ea Rip d a
' r N r rt ,a {,s r.._.'?1•. ,J 2' f7. 7l .: '+�.,'-,.l ": 7 '' ;t ,'
o�f "Gumpert Ranch¢Environmental •'Impact Report; Response ;
=tto ,Comments..by,Xontra Costa SCounty 4� t , �� � aa
Si'''"+ r�,°t'a
n z l ,4i wl 'fit F3 dos N }tr r R.� y i•'r " b?y, i 6 •,k- l a c ,
Y >'
i A a� { "), ytti.+ya• �f�ji7`'j.,-Y' y .jar E: t5},4.n R'{.�t {H ^•..ktr t i -
�
POPULATION `EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION''
v r:
in {. r { -7t k� `3a' ,. .^'r �n , 7 r��r 's 1"�,, y "•``�, .c sa�" f r{G.'"P � v�s�—:, r � n r .rr$ I
*• r'^ .� �'°"B t ��'�''o�r+� 3 r,.�ln" , tt�;rr�y" s a: . v v',,,��� 1 N.ur+3,,,yy� �,.v t*, ,r „,. � ro� Y - • r- ;ft •
+� ;): � "� t' +r......�« : • A..r"< .�+.�^•.a nt .��: �y,,, � h:.�1 lbvn•'I .�t
z f-
' TYiet.population,d projectionsshown, inTableF11'are:rbased�on the Y
Projectidns-.83uhousehold data ?shown •,in Table 2, 'land :an
} (`assumed ;household' size�Vof�;3`A0 persons} ;perk household r� , This ,
r r s M I SLY 5 - i e -5 v
r c r �`, household#size has"sumption�,was!�recommended,<tbyContra;>Costat, Y , b t
County,,,and City'.of Sa21 RRamon �staff, for�=this .planning -study
after a .review .and }comparisont.of estimated " 1980 :census based
A' household'-size'and ,Projections-83 basedestimates of house,
hold.;size in w
;1995 and-2000 . ••.. :The .-ho `�
.-household data shown in
Table 2 °were `reviewed by-;'Contra ;Costa .County and City 'of San
Ramon `staff 'and recommended for this;.planning study.
Projections-83 projects a population of 12, 650 persons in
1995 for the San Ramon analysis area which is 1 , 290 persons
less than the projection shown in Table 1 . In Projections-
83 , a household size estimate of 2 . 96 persons per household
in 1995 is used for the analysis area, whereas 3 . 10 persons
per household is used in this study.
The 1980 employment estimate shown in Table 1 is the Projec-
tions-83 estimate of 1980 employment in the planning area.
Based on discussions with Contra Costa County and City of
San Ramon staff, an additional 15 acres of commercial/indus-
trial property is assumed available within the study area
and is further assumed to be fully developed by 1995 at a
density of 30 employees per acre.
Projections-83 projects 4, 440 employees in the analysis
area by 1995. Both the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa
County staff regard this estimate as unlikely based on the
current employment estimate, the mix of businesses in the
area and the limited availability of vacant commercial/
industrial property.
Table 1
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT .PROJECTIONS
FOR THE SAN RAMON ANALYSIS AREAa
1980b 1995 2010
Population 11, 540 13, 940 14 , 110
Employment - . 1, 580 - 2,030 2,030 $
Sources ABAG,-:1983.
:Contra Costa County, .1984
$ C ty'of San Ramon, . 1984.
Note: q.Data .rounded to nearest 10 persons.
r
a a
The San`,Ramon 'analy ' area ;is 'the area assumed to be ;
YI aH,po tentially served by the District _.tp 1
� 3> ,'x M r't WN r 9 fat. i, �"! .V al"`Ftj" .F +I^ _ :{`.t-.{,•, e.{'j 4vS�`�'a
1J k
Data` from ABAG," 1983 .
`j y 'n .mot'IL rSrst jf .�'
4 �{ l -` k'S ti�r a�i.� .jE }��vsl�r �.. f ri,11Stl ,y: !x.N.. .•. ' .•s .. F'( iris•a i` �•._;yn,� ( � v . j !^ ? .
r '�{ .frc based on;•Projections 83 'household
Population projection
" forecast ' (see -Table,° 2) and an assumed,�,3 10 -persons`per }5
household = f based on ABAG
The assumed 3
3.'°2010 orecast is
' "total bui.ldout capacity
aEmployment `projectionrbased on Projections 83 `estimate '~for _
:1980; and 'an assumed .availability , of an additional 15 acres :,
with a density, of .30 workers per, acre
Table 2
HOUSEHOLD PROJECTION
FOR THE SAN RAMON ANALYSIS AREA
Households
Census Allocation Actual Projected
Tract Factor 1980 1995
3451 . 01 1 .00 1 , 655 1 ,785
3451 . 02 . 67 910 1 ,247
3451 . 03 . 80 1 , 031 1 , 462
3, 596 4, 497
Source: ABAG, 1983.
aThe allocation factors shown represent the percentage of the
census tract number of households assumed to be within the
San Ramon study area.
Two major developments have been proposed within the
San Ramon study area. The projected population and employ-
ment for these developments are identified separately for
this study due to their magnitudes. The data presented for
these developments are intended only to identify an upper
range of development by 2010 and are not intended to repre-
sent the potential range of development options or timing of
development.
The proposed Gumpert Ranch Development -is currently estimated
by Contra Costa County staff to have a year .2010 population
of 27,000 persons and' employment . of 1 ;000 ;.persons. ... For pur- r
poses .Iof; this .study :no. development .'is assumed :to occur by
1995 . ,.The proposed .Shapell :-Development is ;;currently esti-
mated, by;.Contra Costa County.staff 'to':have '.a_ year2010 popu
lation of 27 , 000 j persons _and :'employment of ;5;00.0 .persons
For=.purpose's of `this ,study, lno ;development is',:assumed.;to
occur 'by.1995 :,:Wastewater 'flow :from both Hof-these. develop i
ments are included with ,"proposed future developments
L 4
_tt' �**kFS 1•. t t.l
+<:. : +,, x 't1 k+Kk P.fi ^.s. ,4"f i-.f.`' t �t''.
Yr ? Lr , a
$" "e 'tla.4f Visa�!' {*•, es„ { 1,! 'n .: ,,]t
S �f.'> v f"3�1` •� ; `;i�• t �,lf ti iif� tfi+s Z-� 3 Si _,t z .T �r y � r 7 t✓'y S. (Y�'}.- Tr' t�F§S1 y.. A4 ! 1 .l .`}
... t ?.•t t p'.'"rt t.!dr eb• a t~"• f �a+r' { °t i"Z- 6rx i3
� 'i t r�? y r ( r r F cy i t r { ("' er }a r R✓ fiq x a}� sY n
x s J.'.i, t r Y "� i k_. s ;•; t 'Y' * .tkr
fs y �j. 7.,�,y �. ! i{ L t r '` ,r + � na 4• r�.�h ', a`x. t. Y Q '`•''�;q fry. '7 e
r Y 1 f J. 3 1{,f + 3 ".i � Y'f'a"} '4.7,•,r Yfi C �:Y � f
b- 4 F X" .c 4f`� r`"•''w i. C r F3?(fir + '`e
!�.,�.n� -�r� rr.��'�� r� x� L'.�iTYa t yam- ••,, -}fi r "i..` �-
3 .v S- '. > •', t x , r+ t -r +. v S t}„ {r., T _° .?.. w ,' a° 1 5. ,t ,r t x-'• r
.'.. .. }}'! T x—" :.,Ta f r�. t ��•i 5 k?. -3'E "5 b" �Py •rPis S u'3§.t�e> 'L*FY"rv`t.�r� . R r :t
,;,. w u rt 1� Y�,sk t2r h xyfis t :..a,4� xri :.Y 'S=t*) f + •t +. t a° .3' 'q' s'`' ° 's1`a,�S! lr ''T'+Y1t .-rte x ' t. Tt vp,.? ,
Z
. 3.
34.3>p S .tcrb i 755{.""t .{,,,g � i� .' f s *''t�zna �1:+).,✓1 �' t+.�FF;:..x° }'+L4-. 'r ,i; '�{{
t 3 F, x,,•i i �i' .3 � #, 4- .+u' r trt tt � 4 3
• .
DUBLIN ANALYSIS AREA
INTRODUCTION
The City of Dublin LAFCO Sphere of Influence and General
Plan area are shown in Figures 2 and 3 . For purposes of
this study, only the area north of I-580 and east of the
watershed boundary are included in the Dublin analysis area.
The District is assumed to serve this entire analysis area.
The population and employment projections for the Dublin
analysis area are based on a review and analysis of:
o Working papers prepared as part of the City of
Dublin General Plan study
o Personal communications with City of Dublin and
its General Plan consultant staff.
o Projections-83 (Census tract computer printouts)
by ABAG.
o City of Dublin file documents
o Alameda County Planning Department file documents.
o Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study, Update Anal-
ysis sis BART
o Draft Environmental-Impact Report Hacienda Business
Park Planned Unit Development by :,the -City of
::.Pleasanton....
7 ,
I , f
vionme
ntal Im act Rep En
rt.,-Las
osi a o ; Draft.'
4 Development by.,Alameda County
Y
o Personal communication with' the' Alameda Count
J :
r, � � Local Agency Formation CommissioniOffi.ce (LAFCO) r
r} k.,♦ L Vr J Iq� / C 4 �. >k-�
.*1 -c
.IC+t N" SsY Yt {, « s :>`
�i �'� <.j5y C ,#l. .-3�1<.+;"d..�J 14•''�{«c 1d? � `7f.;..•r�.:.M fI�,J ,;iv.d., 7F^rt,, $@ '• Ni a', ;ah+� i K it ii
4,[AND PROJECTIONS
POPULATION EMPLOYMENT
71.'" I
e t^'
m�
�ja��a �r"4 sr?,ryi'�s rki: r"7p� ,fig."r.:.'ci.i��;, `�}�"a,.a,�,4rlt�"�'.t�..?i,'. ,..t J'rt� t -:`., a• `� ,�.il• ..,;•F,��k ��#dar
The.�:popuaationr.pro3ections.. hown on,.s ;F.Table,3.!are• based on'. the= ,
{ Draft#>City(,,of'=Dublin General Plan (February.�8,( 11984) The , x
"` =w '22 '400 "}` rojec�ted,for 1995 'is for'bu'ildout Hof, the primary,
; 0—,,p ii'.r' Xw Sti. t+ ..i. z � _ t
{
-planning-area-. SThe�,28, 800 pro3ectedfor 2OlOFexcludes plan F
�t'.i ��-._ r•-: +:.. . , � • i.' yzl,�' h
ning.:areas ro"'t-side of krthe :wastersned or south of Inter -;� sF
. - '
` Y`L'` , r state 580LL+ r The a"stimated ;residential ;growth between.J995 z
4 r r "and ;::2010 as "1000 'acres `at•. 2 dwellings/acre „'and 3. 2 ;'residents y
t _
{ a per "dwelling:: SThe.population :projections ,include housing
unit's`,;_currently,"approved but not'..-yet constructed
The employment projections shown. on Table `3 are based on 3
`-', land use .data provided in the Draft Dublin.'General Plan and
tw
by the Alameda County Planning staff. The projections in-
cludes partial buildout of 500 acres of industrial develop-
ment of the Santa Rita property along Interstate 580 . Also
included is industrial development north of Interstate 580
from Tassajara Road to Collier Canyon Road. The Camp Parks
Reserve Training area and South Rita Correctional Facility
is not included in the employment forecasts, but will be
included with wastewater flow projections.
Table 3
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
FOR THE DUBLIN STUDY AREA
1980a 1995 2010
Population 13, 500 , 22 , 400 . 28, 800
Employment 6, 000 13 ,500 211000
o-o
Sources: City of Dublin, 1984.
Blayney-Dyett, 1984 .
ABAG, 1983 .
Note: Data rounded to nearest 10 persons.
aData from Blayney-Dyett, 1984. .
The City of Dublin is' currently.�preparing its General Plan
which will be somewhat different than the existing General
Plan adopted by Alameda County For
that reason comparisons with .other;projections may be mis-
leading. .. :For -the Dublin analysis,area Projections-83 *proj-..,
ects a `population of,20,510 -•persons in- 1995.,,which is .1, 890
:persons..less. than the projection :shown`pin'.Table' 3..1 :_ ,. ffer-.::. =}
} f 'ences".in ;assumed 'land .use. densities and assumed persons -.p er ,
t4 household account for;this variation '
.r u it - ; i - a -i - - -�.•kr�y �r r1, ', i -- , :.1 :�
Projections 83 projects 10, 580 employees working in the plan y
>ning area by ,,1995 " or; 2"920 ' less thansare'rp`rojected in `"• ;4
;
The -.City Of 'Dublin recommends"'js estimate,,-,o f rbr
1980 'remployment ,than shown �in
Projections-93r �, 4
J
„y .��y i• �, Er.y.. a k''�s � raw.�� ,t drw�k '^ty: r -_,l i.�
t
,'/ ' i'S y y n,r,.c' -t if r .r a ..c r 1 ` r Y ir'-r.• i S-'t�;„}_ �da bt, � q r .0
s.•. fit . ti u .j i au ` xy :r $ � i? c r tMr T� aYk�7 rp..4 sj F -ssy,ty t y a i � � y ..
: •r t_yy ; <. t 1�,:± 1 x .- �` y' "it -'+�u t.'aE "rl av r- -,.rs },y'i.# ${r � rr'+ z" 3v^.. `.a.:�f�Cp
� � a Zs >:+; •h - r e•�(iwk 1 ! � v7 x`}( { xt,,;. .�Y "`Y, C 1 f c. `,( r •1 2�
SFR35/090 �0
LIVERMORE ANALYSIS AREA
INTRODUCTION
The City of Livermore LAFCO Sphere of Influence and General
Plan area are shown on Figures 1 and 2 . For purposes of
this study the Livermore analysis area is assumed to be the
Livermore planning area.
The population and employment projections for the Livermore
study area are based on a review and analysis of:
o Projections-83 (census tract computer printouts)
by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
o Personal communications with City of Livermore
staff
o Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study, Update Anal-
ysis by BART
o Draft' Environmental Impact Report Hacienda Business
Park Planned Unit Development by the City of Plea-
santon
o Draft Environmental Impact Report Las Positas
. Development by-Alameda County
o ;'-�tPersonal communication ..with the Alameda County .
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) . -
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ;
The ,1995 .and 2010^,population projections shown4iin Table. 4
a;reflect �a ::2 ; percent,'compounded -annual 'grow This
:rate.:is =based on =the,,City,.'of Livermore..General Plan °which
statesr that residential:;.growth,{,will•`not exceed 2 percent=
.annu a lly' .:T
;:.This study;:assumes ',a-continuation of ,2 the'.' percent
rate 'through :the" -year i2010 , although ,the General Plan covers '
growth only through =the year ,2000
4 a. 'n !�i. t n � h. � ,•s l; tt..� '-Y n;4.'�? ,,.. + ti,.�{cl a +r r1.xt1 k y: •;;t+�.7;;, r.. ..t ''f 4 ,; . .. n
Projections=83 `population projection for the Livermore
?i f
�ylstudy =area ,is* .67;990'-',kin-*J 995, -which ,,isa:1,930 persons less
' 10`.� than.,the;pro3ection shownlnTable, 4 s;.The C i t. y of Liver`more's'
,r
staffAke 6ommends- usinglthe compou 'nded ,2 percent4,projection
l /° {�' t ;r�*�+{."� l r ;j:{ x t-r,� 4r',. 'k`:"it"-,.�. _.�lr ^, '7•''a, � '�'Fy"� `. ; i:=. J'"4 r.:"�{ P h � `�� a•{� t �_'y,i r: � !�
men
,Y;n .1 r,+`... ik�'� � "+,'.. .:v +. 11�.
rs The=1980 employment;estimate 'and 1995'employment projection Z
,a ..,
` } .are �taken'`;from 'Projections 83. SThe 2010 'employment--projec
tion' is based on --available„commercial/industrial 'acreage and
, r
Pro •ecti ons-83 .estimate'.of ,Contra' Costa_'and Alameda County { �
r=' commercial industrial 'growth.
Table 4
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTS
FOR THE LIVERMORE ANALYSIS AREA
1980a 1995 2010
Population 51 , 950 69 , 920 94 , 100
Employment 18, 690 29 ,850 42 ,590
Source: ABAG, 1983.
City of Livermore, 1984 .
Note: Data rounded to nearest 10 persons.
aData from ABAG, 1983 .
Las Positas is the only major development planned within the
Livermore analysis area. The projected population and em-
ployment impacts of this development are identified sepa
-
rately . for this analysis because of their magnitudes. The
data presented for this development are intended only to
identify an upper range of development by 2010 and are not
intended to represent the potential range ,of development
...options or timing of development.
The proposed Las Positas development is 'currently estimated
- by �Alameda County staff to have a .year 1995 population of
23 ,140 and year 2010 population of 45,390 persons. Employ-
ment in 1995 is projected to be 7,390 persons and in 2010,
..22,200 persons. Wastewater flow from.:this -development is
.-included -with :'proposed future developments The, popula-
tion and employment 'figures presented ;,in .Table A do not
' :include .these figures :for` Los Positas q
'The above `.data was reviewed .by .the City of .Livermore 'staff
t T
'-which supplied A'-city ;council :approved report :relating'to i
future_:wastewater treatment'°and.•disposal!�needs,;dated�Febru-
�.,
�a r� ary:22 , .1984: .,This .ieport included �anw analysis-of�,yresiden '�Z.1 .
industrialyoffice;` and �commerciAl`I/retaiD`growthV in
`Livermore " `;The result`s j of this analysisare ,presented in +t $k;
Table.'z5 ` " The` report ;indicated wastewater Fflowsg ninaddition
to those}`tin 1985:', Thew total -Livermore wa`stewater4 flo
wrate
�a t v n t� s tra p s
was m revie wing <pla r E
data= F
• S.. r. .., c.F y
sheetsThe.,�-1984 �-flowrate was :estimated to"be{ 4. 7mgd',based
M 4`3561�hou'seholds
s '4 on .this ,f lowrate ;-and -a ,reported addition ofry
_
in' 1984 ,(flows rounded ^off) �r
Since these figures were approvedq;by the Livermore'..City
: Council and are .reasonable when ,compared- to`_;:the _projections
cited above, :they have been used for_this, study -`
Table 5
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR
THE LIVERMORE ANALYSIS AREA
Additional Additional Additional
flowrate in flowrate in flowrate in
1995 2000 2010
Category (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Residential b 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1
Industrial/Office 2. 9 . 4 . 2 6.5
Commercial/Retailc 0 . 3 0. 5 0 .5
Source: Memorandum from Gerald M. Peeler, Assistant City
Manager of Livermore, titled Revised Report Relat-
ing to City' s Future Wastewater Treatment and Dis-,
posal Needs, February 22 , 1984.
aResidential buildout projected to occur in 1996. Flowrate
bbased on'.4I880 new dwelling units at 223 gpd/dwelling unit.
Based on a medium rate of buildout .as recommended by the
. '. the City of Livermore staff. Buildout projected to occur
` in year 2009 at this rate.
:cCommercial/retail buildout projected to occur in 2000.
Flowrate based on 169 acres of developable .land at 3000
gallons - per acre per -day.
r .
7 .
tt
v t t } A 1 ti r r• t - f
A tS. � +�S' <r'*.. 37� 7a'��'4� �;l �t 4K �ylt ,j±�u ,y''kt fl,p t''•3 '�, x t ,!C h's, k.. ys.36+'�•+:, d � r � th p
ka �� 4s'�t`�4".,'��rl���i`,k l�p�.�ijtt.t uysy4tt ttti lti,��;�r"it{v"5 t.',L�$�y�4,• �- -R„� p..'� 4Yr� aT+.t tr' L.i'} X ,5�!'°a j`,a��,tT�C �'.a .Y,� j 7 c2- i` � �+.L�
F t
}+fit
kC,'t a kF �1 r♦ yf
w..
h.f 4 \N{ `• ; + Yifit, 'j�.f. S�.? kY >n<#� sp r... '3 .:t j , W!
�^.a i 1 y'Yi:{.'6 5 r -I i S pt^ t r:. i •3 a k3 ( r r x
4'5'• 4 ip t v�t �if,'-0k 7✓�<} r p k �'�,r¢ ~••ai S�P ^+rrxi'.. ;�.0 b � lid`� a t >r�3..F Y`X.t}-' a tu.N j� � Y .i tx � '''+ t pr.� _
3rys ?
t+l
4 '
rt :?
� t SFR35/091 f "
•5 ,
PLEASANTON ANALYSIS AREA
INTRODUCTION
The City of Pleasanton LAFCO Sphere of Influence and planning
area are shown in Figures 1 and 2 . The Pleasanton analysis
area is consistent with the planning area.
The population and employment projections for the Pleasanton
analysis area are based on a review and analysis of:
o Projections 83 (Census tract computer printouts)
by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) .
o Personal communications with City of Pleasanton
staff.
o City of Pleasanton file documents.
o Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study, Update Anal-
ysis by BART.
o Draft Environmental Impact Report Hacienda Business
Park Planned Unit Development by the City of Plea-
santon.
o Draft Environmental Impact Report Las Positas
Development by Alameda County. .; .
o Industrial General Plan Review: 1983-2005 by the -.-
City of Pleasanton industrial growth committee.
o Tri-Valley 'Transportation Study by •the Prudential
Insurance Company
POPULATION .AND .EMPLOYMENT .PROJECTIONS
1 A
The 1995:.and 2010 ;population projections shown iniTable 6 ,
s re.f lect;a 2 ,;percent '-;compounded_-growth rate. This rate is
' based on;the;.adopted growth management ;policy Hof the{ City` of 44'x' ,J4 y
' } {.'Pleasantont;{which ':limits 'growth of population tto 2 percent r r
1t, ;;efts r'ta1�t annually:yt;w,This study ;_assumes'ra 'continuation Hof the :2 #percent; �a }
u ,+v -rate .through 2010 based on the`.f recommendation Hof ,the`gC1ty } ;
s
.r+
Y}, t� � �� .�, Fwa'k. d.`j•.i��tr. � 3.�;.' n ''" t F..'3'4 -q y m'. aF. x i..:,€'�.! �.?� c,:
J Projections 83 ;pro�ects a...population of 55,380 ,personsin=, ' .
„w '
-' { •1995, ,which . is :.7. ;230 persons`.mor& `than the?=pro)ection shown ,r�
in' Table:?5 ' .; The ::difference :is` ,due to`:the=2''percent,annual f
s
P opul ation :growth policy ..limiting :the 'pro3ection in Table 5
� t
The 1980 employment 'estim�Lte and "1995 employment project on
are taken from.Projections-83. :_:,The 2010. employment projec-,- ..
tion is 'based on year 2000 ,available ,commercial/industrial
property and the ABAG projected growth rate of Alameda and
Contra Costa County.
Table 6
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
FOR THE PLEASANTON ANALYSIS AREA
1980a 1995 2010
Population 36, 040 48, 510 65, 280
Employment 10 , 580 31 , 770 44, 820
Source: ABAG, 1983
City of Pleasanton, 1984.
NOTE: Data rounded to nearest 10 persons
aData from ABAG, 1983.
Lit
tv
" r
Y F
r1 h r 1 s 63 Y _ �,- 1�'r 9- pt l• f� d X* 1 S } '�1
C i r t i l r �„ µr' .r,;ti ,. �t y{.•'. ,.3 r� t�'• 2' .-.� "S
�� �;r t'S i (�'k'"i $ S t ,t S —r+y r I CJrf •4 f2 .,p r 3 .0 E'�L' Gtr.. 1
p r ,r �v.�ri 11+7.•, K � r 'Gr_4r' i 3 . s 7 r 'A L � �J'v v i f t '
i '� r ;; t t l i z i•.5�1�J y�� ` � f cST r t _ � e •�-r,. H� NYr}Fy } t r -� ,� _
�;i.ti.k ��1 �r$ ���jn`�'srE i< t! � �S,. )Yi 1 +pat ht r. t..- > t �.: { •• �- >'..
�y-f a W 1. *S Sf'S I r-.S E 4 I'.�.' - T'( Y IL k '1( r" Sd', i•.
I q
� �• �, t a..f i'I�� il.'g rr s;' .,ar'. ! w� } ? y x. _ .*�,,. r
Rr7''. t � :,• i 't � r u�' J. J r ,.,,, � r i `"1 _ S ' ��
4
SFR35/091
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY'
As shown in Table 7 , population in the Livermore-Amador
Valley study area is projected to increase from 113 , 030 in
1980 to 154, 770 in 1995 and 202 , 290 in 2010, exclusive of
proposed future developments. Including these major
developments, the population is projected to be 177, 910 in
1995 and 301 , 680 in 2010.
As shown in Table 8 , employment in the Livermore-Amador
Valley study area is projected to increase from 36, 850 in
1980 to 77 , 150 in 1995 and 110, 440 in 2010, exclusive of
proposed future developments. Including these major
developments, the employment is projected to be 84, 540 in
1995 and 138, 640 in 2010.
Table 7
SUMMARY POPULATION PROJECTION
FOR THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
Analysis Area 1980 1995 2010
San Ramon 11 ,540 13 ,940 14,110
Dublin 13 , 500 22 , 400 . 28, 800
Livermore 51 ,950 69 ,920 94,100
Pleasanton . 36, 040 48, 510 65,280
Subtotal :: 113,030 154,770 202 ,290
Proposed future .' -- 23, 140 99,390
developments
Total . . .;; 113 ,030 177,910 .::`; 301 ,680
r Table 8
SUMMARY EMPLOYMENT :*PROJECTION a
' FOR THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA, .-'.,-. k �
,
i _ .; '^�•, lF" L � `,T
-An }< Y 1980 ' 1995 " 2010
M1 ;.L 4 ` jY ,r2,,030 ;0San 'Ramon l;580
U. 6 ;000 2Dblin 13 1;03000
�
ry 88,690 9 4590ivermore
leasanton ' 10 ;580 � 31,7700 `' ., 44 ,820
Subtotal : 36, 850 ` 77;150 ` 110, 440
Proposed future - 7,390 28,200
developments
Total 36, 850 +=84,540 ` . 138,640
SFR35/092 . <
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Wastewater flow projections are presented in this section
for the analysis areas described above. The population and
employment projections are converted to flow projection us-
ing assumed flow rate coefficients . The coefficients are
expressed in terms of average daily flow rates, without con-
sideration for peaking or inflow and infiltration. The
coefficients used in this study represent median flow rates
for actual wastewater flow measurements in the study area,
and are consistent with rates used in other planning studies
in the study area. The following sources were reviewed and
. evaluated as part of this study:
o Hacienda Business Park Alternative Approaches to
Wastewater Disposal by the Prudential INsurance
Company.
o "Reducing Water Demand and Wastewater Flow. "
Journal of the American Water Works Association.
July 1983
o Draft Environmental Impact Report Hacienda Business
Park Planned Unit Development by the City of Plea-
santon.
o Draft Environmental Impact Report Las Positas De-
velopment by Alameda County.
o Industrial General - Plan-Review: . "1983-2005 by the
City. of Pleasanton .Industrial. Growth Committee.
` o Tri-Valley Transportation fCIV :and •Analysis of =�
` the •Pleasanton Area Traffic :-Circulation System -
by .TJKM.
',-,WASTEWATER,,,FLOW,.COEFFICIENTS,` t
Sa. tt `Z, t tri i. 15 3r i'.e y
4 R,' t EYt2 r�. c 1 i::Fz_ � !.r; . n.l ;: 1 2. .�s i :.•..`e jL r' s..« sy. { ;• h."£' :{.'y..1z,. A.
The hresidential�w`astewater flow coefficient used in '`this
,
based`on actualwater°euse 'data yin "thet`ystudy area
and 'ass:umptions regarding .its;;use,
4ithinx6the residences:
{
.The 'DSRSD wand t ?Xity Hof`'Pleasantbn� recommend-using 1,220 t 4
f gallons per,j day r�.(GPD) fors�`a new single family residence :� � � ~ `L
32'.persons)'= in :eitherymedium or" low"densit develo ments -
Y
-arid..145 .GPD+.'.for..-a residence in"a high "density development.
t
n
An average `estimate{of 80 GPD`;per capita- is used in 'pro ect-
ing residential :wastewater flows ,,. n thisIstudy.,:
Industrial and commercial wastewater flow can vary substan-
tially, as shown. An average 70 GPD per employee for those
areas outside Pleasanton and an average 95 GPD per employee
in Pleasanton is used in this study to project employee
wastewater flow. Both coefficients are based on the assumed
flow coefficients shown in Table 9 . The flow per employee
was calculated based on average building coverages and area
per employee. The Pleasanton employee wastewater coefficient
is based on the breakdown of employment categories presented
in the Hacienda Business Park Alternatives to Wastewater
Disposal. A higher proportion of high water use industry
was assumed for the Pleasanton coefficient.
The coefficient for those areas outside Pleasanton is based
on the breakdown of employment categories presented in the
Tri-Valley Transportation Study. Both coefficients were
rounded to the nearest ten.
Table 9
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE WASTEWATER FLOW COEFFICIENTS
Summary of Range
of Wastewater Flow Proposed Wastewater Proposed Wastewater
Land use Coefficients Flow Coefficients Flow Coefficient
Category (gpad)a (gpad) (gped)b
Warehouse ; 400 - 1,500 1,000 40
Commercial 1,200 - 4,000 3,000 110
Office 1,000 - 4,000 11500 " . ' 25
Industrial
<'•High Water User : " 5,000 97,000 •25,000 ,; 500
Moderate Water User 1,300 -.5,000 2,000 40
Source: Lowry and Associates, Wastewater Coefficients and Capacity management+Within the - j
tom. Valley, JSluary 198+ L+.Tri-
j a
1 - 8 t� rr M1 :r T f• r 14 y
t, 4' Gallons per .acre .per day
r Gallons per employee per 'day
`cF •, ,+f- + .fir Y r'F iµ ,++ P t ,. r� T + `�}, i., � _+. y k
t
.4, -
SFR35/093 u=
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Projections of residential and commercial/industrial waste-
water flow are shown on Tables 10 and 11 , respectively.
These projections are based on the planning information and
flow coefficients previously described. The Livermore flow
projections are presented in Table 5.
The recommended total wastewater flow projections for the
study area are shown on Table 12.
t l f t Y
t 2 Y
7 s -2 R �t S� l tt c y r k.•L �
t j '� R � '�Za .t '` � Vr•� � ry t{ �".yt s �.+ t 5"+-- • c N.
i `'` i � ' �• t �`' yr y � t.Y�rY; '.i�� 1�-,a � !.� �t r�..� j s r• i'
S i y p
t �"�, Y � 3: e t 'r � �� { t r{ •* ¢$z. t. i�xtn
4.1nt�e •! i 'r 1 t < Y 1 L 7. ; ._ n �•.'1 � _. t '�
V,+ fio ��"r d V r a W Y ` *, }•- r ,� t1 yi '1
SFR35/093 a :'
Table 10
RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FOR THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY STUDY AREA
(million gallons per day)
Study Area 1995 2010
Dublin San Ramon Services District
San Ramon 1 . 1 1 . 1
Dublin 1. 8 2 . 3 %
Parks Reserve Training Center - -
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center - -
Other Developments - -
Subtotal 2 . 9 3. 4
Livermore 5. 7 5.8
Pleasanton 3 . 9 5.2
Subtotal 12 . 5 14.4
Proposed Future Developments 1. 9 8. 0
RANGE OF AVERAGE
DRY WEATHER FLOW 12 . 5 - 14. 1 14. 4 - 21 .9
Lt
i.t•.} �? rc�rRa., � �. f. t r �,y,.,ww r t� � � r � {y: .�G ! •+• � � 'I
1 C -r r -t N d• r J� ,. � Ys,
.t r; '� { '� ''.r o y ~ t -}=. T 4,, } t`" il`la K et, � •t 't..r t' t ,,r T r � ti. .y ,.� _
Table 11
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FOR THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY STUDY AREA
(million gallons per day)
Study Area 1995 2010
Dublin San Ramon Services District
San Ramon 0 . 1 \ 0 . 1
Dublin _ 0 . 9 �(i 1 -1 . 562- 1)
Parks Reserve Training Center 0 . 3 0.3
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center 0. 2 0. 2
Other Developments 0 . 5 0.5
Subtotal 2 . 0 2. 6
Livermore 3. 3 7. 1
Pleasanton 3. 0 4. 3
Subtotal 8. 0 13 . 5
Proposed Future Developments 0 . 9 1. 9
RANGE OF AVERAGE
DRY WEATHER FLOW 7.7 - 8 . 6 13.3 - 15.2
•a t S 4 Y (� 7 ,. !r •."S i _L-fi"Fr ,�q n `•,`^ i ; !� 'i
�,'r 1 c, P } � r v .i}�Jj eS�1 -.'}'}7 •4`"v+,+ � r { v� ss � , � ',1
- .is i. � rr a� �. a t '{ yr 11 Kt tr'` 3�, ;,4� � ,c r:3•�� `y j ti � r �� l ,,,, � t` �.
}L � 'Yt i �.. � ; � t �,.7 154-}•,.- � * tR _ � .�
k 1. 1•} t f T , ,r t '. f-.. �l i J� y 4 , r'G h..1'a��('x:�� `s-i �•Si'�r'�a'y,�� �.�, f .{. S 1� t 5-`� s�F ;}�9)
S-
Table 12
TOTAL WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FOR THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY STUDY AREA
(million gallons per day)
Study Area 1995 2010
Dublin San Ramon Services District
San Ramon 3 2
Dublin
Parks Reserve Training Center 1 1
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
Other Developments
Subtotal 6 7
Livermore 9 13
Pleasanton 7 10
Subtotal
22 30
Proposed Future Developments 3 10
RANGE OF AVERAGE
DRY WEATHER FLOW 22 - 25 30 - 40
Notes: 1 . _-Above values are from Tables 8 and 9 , rounded to
' the next highest unit.
2. . ' "Other Developments" under the Dublin San Ramon
S Ranch d
• ,. ,�, _ : ._ ' ...Services .District_ represent .the Staples an
R.C. " Johnson developments.
3 ;."Proposed •future developments"._;.represent major
development projects contemplated .in the .current '
unincorporated areas
�' - i x .rk Asst a: _ -+ s - C e. •4 -
M 4.,Q ie x r1 At
r 3 �
Sc
i yr"�,+.,,h,ltt•1 �"t'CKt r �- vF 7 !�i'y.$-,+ t v r * t
J ,
SFR35/094 fit:
t -
i
\ Il \ aYD1
Al..
°� �' ♦ iii '
*Nw ♦ d"
- Danville \ 'I i �al�. ♦ ,`\ y �� g
LEV` �•rr`'.,M�O / '• / UIO S!♦,OLRD. 1�/• �J ems'
/
a '#-1-STUDY BOUNDARY., �x.5�
Y v. ......la�������/ „P5 on c 1 l\ I
'� CENTyRAL
vl :CONTRA COSTA
"A SANITARY DIST T ATE S U.s °
,BOU D
}jds oNr
A
cDu " g � 1 F
S PA° p =DUBLIN-S 'RAM N n *roxD
vo' `
R n i SERVICES DI TR T 5MA
`u \ Ttt °0,0, i < 8 2F •��?•; s �tsfe,g �\ o
D in
valley `rM1 DU
A -Lrverm a -•
Harwa[e FIGURE 1
N L[LIENTNAI
ITY OF UVERMOR S PD
\ `Pieasan ro P CURRENT
u
. AVE. , n `O
np IFMgN SEWER SERVICE
� 'CITY OF PLEASANTO
BOUNDARIES �
l
Union CITY
Y � fi ■■
HILL
a
� Fremont / +. _ � ''� .Si�..lt::� v _ :•r� ..
x
' Al.
I'D CA\/
\ a"
Denville
N
�0 q AD. ...............! ,y `
ao /� rn
,
x
rtamon P DUBLIN " 'L•
Dublin
LW t a k l t
Valley `�yt ^ ll _
n15
P
E A N O LWERMOR�
` y ° oqq A-
�- 51 "
Herware
AIOIILxI
�f FIGURE 2
Pleasanton 'qo `--�
9
_,a
LAFCO
I f \` srn�niuxr Nn D\,qa \i
I SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
/ f
Ic4
Union CITY
..._... .�i� '�tom..., ,r T .� ■■
�
Fr° not ��
I ,
� t 1
wINV
f ° •, I \\ 1, vnWfN05 ,
Ale
N.r
F S wf .aNRWa n I \\ F I i I0 S
' c br`� �i1♦ Ito \v�soyn /��� � �♦♦ oLOxnooL RO. �'YI��.�: �e/ ..
—i nlanl—Hrr q c�N'o \\
♦ \ nn z
♦ m n
SA.W ON
o
\� / ^Ld LL 1 MnY UN ♦ �
gD AL N+
4
Ostro w`r'" Dub
V.11 O BL — _
oy t N Q w ( n'.1' r�iv RE rarrfau s
rovUns
G .t�.
r`�
Hayward \♦ / � v � � .,.,r,.°1 °r� z... 7 �,I � i I �• .
RUE��.'. FIGURE 3
♦ f.\.a f. o o G ..
♦\ 0 AVE.
♦\ ' i wfrno p I ` "w GENERAL PLAN
BOUNDARIES
...f ♦n ♦\ 1 M1 I t F' 1
.� �. °�° �v4♦♦O -� � Nr a43 �.sY.tea � '` ' � '
5 !+ 1Union City -
5511
�i-
er4
b°NJer f0 .. Y lx 2.� � 3oa , ,st ■■
t7,: i'1 'h