Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 General Plan Policies and Land Use Concept J t AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 18 , 1990 7 :00 p.m. City of Dublin Council Chambers SUBJECT: Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study -Session on General Plan Policies �^ and Land Use Concepts for East Dublin REPORT PREPARED BY: Brenda A. Gillarde , Project Coordinator ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Study Area Map 2 . Concept 1 - Land Use ,Circulation,LOS 3 . Concept 2 - Land Use ,Circulation ,LOS 4. Concept 3 - Land Use ,Circulation ,LOS 5 . Concept 4 - Land Use ,Circulation,LOS 6 . Concept 5 - Land Use ,Circulation ,LOS 7 . East Dublin Land Use Concepts Report (under separate cover ) RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Consider Staff Report and receive public comment . 2 . Conduct the meeting as outlined below: a. Open study session b. Request Staff to outline meeting procedure C. Hear presentation of Concepts Report by East Dublin Consultants (WRT) d. Hear Staff report e . Ask questions of Staff or Consultant f . Open public discussion g. Close public discussion h. Request input from individual Commissioners i . Request input from individual Council members j . Request Staff to outline next steps k. Adjourn meeting FINANCIAL STATEMENT: N/A DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND The East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan/EIR Study (GPA/SP/EIR) was initiated by the City in the fall of 1988 , ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: AGENDA FILE PA 87-031 ITEM NO. — PROJECT PLANNER i. following submission of a request to consider development of the 930 acre Dublin Ranch. The City Council determined that prior to acting on the request , a comprehensive study should be undertaken for the entire East Dublin area. One of the Council 's primary objectives was to provide a more detailed decisionmaking framework for the planning area. The City retained the firm of Wallace , Roberts & Todd to prepare the East Dublin GPA/SP/EIR. The study consists of six stages : I . Establish environmental opportunities and constraints II . Develop initial land use concepts III . Develop a preferred land use alternative IV. Prepare the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and EIR V. Conduct public hearings on the EIR, General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan VI . Certify the EIR, adopt the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan The process is now between Stages II and III . This is one of the junctures where public, Commission and Council input is desired. The General Plan Study Area comprises some 7 ,400 acres of relatively undeveloped land east of Dublin (see Attachment 1) . The topography ranges from virtually level land adjacent to I-580 to steeply sloping hills in the upper , northern portion of the study area. Some grazing occurs in the hills and there are approximately 35 occupied residences on the property. The study site is in the unincorporated area of Alameda County with two exceptions : 1 ) the 600 acre parcel west of Tassajara Road which is in the Dublin city limits and is owned by Alameda County; and 2 ) the 400 acre parcel near Collier Canyon Road which is in the Livermore city limits and is being developed by Triad Systems Corporation. Approximately 66% of the study area lies within Dublin' s existing sphere of influence (SOI ) . The remainder of the planning area, including a portion of Doolan Canyon, lies outside the City ' s SOI . A substantial amount of data has been collected and analyzed on the planning factors affecting potential development in East Dublin. Such factors include native plants and wildlife , geologic conditions , water resources , sewer capacity and traffic and circulation. (Refer to the "East Dublin Environmental Setting" report , November 29 , 1988 for a full description of environmental conditions on the site. Available for review at the City Planning Department . ) Since the publication of the East Dublin Environmental Setting report , a multitude of preliminary land use mixes representing different interpretations .of current general plan policies have been considered by the Consultants and Staff for East Dublin. These preliminary ideas have been distilled down to five initial land use concepts , which are the subject of the April 18 Study Session. Based on the input received at the study session, a "preferred" land use alternative will be designed. Once the alternative is refined, the General Plan and Specific Plan documents will be written and distributed. This will begin the formal public review of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which will include several public hearings . No decisions will be made on land uses in East Dublin until the public hearings are completed. Following the public hearings , the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may adopt a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for East Dublin. That moment is not expected to occur until mid 1991. To facilitate the discussion at the April 18 Study Session, a Land Use Concepts Report has been prepared by WRT (refer to Attachment 7) . It details the process to date , summarizes the environmental opportunities and constraints , describes and evaluates the five land use concepts and identifies the general plan policy considerations raised by the different land use concepts . These policy considerations involve the application or modification of current general plan policies to development in East Dublin. This will be the focus of the discussion at the April 18 study session. Attached to this Staff Report are a series of figures for the five land use concepts (refer to Attachments 2-6) . These figures are the same as appear in the Land Use Concepts Report ; they are included with the Staff Report for easy reference during the discussion at the April 18 Study Session. For each concept three figures are included : a) the land use diagram, which shows the mix, density and location of various land uses proposed by the concept ; b) the circulation network that was designed for each land use concept , including the location and number of lanes for all proposed roads ; and c) the traffic levels of service that would result if the land use diagram were built on the circulation network designed for each concept . II . ISSUES The Concepts Report details five different land use options that could be considered for East Dublin. Each option involves choices about the application or modification of current general plan policies to East Dublin. Some of the land use concepts would require minor modifications to existing policies ; others would involve major policy adjustments to accommodate the level of development represented by the concept . It must be stressed i that the concepts presented are preliminary and subject to further refinement based on public, Commission and Council input . The five concepts share a common vision of a dynamic community that provides opportunities for people to live , work and recreate. Within the community would be one or more business centers containing a mix of office, retail and other commercial uses . Residential neighborhoods of different types (single family, duplexes , apartments ) would surround each center and would be connected by landscaped parkways and pedestrian pathways . An extensive system of open space corridors would provide visual relief from the urban landscape as well as outdoor recreational opportunities . The concepts differ in the degree to which general plan policies are adhered to, primarily those dealing with development on steep slopes and slopes in excess of 30 percent , protection of ridgelines , creation of a favorable jobs/housing ratio and maintenance of traffic service level D. This difference in policy interpretation results in varying holding capacities for the five concepts . Holding capacity is the amount of development that could occur in an area if every parcel was built upon. Holding capacity for the East Dublin Study Area was calculated using the midpoint of the various residential density categories and floor area ratios (FARs ) for the commercial categories . (Refer to Tables 4 ,5 , and -6 in the Concepts Report . ) Holding capacities for each of the five land use concepts are ranked below from least to most in terms of number of residential units and amount of office and commercial square footage. Number of Units Amount of Square Feet Concept 1 11 ,465 units Concept 4 11 .5 million Concept 5 12, 237 units Concept 5 15 .2 million Concept 2 17, 384 units Concept 2 16.5 million Concept 4 17 ,937 units Concept 3 16 .9 million Concept 3 20 , 797 units Concept 1 18.2 million The general plan policies that would have to be modified to accommodate a particular concept are discussed below. These are the policy issues Staff would like input on from the public, Commission and Council . Although there are many other general plan policies that apply to development in East Dublin these policies have the most influence on shaping the extent of development in East Dublin. (Refer to the Concepts Report for a full general plan policy consistency analysis. Refer to the last section in this staff report for the full text of the critical policies discussed below. ) It is important to remember that all of the concepts are preliminary in nature and subject to further refinement . This is T particularly apparent when considering the City' s current policy on striving to maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) D on all streets outside the central business district . The - preliminary traffic analysis for all five of the concepts indicates multiple areas where this standard is exceeded. However , with certain modifications to the proposed roadway network and land use mix, it is possible to achieve LOS D in virtually any one of the concepts . The extent to which the City wishes to expand the roadway networks proposed in the five East Dublin land use concepts becomes an additional consideration when discussing the desirability of modifying general plan policies . To reiterate , the purpose of the study session is to obtain public, Commission and Council input on the critical policy issues outlined below under each land use concept . This input will be used to formulate a draft land use alternative for East Dublin. Although the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan (GPA/SP) will be based on this draft alternative, it will still be subject to refinement . The alternative will not be final until 1 ) any changes are made to it as a result of comments received during the public hearings on the GPA/SP; 2 ) the Council has certified the Environmental Impact Report (EiR) ; and 3 ) the Council adopts the GPA/SP. Concept 1 • Single Center (Refer to Attachment 2A) Description: A single main business center is located near the juncture of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. Comprised of retail and office uses , it is surrounded by high density residential units . The remainder of the flatland area is a mix of business park, industrial park and retail uses , with medium to high density residential . Lower density single family residential uses occupy the sloping portions of the study area , within the maximum developable area permitted by current General Plan policies . The remainder of the hill areas are designated open space. Policy Considerations : Would require modification of Policy 4 which requires designation of sufficient land to accommodate potential workers. Compared to the other four concepts , Concept 1 results in the highest housing deficit for potential workers . May require modification to Policy 6 which strives for Level of Service D at intersections outside the central business district. Based on a preliminary analysis , to achieve Level D, the following roadway and/or land use changes would be required in Concept 1 . (Refer to Attachment 2B and 2C) East /West (EM 1 Collector - Reduce retail along collector by 50% and replace with residential or industrial ; and/or - Increase to 6 lanes Dublin Boulevard See above ; and/or Extend N/S 2 collector as an overpass (over I-580 ) Construct an additional N/S collector as an overpass (over I-580 ) between Tassajara and Fallon roads East-West 3 Collector (7th Street Extension) Increase to 4 lanes east of Tassajara Road Tassajara Road Reduce land use intensity Increase to 4 lanes north of E/W 3 Collector Fallon Road Reduce retail between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard Add another North/South (N/S) collector Doolan Road Add additional intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard and North Canyons Parkway (concept 2 : Multiple Centers (Refer to Attachment 3A) Description: This concept envisions a main business center at Dublin/Tassajara (as in Concept 1 ) and two smaller "village" centers located adjacent to upper Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. These village centers contain higher density residential , convenience retail and institutional uses surrounded by extensive areas of low and medium density hillside residential and open space. As in Concept 1 , regional serving retail and business park uses are located along I-580 . Policy Considerations : May require slight modification to Policy 1 which stipulates low Intensity development on moderate slopes and higher intensity development on flat lands. This concept would permit a limited amount of townhouse multi- family densities in areas of 15-20% slopes . May require slight modification to Policy 2 which prohibits disfigurement of ridgelands. See comment above. Concept 2 also permits medium single family densities in small areas over 30% slope with moderate development suitability. z Would require modification to Policy 3 which maintains slopes predominately over 30% as open space. Concept 2. encroaches into 30% slopes in two ridgeland locations to create additional housing in the form of hilltowns . Would require clarification. of Policy 5 requiring regulation of development on steep slopes. (See comments above. ) Would require modification to Policy 4 which requires designation of sufficient land to accommodate potential workers. Compared to the other four concepts , Concept 2 results in the third highest housing deficit for potential workers. May require modification to Policy 6 which strives for Level of Service D at intersections outside the central business district. Based on- -a preliminary analysis , to achieve Level D, the following roadway and land use changes would be required in Concept 2 . (Refer to Attachment 3B and 3C. ) Dublin Boulevard - Reduce retail commercial at Fallon Road by 33-50%; and Reduce office floor area ratio (FAR) ; and/or Extend N/S 2 and 5 collectors as- overpasses (over I-580 ) Tassaiara Road Reduce amount of commercial Upper Tassaiara Road Reduce residential densities Widen intersections at Fallon and E/W 3 Collector East/West 2 Collector Increase to 4 lanes Doolan Road Increase to 4 lanes between Dublin Boulevard and E/W 3 Collector North/South (N/S) 4 and 6 Collectors Increase to 4 lanes C"oncPnt 3 • Multiple Centers - Higher Intensity (Refer to Attachment 4A) Description: This concept essentially reflects the development intentions of the East Dublin sponsoring property owners (those property owners contributing to the cost of the GPA/SP/EIR study) . It is similar to Concept 2 except an additional- village -has been added to lower Doolan Canyon and residential areas extend further into the hillsides and canyons at much higher densities . Policy Considerations: Would require modification to Policy 1 which stipulates low density on. moderate slopes and- higher intensity development on flat lands. Concept 3 permits extensive development at townhouse/multi-family densities in areas of 15-25% slopes and medium density single family development on slopes of 30% or more. Would require modification to Policy 2 which prohibits disfigurement of ridgelands. See comment above. Would require clarification of Policy 5 requiring regulation of development on steep slopes. See previous comment on density. Would require modification to Policy 3 which maintains slopes predominately over 30% as open- space. See previous comment on density. Would require modification to Policy 4 which requires designation of sufficient land to accommodate potential workers. Concept 3 results in the fourth highest deficit in housing for potential workers. May require modification to Policy 6 which strives for Level of Service D at intersections outside the central business district. Based on -a preliminary analysis , to achieve Level D, the following roadway and land use changes would be required in Concept 3 . (Refer to Attachment 4B and 4C) Dublin Boulevard Reduce retail commercial ; and/or Reduce office FAR; and/or Extend N/S 2 and 5 collectors as overpasses (over I-580 ) Tassajara Road Increase to 6 lanes from E/W 3 Collector to Doolan intersection East/West 3 Collector Increase to 6 lanes west of Fallon Road Fallon Road - Reduce retail uses North/South 4 Collector - Make entire collector 4 lanes - Add additional N/S collectors e ,r'G,once t 4 : Multiple Centers - Housing__ Emphasis (Refer to Attachment 5A) Description: This concept is similar to Concept 3 in that there is a main business center and three village centers , although one is in a different location. The amount of commercial square footage , however , has been substantially reduced and the amount of residential units slightly reduced to achieve a favorable worker- to-housing ratio. Policy Considerations : May require modification to Policy 6 which strives to maintain Level of Service D at intersections outside the central business district. Based on a preliminary analysis , to achieve Level D, the following roadway and land use changes would be required in Concept 4. (Refer to Attachment 5B and 5C) Dublin- Boulevard/Tassajara Road Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : Hacienda Boulevard - NIS 2 collector - Tassajara Road - NIS 5 - Fallon Road - Doolan Road - Airway Boulevard E/W 2 Collector - Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : NIS 1 - NIS 2 E/W 3 Collector Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : Tassajara Road - NIS 5 - Fallon Road Tassaiara Road - Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : Fallon Road Doolan Road Extend 4 lane section 400 feet northwards Con Qt 5 • Business Park-Village Centers (Refer to Attachment 6A) Description: This concept reflects the agreement between Alameda County and the City of Dublin regarding annexation of the County' s Santa Rita property. The agreement specifies that the County's entire property be designated for business park use. Thus the- main business center has been deleted from this concept ; however , the remaining three village centers and the residential areas are the same as in Concept 4. Policy Considerations: Would require modification to Policy 4 which requires designation of sufficient land to accommodate potential workers. Concept 5 results in the second highest deficit in housing for potential workers . May require modification to Policy 6 which strives for Level of Service D at intersections outside the central business district. Based on- -a preliminary analysis , to achieve Level D, the following roadway and land use changes would be required in Concept 5 . (Refer to Attachment 6B and 6C) Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Add local intersection - improvements (turn lanes ) at : Tassajara Road - NIS 5 - Fallon Road - Doolan Road - Airway Boulevard E/W 2 Collector Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : NIS 1 NIS 2 NIS 3 E/W 3 Collector— Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : Tassajara Road - NIS 5 - Fallon Road Tassajara Road - Add local intersection improvements (turn lanes ) at : Fallon Road Doolan Road Extend 4 lanes section by 400 feet northwards III . MEETING FORMAT Since this is a joint Council/Commission meeting, it will be chaired by the Mayor ; however both the Council and the Commission will sit up front . This is not a public hearing but is an opportunity for public participation and involvement as required by Government Code 65351. Staff recommends the following procedure : Mayor opens the study session with the flag salute. Staff outlines the procedure to be followed, stressing that this is not a public hearing, that no decision on a land use plan for East Dublin will be made and that the focus of the meeting is on the policy issues raised by each of the five concepts . No vote is to be taken and no consensus is to be reached. WRT presents the Concepts Report , focusing on the differences in the ultimate community created by the five land use concepts . Staff presents the Staff Report . Commission and Council ask questions of Staff or the Consultant . Mayor opens the discussion for public comment . Any member of the public may step forward and present comments. Mayor closes the public input period. Mayor asks for individual Commissioner comments on the policy issues raised in the Staff report . Mayor asks for individual Council member comments on the policy issues raised in the Staff report . Staff describes the next steps in the process . Mayor adjourns the study session. Comments and discussion should focus on the policy issues raised in the Staff Report . The five land use concepts and their evaluation were included primarily to illustrate the kind of development that might be expected to occur with modifications to certain general plan policies. No vote or consensus on any of the concepts may be taken by the Commission or Council The purpose of the study session is to receive input from the public and individual Commission and Council members on policy issues raised by the different land use concepts . IV. CONCLUSION The key issue for discussion is to what degree current general plan policy should be applied or modified with respect to development in East Dublin. The discussion above illustrates that with each concept certain policy issues are involved. The General Plan policies that Staff would like considered at this study session are listed below. The numbers in parentheses indicate the location in the current Dublin General Plan. 1 . Consider residential development proposals ( including support facilities ) on moderate slopes , with multifamily densities typically considered on flatter land. (p. ii , Extending Planning Area map. ) 2 . Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will require determination that . . .proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands . (p.12 , 2 . 1.4.C) 3. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent (disregarding minor surface . humps and hollows ) as permanent open space for public health and safety. (p.15 , 3 . 1 .13) 4. Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than- 9 ,000 (22%) of the potential jobs in the Extended planning Area, one or more Specific Area plans shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being proposed; and to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided. (p.13 , 2 . 2 .4.D) 5 . Regulate grading and development on steep slopes . (p.29 , 7. 2 .B) 6 . Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D. (Added to General Plan by Hansen Hill GPA, 1989 . ) ry, .. �. 1 "s"''=3 Jp J°t.T-,:rJY?w'xY;... i ✓:j1 f.'�ri'_ .�. 3� q 'r2�.. _ �.r...; �, ?. 1 �, C}•?i�•'" �;1 r'� ��"- t' ���.l sr,. .r; r _ tt § s'"� � }3'tirr- �adt� Yet. ,-e, r'�uC i;'� �+ z *�'� 2-- ���•. +}'" 1' _�a�`]�.• ..w:� �7r .�es �^ �.,. r e��k�:�a a. c•4a�sj= tit��,.�1�c5„�'dc �. 4.5. r�s:r�+_ '�°�ylk � �-:,t.�}r`_ "� .7 i'.r•§`�$,���;�`ti,��?at. ilji..1' . - ;�1ti; .� �; 3 f �-C�-.��;ir. �}a✓J�{';:,�°.Lyi.s�v,ra Y''y''ie�iw-ec• °`��?�t'awl-ete,d,4r �y:�''S+t`rv �= - -.\ •.�-, � ''� {S+e�'nY'`.��E��'y • • � • wiT �r .� �:�' ; _ r{`♦i "'�hL, k. ♦K.fi'"b. ���'ii h°,'i*.✓•w.r '� •nJt,:7` Rzr/� ""°r` � <, � -"v V,�s,.*�r�-� i }y�� �1C' .,�. r J ':a �' i � f� s ,�. � s y�: F .ty. ,..My ^a,�v� 1 � �;Itit �._J1� 'rid.?,•-'tr Y"d ��.�¢ _ §-.•�.�• �.Y3rx%��4 t�� c.$� � +`v ,„��s_1 � 'Y L�I`�ui' y+ � ;r.?s�� �� .7>q���' {\\�-~� ����:��it'�.n`'k'.;:'�W j;r. N'”.�ir � �af' Yt -'`_4s*. „�''w.�it1�?�'i�4-:s q�S�_ `' 4'���F�+�„J��. :•s��l. �i3`Yf"�1"'y�'C gip. ,3 y} ;t'l y'e';. rl'y�) 3�;,,, .�, �.�' ''ti.", t•�� � >' i k�' ,3•{sx x,y'i„,L s •..f�yrA, .�*C. '„�Y ;�. ."y..,,ty j 'fie.t. �%; ah,r.,/ .11 - -a"' 'iu.<` a-'Y �\t1':�"�F F���z ` �' j `• t«,. *r G '#;r k .r-�'iu t > :� / -c+� ,c" .-�C ;��,* .rt=.; S c Ott r yet-Xfi.. at:'. <�.•LVTi y >z*Jr� '3 �'�,� j�� y �4yU n.. _ -. ,+�.t ,t. � 1n Q.. • •c '� � y°�`�4 s!�/,fy «a ii=�r�P�� `!�'k}c k.j�.t .1s- -,��:��• t �_ �``+ ""� "`i ""`�"'r.�'�$ �C.- y" i''d��C�+'��#,�i • .i �t to r p '� LA �•a.�3 �r3'.. ;y-i' i.Y s3+!'. ? c. i a ,-r+ - $.�ti..;;� � .?n. 'fit-- .,i�+ _ "-s•:�' ''�`."wo- ��.. i� .► ;� k aC �tc��u ' ;'�''e � ^r,°_,, f"r'" r°� i'Q =- r 1- \n�°rk�.'Edx':L w,,,;,x^ �" -K : Tt CA{t;;.�t Y .r ♦ ��•`�ra•�k t�r r �. +.i r�..'t 1-. t••.1.?>�:i'i.s'�d r ci'USn t-.4•`,a,:��C_Y��:^.r�v..-i�,Y`�e'�,�.�r,;,•�.i r."'�.•e.4. .. 'J.�'•,r,1�f�t` '.„�.�!�6l.�.�y�b ti rt}�r'.��t•a`�„�.y��d-y'�•�y;..'F`tt�l�.��>et�'.:t 1?d t�:'•���a^LT,S 9 4 1.y°�`_!�.��h�,4w�•''���.f 4,,N«��r/hSr'a t.r Y t W rs�..�.�"�ac';r'.'.a f i�"`h��`'t"Safi R\.y c r��,r�n t':1�iaS:_a,f�1t;`.x y�t,t,,�'d,�,C�f4_a..'��-u=,-..,..�!:.4����tv.,l'.ti,,`�..�t!,�•S��1-•°��c,�„'`'�'�•�<G��,�r r •��,✓t�rs.,�r.=•.n=�_t,..r•r�r��C'��1,°7.�.:,'..5y.;.�s E'-+A'�1.�t�4-'t`''�?a t t,•'F,•�1.:•��R�;;\�.�A ip n.l:*n�,/»�.;C b'r.K-.J�t•,y v°a 3,5 e . 4 t a �� ���t�"F a,�S r`t tt��r iRt..-y'y•�.l�•tc s r !„ ••' • •. • .�� +:y�.`3s.; `4.C. +El c.•y,{ •:Yti ' ' 3 _+,`•Y' � �� ,+>'�4ti'�Si` ,� ,T Y� �, ,E. ,S �h•}� i��'.;� "Y�.. �<,� �a.� �� ;:,4 r r� •S`i�t gw :f 4.. ”. -c �.•�� . �'.r �:"P .,� :�, .r `45r� +; ^ .}.. ��(�Di ..t� � �i'+M�{ !f'"�i..T a•�o,.. > ' `:. P• :'�kr ai'..e. yr.' u �:.y�,� {��eC.,^s �._.a m a',:. -.� . .8�.'l+. cLi ^``'"i:;�.a��,'�.••,f-'". `'�"" '�t�^lr,.r�� t�f �>� d 1 c;�p. .�.."� ��,,LL�� L,"t���-'�. xyryL�`,w?iri�„� ra�''�' qL,i � e '� r` 5<. * _1 z ��-i;�,. \'tu.. ...• { )/j •'\ L YF. f .+e :"5.rnf- J 4..1.- ..'M �d.f• Y � v7h•' ,r.... at 'r �1 Kl.`; 1 M.ts�a-r { � i `. � } 'S[ , J•��` p �' '�F ..t .,.+�, !• t i c j l .p. '�i�nC r � r .`'"t r t °'-?r j-� .".. , ,L, <r ` y r,.,L `\'�{S ^ a *f a ��± .r,.ir.4;#•- , -�: i uc=.:r ` ag. .3`cr-.,�3-.�N �.'. .! }.QQ }�5����,._�v'�:.. -`'#�'�" •M�_.I� ,��� '1 4:�, .r!`{" z,., ,��,:9� q'r..{ ,� n ;SA ,,,�.y.p�t 7st "H�++• �� ;4i�' �MQ t. �� r. �J .{. n+'�- 4> ,4 c "fj�� • >� fit;. + ',...:`j.+'"l -J.4 �� �} �s�"t!'°� ;ri :-'1 .:♦.Y� "..,�,L•�,ttc'�.• �+rlf�y o �.,. :ti7• ' .;� � ,. f�'��� � a c f `� � t' r¢ '^�f., . e *fit.,, !. ..� 9 `h� t 'd , �a'' `+°`n r�.sv+�• s 7r ,, M,,.r "�,' 'y r"�fi r�'a. ;c.�.t 13'���g",�';�>.' ,. � '} t � , � .! �� { t� -'�.2� r X: i' t ! + r�t�«S ��y,a��,uit� �� �'�0-i {'b;�,'�j•� k � 4§ �¢-�F�ie?r✓ �+t� �•r t.,Y y:... (� a ' < 1' r �� *t o f">-.r {rg=R '.L7�Jy � $, 1 r ' •� ��. 1� � j � �' r >, + �1 s'l a a.� � x 23�ilas""�. r'� �'j.a{ . vs .. •`� - `T ♦ ' .,• '.n L. �.., F. l'F;,�7 :� yL 7,.,� ,�`ki ^. d �r} Yf�i't..r.. +"icr"' X' '$ Y•v'��'yr3°' .�^#�r'4".$ .. =i y,�•l-t, v 1 y "tr;;•-j��, J�1 .�c -'@y+..• F� zf�_'�y! r ;'.. •..t al�'►R%5 ��"' •,K , ,L�'� 'a"wu. ti�..�y s. t\, / � S►+Y r...�-!{)� w'.ai, 11 t• t�1:T. .L1 ,p, � �# :. 4 - � •r n � +• �. tll -�{rC rrl(� .t* Q �Lf ctw t x • r� .. .� r-�` � -i -. _ �, .�}U�r j�r_s�'Z��ytf'�'}TSI C � t 1'• ��s�m ..-`�. 4���•. ,•� -i�'-• �F i'� �i d•°'M.. �� •".� �.�:_� ,`� '� \fie i#.+- � � n:C.t:�f °s.+ i �` "n 4na ��`t'+'' 1 v.,'�v,�r CA AV Oj � "fit+' `>: �''�'•i .. � �� �- I l 1F�{i� 1 �J� i � � �1i � �� l � �t�r+r -�e�: v„ �5 �• r. r. ti ! c � 1 .�'\�''�`,�� ..t[++ � �� �'t,"'C•-'L�•-r r yg� ` �p1 i �-���,�n�°y,. .!/,:,,,tea , ".,`� ���,r f .:?fc y';.7' �� ',�✓�;�r ��&-tt��j(;.`' ,a ,,tb'� �r? ��"��pttR 4''{.})�...i r� '1�, `� S"',�'+�';r '^;.>, •. �. "tom ..!' '`a�.. '� ��,,,,. „ It {�`';�,P+'r 1 C '�ij �q{�„�` a 1�,r q� r;is- �:.t i� 'ra� •� .>� r +-� f /r+�'t„! ��"- �.r. ��. �,.`'�.r'.. s v� t if j � .s'n•�f ���;�t11'•i....'..L.'�,S°'�'J",9i�`� �r 4'^�-r^�'-s "'�.. �y 3��: J.. 'l •: 'J 'J ja.r."i `Y ?4�i K� � Y S, ._mss• t ��n,� Y'. Y F. ! A° �'.. 'i+ .•. y ''�-1 R^T 1) }.n� :6•J �,. �• },.,.,: •,j?r'L..s};�" 'c.w,.°`�c' rind ;a. 14'c g 't wo,: `.. �- {'j(' _i'_r r ,`F�`��Ty`�- ct (.y y, .i.•$ $ r .'"ti.�:.c.. � _. ,s£ ,g,.,i•.i x t t'`s�'• , _ to;, �: %*• t,`* fi. 1'F.�•,f §� ��a,�' « ` t'f'•� I".J� k .{ ` 1•�� � lr- `�.� '�'�a f•� ;F` ~ � t� .'.� t� � [L �. w �'.»..1 ,�•..+ ...r`l� - ., 'S •�;�`a•t. �'� .?t.�'• �i. :�y...TTT,''!*tc' � �`k�,�i°�_,s-�� 1.�?��'''�i�P�! '�,"t ; }'..r i is f�•ittcs„{� �`'.�}�.5:%,y , 'i� -,,.rr i, r` � �hi. Y�.k�h��- ,t°#�'e h, �•c �.�gy�rx r..� :.c ,'`il"• �::=w�a�a��'� c• ��v�,`k'}fir i � i" a::'�'T�•":w'`. y"Y;� ■m� t't zti ,• ''rYtt ..� `ti�°. ',. f: v�T'j+ ,�P `rr � „y-•'Yrk±iR. f7 ie ;-s`e dr✓y.e2r .,�; •.- ;u •.�.,S.l '�. ,�.: � _ •'✓ � :.•.'�f�j�; .Sa•��1 ..a� yrti�y�'+4�-a�A tf.+��,y„ �"��s- It. .§//�'L,R. yzJr,�';t ,�,{'.s ����.,n'�'},v "`•i t�",'r14e� ���,��. s: : „} r-r.5,.i �•, Yi8"fg'STji'�i+Y �`. '�..'� G',ta x'�'',c�-t•"fir,•€ *""Ltd •r+'yt�'�M��r"'''��i�, ,ti�tyA [a�� 1�.,' ,.y: �" ..• ar: t' '`'j i r.`'a,•. ,.a?.,•.x p , .y -w'S`. ;�,,� d!..�,�,: ®■ �.r ..� f:F•, 'L::)... i:.�.-i:•1._ ._.,r.,.[A._.,. .`�'iiA�$di4f`:,w�.'r�:. r ::.r:eatSt,•.T�.v�xLS.2.:?9 °riy'!" 5 ..�s�..i�; ars�:�..�:�:'.,1.°.�1�;' Concept 1: Single Center i Legend •-•-•- General Plan Amendment Study Area i I -•-•--- Specific Plan Study Area Retail Commercial 0 �........_. o- 0 3-s o-3 ! o Office WA + 0-3 Business Park 0-3 i 7 RR/OS j i / 0-3 F_,P_j Industrial Park roS 3-6 s 0-3 i cn Government/Institution o--3 1 ! Hs High School ..,•,` /.. _s 3 .. 3-' 03 36 RR/0 o-3 i �s Junior High School y- - o-3 "�~ ! o-3 scH Elementary School R/OS I N' 3-6 j PK Community/Neighborhood Park o- Rec City-Wide Recreation o- o-3 i ,t t I Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat •.•' .//` 3 0-3 0-3 t i 1 Not Applicable (not wlllwl Alamedacly.3-6 o-s / I i _A Residential t ¢ 3-6 11 .. RR/ I RR/QS 1 i lo-3 36 o-3 os i 25• High Density 25•a)/ac 3 6 1... 0 3 ,- RR/OS i ! 12 zs Medium-High Density 12-25 a,/ac RFn.D a enI'Unlr ] Cr1� 0-3 i 3-s ,._ __ 3� i s-1z Medium Density 6-1z a,/ac � 0°3 OS -- - S` o-3 3 s Medium-Low Density 3-6 a,/ac RCS ,d22 6-12 I HS I 36 a ! ,! ' y1 4 ':' •1i !-!S ! 1 :/` o-3 0-3 Low Density 0-3d]/ac ' RCi' RC 6-12 -- IIII I 1 1111 , ' a 6-12 ! RR/OS 1 – �� 1, _ 5-12 / Rural Res/Open Space 10-ac/A] BP 25• 12-25 I .� !6-12 6-12 3-6i -- i )IU-1111!111!..i>� ... ,1 „ o-3 -� � , - East Dublin .. BP 25' 1 j;�. = I O 12-25 0-3 0-3 s 'I » j •-------- 1 RC PK RC R BP I! I BP Rc o-3 o IP Wallace Roberts&Todd 1� ,� !! „ te,nau Alipn .� c m! 1NDan and Emi el.71h F Ptamers IP i �IP o!; 141 SeconO Sveet.7m Fbor �% c i UI'll U � n 14](.a. BP I BP RC IP ! ,N RGo IP IP , San Francis c.•CA 105 v y (a 15)54 1-0830 \ NO Sli Sac e Setback \.� j �•' - 0 Sal ac 1 i n C/SH No, i se ac f._. l _ iL _ _ r,:',:• 0 1 ,:� .. , �rte. 7n. I - – —--._�J b Oe Park d iLBe �- ` - d NFC4n0,BuFNFF,RFr, �. \�/ ♦•-... "I� , � �� Av.. —1 • •%C> r'�:3 ', _ I`) 0 1000 1000 FN i0 0 112«M ] ' /�/O a�?' ��'�•Yi}/L y:� a )c i. �� O Concept 1 Circulation Network G°.,. G°ska• G°qua"pa-G° • 'P�ame Arterial Collector 4 Number of Lanes � N m a d w N Z � Study Boundary N d 2 °o """"""""' ..................................... a A 4 4 4 Q EW 3 2 ? 2 4a4e7 p tZi) d N 6 6 6 6 6 6 a y lib N pn Blvd. = °w 0,9 Pkwy. 4 4 "' 4 4 EW 1 4 �o �� a North Gay A of ° 6 8 6 seo seo 8 g 10 10 6 07 D ATTACHMEN P 2B Concept 1 Projected Levels of Service Go•,. Gos�a• Go%ua.aa•Go•. .P\ame uummin LOS E LOS F Fs � d N d w f• D Study Boundary m .........................a......... . n yaaen z 2s 9 O) N rp fM1141 11!1!11 N f7 2 0 ns Pkwy. p. Ip a nyo °' EW 1 D North Ga sao m r rim+♦l+HMW n Concept 2: �., Multiple Centers Legend General Plan Amendment Study Area i ---- Specific Plan Study Area -Rwos~- I Rc Retail Commercial 3-6 i I i O 1 Office' ��_•��•� 0-3 BP Business Park 3 6 ! 3-6 36 i o-3 6.12 * IP Industrial Park `2 o-3 n ; 6-lz _ > 3s. 3.6 * ! c/I Government/Institution 3 / t �' RR/OS , ,M:dos h - s i Hs High School C/ _ 3-6 0.3` o-3 ; sc 6-12 r 36 /Os o-3 3.6 o-3 i Js Junior High School I 3-6 – – –j "' j SCH Elementary School 3 - I V" 0-3 ' PK Community/Neighborhood Park O 36 03 1, I 0-3 36 6-1 s 12 FREcj City-Wide Recreation _•_; ® Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat o-3 6_ 1� k RR/OS V a �.� wA Not Applicable (not wittvn Alameda CtyJ • �- R/ I o-3 ; 3-6 s I i Residential ! A 10-3 3-I i zs• High Density 25•d i/ac i o-3 I - RR/ o-3 Density 1225 du/ac . 1. 1 tz zs Medium High De it i_' / 3-6 3-6 -! a O 03 I •':. --3� ..MD.I—.c.— � o-3 SIC/ is i _. -•- -- / I.... --. -- ___ 6-12 Medium Density 6-12 du/ac HS. - ' I _r._.�. � al - —� I I '!'Wos a/O I 3-s Medium-Low Density 3fi du/ac CA 1 -1- a 3-6 PK i 3-6 r ; \ 3.6 0 3 Low Density o-3 d.Vac i guz n q)e if nI lm m u -i! •� I ,,,.,L> ,' •• I' •6` 12 t 6-12 t , 12-2¢8 C t ® Rural Res/Open Space to-ar/W RR/OS%L 12-25 25- � 5. 3-6 PK ! �. 2 I'_1 P3 225 I :1 s�H -- ; q 1225 ; East Dublin ..i. 25• -1 t 21 -1 5• 6-12 •.n . II' I I I; as a°« i i o 12- bill o-3. o' P Wallace Roberts&Todd RC RC RC RC. RC o° BP RC RC P o-3 I Et2I i a ace 1 i r _ � i; thoan and En woriniental Planners ''"`•• O C RC t 121 Second street,7th Floor j an Frarclsco.CA 9a 105 !: ♦♦BP tgpu 'got O BP RC RC P P seO j Pazk b Ride __.�_r.. a ...._,>— -•— (<IS)5e1-0830 Setback SC/ I -Landslide /90 Oise Selo Noise elback tall C/ SH I b F1111 __ Palk b fade • _!- tt B loon :000 P«I I.'!'/1/y/� ��1,� .• �', . 11 AkD I' 112— ]/. - , Concept 2 Circulation Network a Go• Gust •' Gokra„da Go, p�aOie Arterial Collector 4 Number of Lanes -- v m .�4 ry iu E 2 Z a> 2 . N°A ° w •Study Boundary 6 m ............................... a : Fallon � N 4 EW 3 q Zq 4 4 2 4 ? dpi AN a a a N N 4 E W 2 ro v •: 9 2 2 2 2 2 a D ? D ry � A ZN A ry N ? W N CO ►, a ans Pkwy. p 6 .6 "� 6 6 6 6 rn a 6 Dublin Blvd. 6 6 Noi/n Gary �• 6 rn rn rn rn 580 • seo 8 8 8 10 10 LX)D aE ATTACHMENT 3B Concept 2 Projected Levels of Service a Go. Gosh . Go��ta•'da Go'• • •Puma mumuw LOS E LOS F d .p14 m E d 2s . °m °— .•.... Study Boundary ...................................... a Fd//on EW 3 FW 3 z Z yd 0'e�0' N 0 9 0 Bi`� yN °w r/h G �yS Pkwy. "' a CL on Dublin Blvd. No a r—� seo wr ATTACHMENT 3C Concept 3: Multiple Centers- ' Higher Intensity 6 .3. i Legend o- �.. 3 i co: , i - General Plan Amendment co"�aPMEo�!C° I FWOS i Study Area 3-6 ------------- Specific Plan Study Area o-3 o-3 Rc Retail Commercial RR/OS KFt!OS i n 3-6 1 RWOS i M office 0-3 0-3 1 BP Business Park o-3 3-6°� -- ,S� - -----J"""'---""'----•-- !� vREC i 3-6 3.6 +1 - ' , vOS 0-3 1 IP Industrial Park FIF 1" 03 i 0-3 '36 G/I Government/Institution r 'I 6-12 E12 , 3-s „+ REC 3-6 0-3 RR/OS HS High School J cos 3-6 6.12 Is Junior High School o-12 3 s scrl Elementary School n, r i - ... I >, 3-6/•, , PI< Community/Neighborhood Park 36 a,3 1SPK 0-3 z 1 r3 -Wide Recreation SC RECity / o-3 ' ® Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat i. i 0-3 ; AEG o 3_ -13-6 i - N/A Not Applicable (not wthn Alameda Cry) ' I --� 1 i A 36 Residential lo- Y 3-6 I ;� 2s• High Density 25•du/ac FR/OS RR/OS 3.s I 0-3 1 1z zs Medium-High Density 12-25ddac „• .. Y In S­.an. i 1 o-3 I k a.n.ewun•n c.mw / r 6-12 _ 6-12 lsr i !�•_-_ _._._ _ _ __ _ Medium Density 6-12],/ac rl sc s iz G12 r )" ._._._ ': LL / -I "' 6-12 i 3-6 I o-3 { ; 3 s Medium-Low Density 36 du/ac uql litr,, �,12-2D 1 ! I ' i 6-12 , e, H; ' 0 1 0-3 Low Density O3 di/ac FGAis ,t 12z� BP 1 Illl.11ulu BP 1 � , •' Fb a i SC/SH ' ' - r. '� o-3 Rr�OS k, ® Rural Res/open Space 10'adds 12-25 6 12 12-25 0 5� 3-6 ' 612 25• PK !� = 25 \ 1 225 6-121 -- -.- �t I11!IU111 L.i RC, ; (� 0.3 12-25 6-12` / —i East Dubl' ..is 25% - ••125. 1225 ii 0-3 ,•t1 6-12 • � �u O BP BP 'O Ip' IP IP RC o-3 o-3 I s -12 ',, IP Wallace Roberts&Todd RR/OS _o! lkban and Environmental Planners • l "' - 1` 0 1 San foram SttrCA 94 05 or V ,♦O .� �uL' 'q11 a•RC RO Ip IP Rd RC I `l ,� _ UIi ♦ .. lo. .. n..'. I RC IP IP S7-E (e ts)$4ro970 i noise Selba ie •, Sr./. , Qy'`f .�___N�µ� w, NoiSU 5 I a kt /(0 ' 'y` \�Ndee el ac i W�� 1 uo Park 6 fi0e 'k 6 Fide .'— ark d f40e / —..— ._-...._— Park d iSde�(. .a•• .wci•na.It......I•.rt .•' \ter/ �"� I // 1 r �.•_S' i _ L�:S' �. `- a� l o rood z000 F.1 • / W 4° ((-- �u..rmor.uromr Ll I - -11 r o 112 ur v. ATTACHKENT 4A Concept 3 Circulation Network Gos�a° � Gon�ta'•da Go•. 2 N .P\ame �• Arterial " ,• Collector ,y .................. 4 Number of Lanes p A p, A X 10 ti ..... N d d d Y d 0 0 : D a Study Boundary ,°, d 0 . N � A EW 3 4 w Ft1r 3 y 4 Z4 4 4 y 4 s 4 N d M v N 4 0� od EW 2 6 4 4 4 4 4 O1 0 4 z 0 p, ��o A 2N Of A N W 4 n N 0> a ohs P K y, Dublin Blvd. NOrjh a e s s 6 0) 6 s s M s s M s s N 1 S0.(1 580 10 $ $ 10 J $ 07 D •°' ATTACMIM 4B Concept 3 Projected Levels of Service 6p5Xa- �• G°��ta'' •P\ame Illllllilllll LOS E LOS F ................... r' N w w w O o 0 w 0 � o ......Study Boundary:.......... °w o .................. CL G EW 3 EHr 3 0 e �a�, czn c2n °d EW 2 a Bii 2 z n°+ Cn w (P N o 0. 00 Pkwy. W N Dublin Blvd. North Ga�� i 580 mD ATTACRIIMM 4C Concept 4: Multiple Centers- �.(���// :'-". !!fib"•f�;.° S'`% 'oL�" - t' .-f-,r '( .-.;•. {.;. -S I_ Housing Em hasis- , I 7l r ^ (( rw✓ /i `,, .---`' .;: Le t?w end R ^Il')'� ((S � f ✓'�. ` W R/0$,��� ..r,t, �\• a. (/' 1 /1 :_�. a -•-•-•- General Plan Amendment Study Area ,(1'.' j .(..�5. 1,,�( .�\ l.L._'.w '.l' �'� h`•( :_� ------- Specific Plan Study Area RR/Os_/ ti! f �,�> ) ( 'ynnl �. f C sy1� ?v ,' ,r- RC Retail Commercial `o-3 � I 1`1`}JJ� Ss`, -� I. S �\i(rI o Office RWOS _P3 _ 7-- / !i -. r.< s 7 ! ii.i BP Business Park 0-3 T s 6-12 6 o-a ,. Industrial Park "i / �. ! I ' {. ; `•. 1, , i ! (, G/I Government/Institution 1 3-6. RR/OS Jl OS IRFUOS -* I K �! . II 'o-3 i .3-6 7-0 ,.l ,"'1: ,r'I' t ' - HS High School `J• ` 6-12 :k/ •II •tV '. o-3 3� * - ?' I Js J unior High School :' v,: , r ; `,\'' '' scH Elementary School RRI OS 3-6 j •' \ , '•,j r.' PK Community/Neighborhood Park 3-6 L /RR/OS' 'o-3- i I - \� / e J '^ , { City-Wide Recreation _ ® Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat . . 1---- ---- Not able c W Al da n +! 03w 0 i t./' I•' 1 I :i WA Applicable not wl ame C J 3 ./ 1. ` Residential 1 a 0-�r 6-12� S 1 i0 RR/OS t'9 �- � � - \ _1 '` 1 ' B!v ' I ,..r�1 !`4` �r� t``., �, 1! /j 1 ) 25• High Density 25•ddac 1 _ 17 0-3 / h , 1z 25 Medium High Density 12-25 du/ac 1/j �," dauUlale c.mi\ -! 1: ,. 0.3•_ i�^ _ _ ' 1 _ . .-.o _ ' / `� 1, 1\•`.'' ``. /-/' 6-1z Medium Density 6-12 du/ac REC A lX12 - 3 3,6 HsJ Medium-Low Density 3-6 as/ac _ uo� nm,, r ' G%i•�ti _ .o ,-: •6-12 ;ro ! � 6 3- �� :0.3: _ �. 1 i �!ip 12 zs a eraz , I 1, o-3_` �rvos ( '}�i 0 3 Low Density o-3 ddac In!r�uiu IP 6= IP ® Rural Res/Open Space 10-ar.�a, �. 8-12 a:`• 12-25 13-6. ■ 12 2s 2 25 6 — ± East Dubl i lit 0 f=- i ".1arz5 � s= ,10,3 .� r R 2-25 PK 6-12 ,�. , 74"'­_ .{ 1-!J �5� 25 .° I J PKU Si '' 111°' -6-12 6-12 , RC•`n/�K /PK I ! p �p Wallace Roberts&Todd i �. �,;- , fi•12' _ '� .y, .Y-�: Urban and Envronmenlal Planners ••7�. �, = 1 = \ , 6-12 9e - c`IA i• 121 Second Street,lib Floor ' RC Weo Mao �I� i t O RC I I 1 ,I — ° 'I (a 15)541-0830 cA ea ms 'n qq '..,n c SH 1 BP re- BP ,o w ' IP ' 1 IP d IP /!I `- --� , i " °' r I ! t 'I_... * -Landstidn 3/90 It w -- — � • �__�1 .o �lH.rmor. 0 Ili MN il. .ATTACH KENT 5A Concept-4 Circulation Network Go. Gos�a.. Gonta.da Go... p�aOe Arterial Collector 4 Number of Lanes 4 N m :..................i Study Boundary o ry a N 7 m ry n Fallo 4 W3 4 4 4 -' 4 4 4 4 EW 4 z y 4 4 tic Nu' p ai ry A NN z a In E W 2 ro N a 4 D da a 4 2 2 2 2 nV A CV 4 0°, 4 A a Pkwy. 6 6 "' 6 6 6 6 0) o 6 Dublin Blvd. 6 6 North Gay ors a 6 rn �, °' o) 580 Sao 8 g 8 10 10 T of 'ATTACHMEW 5B Concept 4 Projected Levels costa Go•,..••'' of Service Gon\t?,..aa Co .. .P\ame IIIIOUI m LOS E LOS F /may .................... ' - d yn w y - h Study Boundary. ........ a Fa!/on EW 3 EW 4 Z z 2 yd a' cn N z CAN N D co �o EW 2 �^ d D 0 ° a s Pkwy. a p Dublin Blvd. North pay NQ r-� sao m D of ATTACHMM 5C ' ,t, � .�;..�: :__-'• ;);a i i%i ;_ �.' _ v :U,U)):pS'> 11,J;Ij=�"�.:�J,I .':�; �'�y `�� �j -.I. ( •I ,; �,'`�r�- s.,- i �J�/•!,,(r� .. l. . a • ; i Concept 5: I!t'�/?�-✓--lf)�p',' ''1 -�, •1� _ +_ 11'Li._ �I—' ri�j,�,�+rsl-•`.-1 ':ls.:-`:r'-C;\. - - -''<--,\—�''r�� Business Park- village . D f isl{ 'ate i'M1 a' l '' 'bJ / ° � \�\ �% '' �:�\;_ ,'j; ('_` ,) ,J �;'.•. ' f.( ;�'~,/i1•', ;' :r `<.-wd• •?\: � 1;`, .� , ^ >. ' Centers - �,,( ,1� j t1 J;': •°��. I /I �� 1 �`l� rw i^•�:i--_�;;. t • �.ir l�I,1 )� \��r 1r;j.0 1 J�•r' �ro .:c r' (o s{z,o o L,.'' ' � r.`:.�.t� J'�' \l j%'e.)�f�1'. ✓�\,\r�i i M l-a.-n_p�y� _`x,n.'�`(. '�I1;,\.,_-�/. ���a?.'1'i..��;i l,„I�t':,,-' 0 11 Legend Rw , eneral Plan Amendment 17( Study Area �_,—II'u=nlm�uj q�^j`r.f U»'��r�tl',u„I�—Uo IIlllIn,IPa.,?IS"I��Y'l'j't�`'i��ry j'i'.:1 I P\N N1B.,�'�.�eP.�.N/.,1 n\._��O\/l,:_�t�v'a r.)BU\/'I I tpI t,�•J_c-P_l^m r�..�sr.'.I•s 1_l.u•'.;r n_`.I�1�1_u.--+/L n,,J u).t,'I i(17 J.4-,/°.---:.-r�p i'',.}�'�,.w'_1�H.r_,fn.1_.,'`._�`�;l--iy de.-I'�:�uu-`_-,a.•1•o-� �-',�-MJa J�!��b I r�\-t'xJ n/•I�,R i-r.i E.\,l,,�%aC-t;�-;,-F¢_\..:F R I\1 6/,:'/-.'�.r t t ro ti.3 6��+\';-�I-��1L r`a•2.;:i,„•/a 6'6�(-:O 1i 3.v 2R•2'•`S+.h6•0VV 0 6-`.`t..3 3¢1:'-3 2���.�1N 1,23.,°1 2•2,-..`x•-'"2'.:2 5..-`5 af e "6 h.1 6-�'.'-1/2}_''/�I;S//'�J 3''_L 21_2-,J'2.-J.,A25_'Os N.i,•I.y`C 1 i I Iii°I�.-�'.—!�Y.6--;.��:t r�1 0 z.'3 I=ro o-�;K���i'-.I-'-�6 i.3 1n 2,I i I I�+`I t(r'(—�,--U`..'�-,q'li'��-v�\� l'�l-°K 3-.`Z�+I'I,S-�I l-�1'-:{:;y.1�l 1�,/0�-X w1 11'u i I I I•i-aS,I 0-1 t)('�—;4 fL�'1.r.`-\9i\:1 i'E a�,'_1'e —r,i;,�-.�-„!Hv.,`��3-'\^-..,•- �;(/9:- —,�r J a 6.L v7l,I o,-<._,.i�'_,'.\f'*m t:/!/.t i ti w l v%o-j.0�I co e-A-2 1;J`3/%�7 1,,4;_-�,L.'i I,,'i i''�-'_1.'-',.i_i l!�o1`I;.y+•t r.'F+�1 l.i'�`';�v-�j{)f�'s•�1r)l,!!-',1.'.;\°d II\,-!!!'"f-,� � , ' l'�I �_n_t/,•;..I/!�.(✓(" - _®1-_R2 HP-C s_K 2• s_ Specific Spe 10 c i fic P la n S t0 u d y A 10f 0 e0 a RR/OS-1 Retail Commercial Office 6 RR/OS BP Business Park RWO$ Industrial Park 0-3 r.I' S O Government/Institution OS l RR/OS 3-6 High School 03 3 Junior High School ,J 'FA: scH Elementary School 3 8 3 Community/Neighborhood Park .,0-3 ark`' 3 OS' City-Wide Recreation RR/ t � Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat w Not App licable (not within Alameda Cty) )A o-3 `2 Rwos� Residential 25 du/ac o- aw s 25• High Density Medium-High Density 12-25 d Vac 3 12 du/ac o-dn isr a Medium-Low Density 3-6a✓ac 3_. s12 o-3 F05 Low Density o-3d�ac G/ -'BP bj BP, Rural Res/Open Space 10-ac/d, 1225'25• lj 12t25 25 PK'_: a.�3\ :0, 'pK East Dublin BP B 6-12 RC lIP Wallace Roberts&Todd J. 6-12 UrbaSn e,r1 Enkmmenlal Flamers 21 coM Sbeel.,lh Flow'� BP R A 94 105 BP � � $H 1 ( 15)5„-0a30 C✓ P -LandsUdn 0 I IP BP_( 0� os 1/J 11M 0/• ATTACHMENT 6A Concept 5 Circulation Network Co. Co��ca Caa�GO. Arterial Collector • •••• A- 4 Number of Lanes p / Y 2 i 4 N w y 2 ZN p °° 0 Study Boundary N ° ........................................E a ry w Fal/on 4 EW 3 4 4 4 j' 4 4 4 N 4 EW q Z Z y 4 4 tid NC0 A ry A NN ti CjP ro y N E p '�°d EW 2 u' 4 & g 22 2 4 oi :0 e C 0 p, ° e ona Pkwy. O� a CL A 6 6 6 6 6 6 Dublin Blvd. 6 6 �/or�h Cam rn rn a' rn seo 8 8 8 10 10 w TO il� ATTACMVM 6B s Concept 5 Projected Levels G of Service G°S�a P`'a 1111111111111 LOS E LOS F .................... N _w m (P o :................... Study Boundary .. w rn w E W 3- EW4 tid Cn �' z Cle F\) D W 7o E W 2 u' d D M ' ei`. 2 w o°� °s Pkwy. a n N Ih Ga°4 A Dublin Blvd. or a sao Oo D ATTACfIIrIM 6C East Dublin General Plan Amendment LAND USE CONCEPTS REPORT ,.1 Prepared for The City of Dublin �II , by Wallace Roberts & Todd April, 1990 ,r 11 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 The General Plan Amendment Planning Program 1 The Planning Area 1 The Purpose of the GPA Program 2 Background Studies and Development of the Concepts 2 Summary of Constraints and Opportunities 2 Environmental Setting 4 Natural Conditions 4 Man-made Conditions 6 Land Use Program 9 Preparation of the Program 9 Market Demand Forecast 9 Existing General Plan Policies 12 Preparation of the Concepts 13 The Vision for East Dublin 13 Description of the Concepts 14 Evaluation of the Concepts 16 Overall Evaluation 16 Policy Considerations 16 Relation to Market 17 Jobs-Housing Ratio 17 Traffic and Levels of Service 17 Infrastructure Cost and Fiscal Feasibility 18 Appendix A: Geotechnical Constraint Criteria Appendix B: Full Text of General Plan Policies for East Dublin Appendix C: Full Evaluation of Land Use Concepts Appendix D: Land Use and Infrastructure Modifications for Level of Service Mitigation LIST OF TABLES 1. Evaluation Summary 2. Policy Considerations 3. Land Use Summary, Acres by Use and Total Dwelling Units 4. Dwelling Units by Type 5. Population and Housing Generation 6. Employment-Generating Floor Space 7. Employment Generation 8. Jobs/Housing Ratio LIST OF FIGURES 1. Regional Setting 2. Project Setting 3. Slope 4. Geotechnical Suitability 5. Storm Water Flooding 6. Habitat 7. Sensitive Species 8. Visual Sensitivity 9. Ownership Patterns 10. Concept 1, Single Center 11. Concept 2, Multiple Centers 12. Concept 3, Multiple Centers - Higher Density 13. Concept 4, Multiple Centers - Housing Emphasis 14. Concept 5, Business Park and Villages 15. Open Space Framework " 16. Proposed Pedestrian Network 17. Circulation Network, Concept 1 18. Circulation Network, Concept 2 19. Circulation Network, Concept 3 20. Circulation Network, Concept 4 21. Circulation Network, Concept 5 22. Projected Levels of Service, Concept 1 23. Projected Levels of Service, Concept 2 24. Projected Levels of Service, Concept 3 25. Projected Levels of Service, Concept 4 26. Projected Levels of Service, Concept 5 INTRODUCTION This document presents for public review and comment five land use concepts for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Planning Area. The five concepts are based on different interpretations of current general plan policies and raise important policy issues. The first part of the document contains a summary of the planning program, and the environmental and economic information and policies that provided the basis for the concepts. The second part contains a description and evaluation of the concepts and summary matrices comparing the key characteristics and potential effects. Following review of the concepts and background data, the City staff and consultants will prepare a preferred land use plan. The preferred plan will represent a cohesive vision of East Dublin, incorporating and balancing the desires and concerns of the City, the area property owners, area residents and other public and private interests. The preferred plan and alternatives will be fully analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. THE GPA PLANNING PROGRAM The Planning Area The East Dublin GPA Planning Area encompasses approximately 7,400 acres bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa County line on the north, Interstate-580 (I-580) on the south, Collier Canyon Road on the east and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area on the west. (See Figure 1, Regional Setting, and Figure 2, Project Setting.) The land is generally undeveloped dry farming and grazing land, ranging from the flat 1-580 corridor to a row of small but prominent hills and moving upwards to moderately sloping foothills and steeper hills, including Doolan Peak. Two major streams, Tassajara Creek and Cottonwood Creek, drain the area. Their valleys are followed by Tassajara Road, connecting the area with the northern Amador Valley in Contra Costa County, and Doolan Road, a cul-de-sac which serves a small number of homes in Doolan Canyon. The planning area is divided into approximately 50 parcels; most are large and in single ownership. Except for approximately 2,500 acres along the eastern edge, the planning area lies within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence and was included in the City's Eastern Extended Planning Area for purposes of General Plan preparation in 1984-5. The 600± acres of Alameda County land (site of the former Santa Rita Jail) in the southwestern corner of the planning area were annexed to the City in 1986 and, together with a small portion of Camp Parks, are the only parts of the area currently within the City limits. A portion of the 2,500-acre area to the east lies within the City of Livermore and is being developed by Triad Systems Corporation. The remainder, known as Doolan Canyon, is the subject of a planning study by the City of Livermore. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is also studying the area to determine whether it should be placed in the sphere of the City of Dublin or the City of Livermore. 1 The Purpose of the GPA Program Due to its location and extent, the planning area represents an opportunity for quality development that will make a positive contribution to the human environment of the City of Dublin and the Tri-Valley. The planning study was initiated by the City to ensure realization of that opportunity, following submission of the 930- acre Dublin Ranch General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan application for residential development. The City Council determined that prior to acting on the request, more comprehensive studies should be carried out covering the larger East Dublin area. The Council's objectives were to consider other land use options including commercial, office and industrial uses, to achieve coordination of plans among the landowners, to provide a more detailed decision-making framework for the planning area, and to prepare a feasible phasing plan for the City's rational and balanced growth and expansion. It should be noted that not all owners have been participants in the planning process. Several owners have expressed an interest in keeping their land undeveloped. Land uses have been assigned for those properties for planning purposes only and in no way obligate these owners to develop. Those owners who are actively involved in the planning process are referred to in this report as the sponsoring landowners. Background Studies and the Development of Land Use Concepts The City and its consultant team, headed by Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT), have studied the planning area's environmental conditions, the City's existing policies and the potential market for the range of uses contemplated for the planning area. These three areas of study, which formed the basis for identifying different land use concepts, are documented in a separate report (Environmental Setting Report, November 1989) and in a series of working papers. (All documents available from the Dublin City Planning Department.) The section below identifies the major issues revealed by the studies. The following section discusses these topics in more detail. SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Opportunities o Strategic location in Eastern Tri-Valley o Extensive vacant land in freeway corridor suitable for development o Moderate slopes suitable for moderate intensity residential use o Selected hillside and canyon areas suitable for residential use o Major creeks suitable for recreation and natural amenities o Minor washes with potential for enhancement as channels and trail corridors o Steep, unstable slopes and ridgelines are visual and recreational amenities o Prominent small hills provide identity o Opportunities for variety of residential and commercial environments o Opportunity to achieve favorable jobs-employed residents ratio o Immediate freeway access o Dublin Boulevard extension planned to serve planning area o Close proximity to Hacienda Business Park o Proximity to Livermore Municipal Airport o Adjacent to future BART station 2 o Large single ownerships support coordinated planning o Opportunity to plan roads and infrastructure comprehensively with consideration for the desired mix of residential, commercial, industrial and open space land uses Constraints o Extensive areas of steep slopes o Eastern end of I-580 corridor constrained by topography o Areas of deep and/or active landslides o Localized floodplains and setbacks from stream corridors o Potential habitat of San Joaquin kit fox o Buffers and setbacks required for other sensitive species o Visually important hillsides and ridgelines in designated scenic corridors o Close proximity of Camp Parks and new County jail facility o Preference of some landowners and residents for no urban development o Portions of I-580 corridor in Livermore Airport land use referral area o Limited remaining freeway and interchange capacity o Freeway noise along I-580 corridor o Lack of urban utilities and services 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Conditions Topography. The southern portion of the planning area consists of a plain, at an elevation of 330 feet, which is broad in the southwest corner and narrows to approximately 1400 feet towards the eastern boundary of the site. The central and northeastern portions of the planning area are dominated by northwest-southeast trending ridges and northeast-southwest trending spurs with intervening valleys and swales. Elevations reach 500 to 600 feet on the front hills and over 750 feet on the central ridge, while Doolan Peak in the northeast exceeds 1220 feet. Approximately half of the planning area consists of land with slopes generally less than 25 percent. However, slopes generally exceed 30 percent on the northern hills, the sideslopes of the central ridge and portions of the front hills. (See Figure 3, Slope.) Slopes reach 50 percent or more in the higher elevations. Geology and Soils. The ridges and peaks are primarily underlain by siltstone and by sandstone which crops out locally on the ridge tops. The southern plain and the major drainages are generally underlain by alluvium, while the tributary drainages are generally underlain by colluvium or landslide deposits. The planning area contains sections which would be hazardous to develop intensively without major reconstruction and others which would pose continuing risks even after such preparation. Figure 4, Geotechnical Suitability, and Appendix Table A characterize the planning area according to relative levels of site preparation cost and residual risk (potential loss of life or property due to landslide, earthquake or other geotechnical failures despite site investigation and engineering). Drainage. All of the streams in the area are ephemeral (i.e. they do not flow year round). The two large streams, Tassajara Creek and Cottonwood Creek traverse the area in a north-south direction. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows where flooding will occur during a 100-year storm. (See Figure 5, Storm Water Flooding.) It should be noted that FEMA has not mapped the central and northern sections of Cottonwood Creek and upper Tassajara Creek, identified as storm water facilities by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Portions of both drainages are lined with colluvium overlying impervious bedrock and become seasonally saturated. The potential for high flows and localized flooding during long intense storms may be a constraint to development in the vicinity of the creeks. Vegetation and Habitat. The East Dublin GPA Planning Area provides habitat for six known sensitive wildlife species and suitable habitat for at least ten others. The predominant habitat is non-native grassland. Native alkali grasslands occur in select locations on the alkaline clay soils of upper Doolan Canyon and the eastern tributary of Tassajara Creek near Tassajara Road. While alkali grasslands potentially support rare plant species, those in the planning area have been adversely impacted by intensive grazing. Three of the most botanically sensitive vegetation/habitat types in the planning area are associated with the streams, springs and seeps. These are depicted in Figure 6, Habitat, and described below: o Northern riparian forest. Composed of coast live oaks, California buckeye, California bay, sycamore, valley oak, Fremont's cottonwood, arroyo willow and red willow with an understory that includes cattails. Located along Tassajara Creek and its upper tributaries. Important to wildlife as a movement corridor and a source of shade and cover. 4 o Arroyo willow riparian woodland. Composed of a few scattered dense thickets, containing trees 15 to 30 feet tall, along an intermittent drainage that parallels lower Fallon Road. o Freshwater marsh. Found in small patches along Tassajara Creek and the lower reaches of Doolan Canyon and near livestock impoundments, perennial springs and intermittent seeps. The riparian forest, riparian woodland, wetland and alkali grassland habitats are recognized as. rare and declining in the state by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Program. These habitats are of great biotic significance in terms of wildlife habitat and habitat for rare and endangered species. At the same time, they offer an important opportunity for incorporation into a high quality open space system that adds interest and value to future development in the planning area. The background studies present recommendations for avoiding or mitigating impacts to these habitats and the associated species. These recommendations will be incorporated in the GPA and Specific Plan. Sensitive Wildlife. The habitats described above support a variety of wildlife species. (See Figure 7, Sensitive Species.) Several fall into the category of "species of special concern." This means the species meets the criteria for consideration as a threatened or endangered species or is of particular concern to natural resource management agencies. o Red-legged frog. A state species of special concern and a species for federal listing as threatened or endangered. Present in 11 sites, including springs, impoundments, windmill cisterns, pools and small runs in Cottonwood Creek and two tributaries of Tassajara Creek. Potentially uses the length of both major creeks. o California tiger salamander and Western pond turtle. Same status and habitat as red-legged frog. o Golden eagle. A fully-protected species in California and the US and a third priority species of special concern in California. Uses the open grasslands for forage. Presently one nesting pair in a sycamore tree along the lower northeast tributary of Tassajara Creek. o Northern harrier and burrowing owl. California species of special concern. Use the planning area for forage and possibly nesting. o Other raptors. Sensitive species for which the planning area offers suitable foraging and nesting habitats include the bald eagle, black-shouldered kite, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk and short-eared owl. o Great blue heron and great egret. On the California Natural Diversity Data Base Watch List as a result of the rapid decline in California aquatic habitats. Frequent Tassajara Creek, Cottonwood Creek, ponds in Doolan Canyon and, potentially, many of the other ponds and open riparian locations in the planning area. o American badger. A state species of special concern, denning in the northeastern region and potentially throughout the planning area. 5 o San Joaquin kit fox. A state threatened and federal endangered species. While no kit fox was observed during surveys conducted in the spring of 1989, the planning area offers good quality kit fox habitat. The presence of this habitat, other evidence found during 1989 field surveys, and a prior recorded sighting strongly support the possibility of kit fox presence on the site. Under the terms of the respective Endangered Species Acts, consultations with federal and state regulatory agencies will be required if impacts are anticipated by planned land uses in East Dublin. For locations of sensitive species sightings during surveys conducted in Spring 1989 and further discussion of these and other species potentially present in the planning area, refer to Final Biological Assessment, BioSystems Analysis, Inc., August 1989 (available from the City). Visual Quality. The East Dublin planning area consists of open hills that represent a major feature of the 1-580 corridor. The ridgelines and the rangelands, which are particularly striking in the winter months, offer visual relief from the developed character of the valley. In summer, when the bare and featureless hills are generally less appealing, the view from the freeway is distinguished to a greater degree by the contrast of the riparian vegetation along the streams and by the distant views of Mount Diablo. Figure 8, Visual Sensitivity Zones, indicates ridgeland areas where development would be visible from designated scenic roads. The figure demonstrates that development could occur with limited visibility in several areas, such as the moderate slopes beyond the distinctive front row of hills and between the major spurs. Man-Made Conditions Land Ownership Pattern. The entire 7,400-acre GPA study area is held under 50 separate ownerships. Parcel size averages 240 acres, ranging from under five acres to more than 1000 acres. (Refer to Figure 9, Ownership Patterns.) Most of the parcels are large single ownerships and five exceed 500 acres. Eighteen parcels, mostly accommodating single-family homes off Tassajara and Doolan Roads, are 20 acres or less. The 3,300-acre Specific Plan study area is held in 25 ownerships; two control 78 percent of the land -- the County of Alameda (958 acres) and Chang-Su-0-Lin (1244 acres). Land Use Compatibility. Land use compatibility within the GPA area is currently not a major concern because the predominant land uses in the Planning Area are rangeland and localized rural residential development. There are four major areas of potential concern, however. o Some landowners would prefer to continue their agricultural or ranching operations and have expressed no interest in development. Issues of physical and economic compatibility between continuing agriculture and development of adjacent land for for intensive uses may arise in the future. Some area residents who are not engaged in agriculture are also opposed to intensive development of the planning area, especially in the vicinity of Doolan Canyon and along Tassajara Road. o Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area is a major obstacle to the integration of East and Central Dublin. Issues of compatibility center on Camp Parks' firing ranges, helicopter facilities and demolition pit, its poor aesthetic quality, and 6 uncertainty regarding future plans for alteration or potential expansion of the training facility. o The new Santa Rita Jail Facility is also incompatible with some potential uses in East Dublin. Alameda County expects the new jail to be a "good neighbor" as it is carefully designed and well-buffered, but the security of the facility has yet to be tested. Zoning. The study area is subject to three different zoning jurisdictions: o The City of Dublin: Applies only to Alameda County property which has been annexed by the City of Dublin. This property is currently zoned Planned Development which requires review by the City of all development plans. The land was prezoned for Business Park/Industrial Development low coverage under the annexation agreement between the City and the County. o The City of Livermore: Applies only to the Triad parcel which lies within the city limits of Livermore and is zoned for Planned Development. o The County of Alameda: Applies to the remainder of the study area which is currently zoned for agriculture, permitting one residential unit per 100 acres. Airport Referral Areas. Portions of the East Dublin GPA Planning Area lie within Land Use and Height Referral Areas for Livermore Municipal Airport under the jurisdiction of the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan (1976) recommends that, due to noise impacts and flight clearances, the land use referral zone, a 4000 foot-wide band east of Tassajara Road and north of I-580, include non-residential uses only. Approximately 20% of the East Dublin Planning Area lies within this zone. In the height referral area, extending 20,000 feet from the runway to encompass all but the northern and western fringes of the planning area, proposed structures exceeding 200 feet above ground level must be referred to the ALUC for review. This is not anticipated to be a constraint to development in East Dublin. The current referral area boundaries and regulations are subject to change in the event of extension of Livermore Airport's runway. Williamson Act Contracts. Over half of the land in the Planning Area, approximately 4,000 acres, is under Williamson Act contracts at this time (March 1990). Contracts have been non-renewed on some 1,400 acres and will begin to expire in 1991. Conversion of agricultural land may affect the viability of adjacent agricultural operations. The full extent of this potential impact is unknown at this time but will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan. Air Quality. The Bay Area Air Basin has not yet attained the standards for ambient air quality associated with the Clean Air Act Amendment. Air quality in the East Dublin area has been inferred from Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) measurements at the Livermore air quality monitoring station for the period 1983-1987. Air pollution levels are relatively low with the exception of ozone (photochemical smog) levels which exceeded federal standards on 3 to 8 days per year during the five-year period. Additional congestion on I-580 and development throughout the Tri-Valley may impact the ability of the Bay Area to attain federal standards. Within the Planning Area, there is the potential for localized traffic congestion which could create microscale air quality hot spots (concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides) in proximity to I-580 and intersecting arterials. Air quality impacts will be analyzed in the EIR. 7 Historic Resources. The study area contains several potentially significant historic resources, primarily homes and farm buildings which are at least fifty years old. Several may require conservation measures if they are to be maintained and present opportunities for adaptation for community use. This will be further addressed in the Specific Plan and EIR. Archaeological Sites. Two prehistoric archaeological sites have been found on the site. The sites are generally associated with a "zone of utilization" which corresponds to an area the aboriginal occupants probably used for seasonal food gathering and milling. Five small areas called prehistoric isolates have also been found in the Planning Area. Prehistoric isolates are places where artifacts, such as a quarry or a sandstone mortar, have been found but do not suggest a settlement location. Measures to protect these resources will be addressed in the Specific Plan and EIR. Traffic and Circulation Improvements. On the positive side, the East Dublin planning area provides substantial opportunity to create an internal roadway system that fully accommodates the project. Pedestrian access, bikeways and access to transit can also be designed into the project. Access to the site should be excellent, given the two new interchanges, Hacienda and SR-84, Dublin Boulevard extension and location of a BART station in the vicinity of Hacienda Business Park. However, there are some serious transportation constraints to East Dublin's development. Interstate 580 is already operating close to capacity with significant peak period congestion at the I-580/1-680 interchange. Improvements to the Tassajara Road/1-580 interchange have been made recently but the Airway Boulevard interchange experiences severe morning peak congestion. A substantial amount of funding will be required for freeway expansion, new interchanges, interchange upgrades, and Dublin Boulevard extension as well as on-site arterials. The study area's terrain also poses physical constraints to the location of arterial and collector streets and may result in considerable grading costs. Solution of these major traffic issues will require the careful coordination of facility and development phasing. Noise. The major source of noise in the study area is traffic along Interstate 580. Other noise sources are traffic along Tassajara Road, occasional flyovers from Livermore Municipal Airport, and occasional helicopter and firing range noise at Camp Parks. Noise represents a constraint for development within the 60 to 75 decibel range (CNEL). Measurements were taken along I-580 between the Tassajara and Fallon interchanges and along Tassajara Road in the center of the site. Potentially noise-sensitive areas of the study area, defined by the 60 decibel (dB) contour, currently include a 2000-foot band along 1-580 and a band along Tassajara Road extending approximately 100 feet on either side. The 70 dB contour, the maximum exterior noise level normally acceptable for office development, currently occurs some 400 feet from 1-580. Utilities and Public Services. Public sewer and water service are currently not supplied to most of the Planning Area. The Alameda County property and the Tassajara Road corridor are served by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD.) The Triad industrial park is served by the City of Livermore. Public services such as police and fire protection are provided at rural levels. Before development can proceed, funding mechanisms must be established to ensure urban levels of service. The cost for extending these services is expected to be substantial. (Refer to "Evaluation of Concepts" section.) 8 LAND USE PROGRAM Preparation of the Program The draft land use program for East Dublin was developed for the planning horizon year 2010, in accordance with Staff instructions. It addresses the approximate acres which should be reserved in the planning area for residential, retail commercial, employment/industrial and institutional uses, as well as parks, open space and greenways. Sources used to prepare the land use program included: o a background study paper on regional, sub-regional and local market demand forces over the period 1990-2010 entitled "Market Based Input Assumptions For Fiscal Evaluation and Land Planning," prepared by Economics Research Associates (ERA), October 26, 1988; o a review of all existing concept development plans, both verbal and documented, previously prepared by property owners within the GPA area; and o a review of overall subregional development trends and preferences expressed in the Dublin General Plan and general plans of surrounding communities. ERA examined the market for development in the GPA planning area in the context of its extensive and continuing analysis of the Bay Area and Tri-Valley markets. It should be noted, however, that ERA's contract did not include a complete update of the Tri-Valley market or the economic condition and prospects for Dublin. ERA based its projections on available projections of Tri-Valley growth and on the opportunities represented by the location, accessibility, and apparent developability of the planning area, making the assumption that any potential constraints that might be identified would not be a major impediment to development. Market Demand Forecast East Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley market area which extends from Alamo and the Blackhawk community on the north to Pleasanton on the south and Livermore on the east. The Tri-Valley area is experiencing explosive growth in all economic sectors - residential, commercial and industrial/employment. This growth is being fueled by the presence of two major employment centers, Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. These centers drive the need for nearby housing which, in turn, induces the need for retail and service businesses. Total population in the market area is expected to increase from approximately 202,000 in 1988 to 314,000 in 2005, according to forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The ABAG projection was validated by ERA based on its past market analyses in the area and on an inventory of current development projects and plans. The number of households within the same market area and time period is expected to increase from 67,000 to approximately 110,760. Employment within the market area is expected to undergo similarly rapid growth, increasing from 91,000 jobs in 1988 to 170,000 by 2005. All of these numbers were extended to 2010 by ERA. 9 The high job growth communities are expected to be San Ramon (+124 percent), largely due to Bishop Ranch, Pleasanton (+91 percent), due to Hacienda Business Park, and Livermore (+83 percent). Should the City of Dublin make land available for business park development, ERA predicts that it will participate in this employment growth, experiencing an expansion of jobs by as much as 81 percent. Based on the ERA market analysis, the following types and amounts of land use would be expected to develop in East Dublin: o Residential. ERA estimates a total market demand for 7,100 dwelling units in East Dublin by the year 2010. Of this total, 5,200 will be single family dwellings, 1,000 will be condominium/attached units and the remaining 900 units will be rental apartments. To allow for competition among the various owners and to keep overall land prices within reasonable limits, ERA suggests the General Plan be designed to accommodate between 10,600 and 14,200 total dwellings, or 1.5 to 2.0 times the projected twenty-year market demand. Such a residential program would represent a holding capacity of approximately 31,000 to 41,000 new residents. (This capacity assumes Dublin's current standards of 3.2 persons per single-family detached dwelling and 2.0 persons per multi-family unit.) o Industrial. The Tri-Valley market area is anticipated to have a total demand for 1,300 to 1,400 acres of industrial land by the year 2010. The industrial classification includes "high tech" research, light assembly and flex space (which could be converted to office space), limited distribution, and service uses. The market demand for the East Dublin planning area is expected to be 200 acres by 2010. ERA notes that landowners may be able to sell many more acres but that much of the excess acreage would develop after 2010. The General Plan should accommodate between 300 to 400 acres of industrial land to provide for reasonable price competition. o Office. The East Dublin area is expected to absorb nearly 2.0 million square feet of office space out of the 23 million square feet of office anticipated to be built in the Tri-Valley subregion over the next twenty years. Assuming an average floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 and also assuming provision of sufficient land to maintain reasonable price competition, 75 to 100 acres of office should be planned for East Dublin. In the initial years of project development it is likely East Dublin will not be able to attract the type or quality of midrise office developer or user present in Hacienda Business Park. This is due to heavy marketing and promotional efforts by Hacienda and the fact that users have already located there. The early office market in East Dublin is expected to be ancillary office and service uses related to Hacienda. The market for typical mid-rise office development is expected to develop later, following buildout of Hacienda. The extension of BART to Dublin will be a factor in the long-term viability of office and mixed-use development in East Dublin. o Commercial. The demand for retail commercial acreage is a function of projected population and employment growth, disposable income, shopping opportunities in the planning area and immediate surrounding region, and the volume of drive-by traffic on adjacent freeways and major arterials. According to ERA, population in the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton is estimated to grow from approximately 125,000 to 240,000 by 2010, increasing retail expenditures from approximately $770 million to nearly $1.5 billion by 2010. 10 Based upon the market projections, ERA projected a demand for approximately 440,000 square feet of commercial use by 2010. At an industry-standard floor area ratio of 0.25, these square footages would equate to 40 acres. ERA suggested that commercial space could be concentrated in one neighborhood and two community-scale shopping centers augmented by highway-oriented commercial at selected freeway interchanges. (Community-scale shopping centers typically include supermarket, drugstore/junior department store, and financial/business service offices in addition to some individual specialty stores.) In order to maintain maximum land price competition, ERA recommended doubling the 2010 commercial space projection for the General Plan Amendment to 80 acres. This allowance is exclusive of the 20-30 acres of freeway retail and hotel development included in the Triad development. The estimates of growth in the planning area and environs over the next two decades offer no evidence to suggest that another major regional shopping center, such as Stoneridge Mall, could be supported in East Dublin. However, the Tri-Valley lacks a complete "promotional' commercial facility where large-volume discount stores and home and garden supply outlets could locate in a planned environment. If the City of Dublin were to provide appropriate freeway-oriented space for such a center and undertake the necessary marketing program, it is reasonable to anticipate that the area would be attractive to discount retailers. In addition, the planning area offers a fine opportunity for accommodating a consolidated modern automobile sales mall to attract dealers not yet present in the eastern Tri-Valley, those seeking upgraded or more extensive space and those seeking the sales benefits of proximity to a wide array of dealerships. Another 80 acres should be allowed for these potential uses. ERA suggested that it is also logical to anticipate locating auto-oriented retail commercial near the proposed East Dublin BART station, perhaps as part of a mixed use-complex. The extension of BART could also stimulate the market for medium-high and high density residential and office uses on the flatlands around Tassajara Road, assuming effective feeder bus service. This would create an expanded market for retail and business services following the first two decades of development. o Lodging. Given the number of existing hotel and motel rooms in the Tri-Valley area and the expected strong subregional employment growth rate, at least one hotel or motel facility is envisioned for the planning area at plan horizon (2010), providing some 550 rooms and occupying 11 acres. 11 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The City of Dublin General Plan includes approximately two-thirds of the East Dublin GPA area in its Extended Planning Area. Figure 2 in the General Plan, the Extended Planning Area Diagram, proposes business park and industrial uses at low and medium densities throughout the flat land in the planning area. The diagram does not delineate other land use designations beyond the business-industrial corridor nor does it provide detailed definition of the geographic extent of areas deemed suitable for urban development. However, the Extended Planning Area Guiding Policy (as shown on Figure 2) states "[c]onsider residential development proposals (including support facilities) on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on flatter land and next to business park areas." The General Plan notes on page 2 that "[p]olicies for the ... extended planning area are conceptual because the information on environmental constraints, means of providing services and landowner intentions is not sufficient to warrant adoption of more specific policies..." The Extended Planning Area Implementation Policy (Figure 2 in the General Plan) notes that "[t]he location, extent and density of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies." The East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Study is the required General Plan refinement study. The plan will be added to or substituted for portions of the Dublin General Plan by the City and will serve as the guide for further planning and development in this area. Other General Plan policies that would apply to the extended planning area call for provision of sufficient housing to support proposed jobs; provision of street improvements to accommodate traffic at level of service D or better; avoidance of fiscal burdens on existing Dublin residents; protection of woodlands, creeks and slopes predominantly over 30 percent as open space; avoidance of disfigurement of ridgelands; avoidance or mitigation of geologic hazards; and protection of open ridgelines. Table 1 at the back of this report evaluates the five different land use concepts for consistency with applicable Dublin General Plan policies. Appendix C contains the full text of all applicable policies. 12 PREPARATION OF THE LAND USE CONCEPTS The Vision for East Dublin The objective of the General Plan Amendment is to determine the appropriate level of development in the East Dublin Planning Area. The East Dublin area offers outstanding development opportunities, given its location and access to I-580. The description of environmental conditions has shown that the area also contains a number of unique topographic, biotic and visual resources which have the potential to enhance the value and quality of development, depending on how they are treated. Four land use concepts based on different interpretations of General Plan policies were developed to explore the type and level of development that could occur in East Dublin. A fifth concept was also developed in compliance with a legal contract between the City and Alameda County. The five concepts are described below and graphically displayed in Figures 10 - 14. Although each concept represents a slightly different interpretation of General Plan policies, underlying all the concepts is a vision of East Dublin as a densely developed and integrated living and working community with one or more business centers surrounded by low density residential areas and open space. A network of pedestrian pathways and landscaped parkways will link the centers to residential areas and natural open space, displayed in preliminary form in Figures 15 and 16. Following is a listing of 12 features which are common to the concepts. 1. Each concept provides at least twice the ERA twenty-year land use projection, to provide market flexibility. 2. The main business center is located in the southwest corner of the planning area, concentrated around Tassajara Road. This is to take advantage of anticipated shuttle linkage to the proposed BART station. Except in Concept 5, the business center contains a mix of intensive residential neighborhoods, local and regional commercial areas and office and business uses. Land uses are arranged to provide connections to open space and landscaped parkways and to encourage pedestrian movement, transit use and a favorable jobs-housing ratio. 3. Except in Concept 1, one or more village centers are shown in addition to the main business center. The village centers contain neighborhood retail and services as well as park, school and other community facilities, surrounded by medium or high density residential areas. 4. Commercial uses are concentrated on the flatlands adjacent to 1-580 in a pattern that varies among the concepts. 5. Dublin Boulevard is extended as a divided six-lane arterial to North Canyons Parkway and serves as a reliever for I-580. 6. Park and ride facilities are provided at each interchange. 7. Schools and neighborhood parks are provided to serve the development accommodated in each of the concepts. 8. A sports park to serve the entire City is shown in each alternative. The park would include numerous playing fields, a swimming pool and running track. 13 9. Hillside areas are designated for low density single family residential (0-3 du/acre). Hillside areas include areas in geotechnical constraint categories 0 to 3 with slopes generally between 25% and 30%. (Refer to Appendix A for a description of the geotechnical constraint categories.) 10. Open space areas include all lands in geotechnical constraint categories 4 and 5, most slopes over 30 % and visually sensitive areas (ridgetops and steep slopes visible from scenic corridors). In addition to public open space and trail connections, development would be permitted at the current Alameda County Agricultural density of one unit per 100 acres. 11. Tassajara Creek is a major open space feature and is proposed for rehabilitation and revegetation. It serves as a floodway, protected wildlife zone and recreational trail corridor. 12. Cottonwood Creek, the Fallon Road creek and other ephemeral streams (streams that do not flow year-round) are also proposed for rehabilitation or engineered enhancement to serve several functions, including storm drainage, flood control, trail corridors, and neighborhood separators. Description of the Land Use Concepts The five concepts vary in the extent and configuration of the circulation system, the amount of residential and commercial development, the number of centers, the organization of land uses on the flatlands, and the application of general plan policies. By varying the precise amount, mix and extent of the uses, the concepts explore the effects of different interpretations of existing General Plan policies. Those interpretations and other components of the concepts are summarized in Table 1. Refer to Figures 10 through 14 for the land use concepts and Figures 15 through 19 for the circulation network accompanying each concept. Concept 1: Single Center (Figures 10 and 17.) This alternative envisions extensive commercial and business uses plus moderate and high density residential areas on the flatlands. Low density residential areas in the hills are located within the maximum developable area permitted by current General Plan policies. A single main business center is located in the area surrounding the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. The center combines retail and office uses with adjacent high density residential neighborhoods. Lower intensity business park uses are located on the flatlands east of the center, and industrial park acreage is situated furthest from the center. Concept 2: Multiple Centers (Figures 1 I and 18.) This concept envisions a main business center at Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard (similar to Concept 1) and two smaller "village" centers. The larger of the two village centers is located on the gentle slopes behind the front hills at Fallon Road. The second village center is adjacent to Upper Tassajara Road. Each village center includes higher density residential, convenience retail and institutional uses surrounded by extensive areas of low and medium density hillside residential and open space. This concept provides more residential acreage in and adjacent to the main business center than Concept 1 and is intended to encourage pedestrian and transit movement between the business center and residential areas. Region-serving retail and business park uses are located in the area along I-580 near Fallon Road, with industrial park 14 uses further east. Concept 3: Multiple Centers-Higher Intensity (Figures 12 and 19.) This concept is based on densities and uses intended by the East Dublin sponsoring property owners. It is similar to Concept 2 except that a third village center has been added in Doolan Canyon and residential areas extend further into hillsides and canyons at higher densities. An extensive public ridgetop park provides recreational as well as visual open space. Concept 4: Multiple Centers-Housing Emphasis (Figures 13 and 20.) Like Concept 3, this concept contains a main business center and three village centers, although one is in a different location. Hillside residential areas are less extensive and at lower densities, similar to Concept 1. To achieve a favorable worker-to-housing ratio, commercial square footage is substantially lower than in Concepts 1, 2 and 3 and a higher proportion of housing is provided on the flatlands in high and medium density neighborhoods. The main business center is envisioned as a mix of local-serving retail, office and residential uses that is pedestrian and transit-oriented. Concept 5: Business Park-Village Centers (Figures 14 and 21.) This concept reflects the agreement between Alameda County and the City of Dublin regarding annexation of the County's Santa Rita property. The agreement specifies designation of the entire property for business park use. Thus the main business center has been omitted from this concept; however, the three village centers and remaining residential areas are the same as in Concept 4. 15 EVALUATION OF THE CONCEPTS Overall Evaluation Table 1 presents a summary description of each concept and a summary evaluation in terms of capacity, General Plan policy consistency, and traffic, cost and fiscal feasibility issues. Policy Considerations The Table addresses the issues raised by the consistency of the concepts with the following General Plan policies: 1. The general mix, location and intensity of land uses; 2. Disfigurement of ridgelands 3. Maintenance of slopes predominately over 30 % in open space; 4. Jobs-housing ratio; 5 Regulation of development on steep slopes; and 6. Maintenance of specified levels of service. The policies in question are identified by number in Table.2. (Refer to Appendix B, which provides the full text of applicable policies, and Appendix C, which presents the full evaluation of the concepts.) Concept 1. Concept 1 would require modification of Policy 4 which requires designation of sufficient land to accommodate potential workers. Of the five concepts, Concept 1, which most closely adheres to General Plan policies for general distribution of land uses, results in the highest housing deficit for potential workers. Concept 1 may require modification to Policy 6 which strives for Level of Service D on roadways outside the City's central business district. Changes needed to achieve Policy 6, based on a preliminary analysis, are presented in Appendix D. They include reductions in the intensity of land uses shown in Figure 10 and/or additions to the circulation network shown in Figure 17. Concept 2. Concept 2 may require slight modification to Policy 1 which stipulates low intensity development on moderate slopes and higher intensity development on flat lands. This concept would permit a limited amount of townhouse and multi-family densities in areas of 15 to 20 % slopes. For the same reason, Concept 2 may also require slight modification to Policy 2 which prohibits disfigurement of ridgelands. Concept 2 also permits medium density single-family development in small areas over 30 % slope with moderate development suitability. This concept would require modification of Policy 3 which maintains slopes predominantly over 30 % as open space. Development encroaches into 30 % slopes in two ridgeland locations to create additional housing in the form of hilltowns. Concept 2 would also require clarification of Policy 5 regarding regulation of development on steep slopes. Concept 2 results in the third highest housing deficit for potential workers in the planning area. It would therefore require modification of Policy 4 regarding the desirable jobs-housing ratio. 16 Like, Concept 1, this concept would also require modification of Policy 6 regarding achievement of at least Level of Service D on roadways unless the changes noted in Appendix D are made to the land uses shown in Figure 11 and the circulation network shown in Figure 18. Concept 3. Concept 3 permits extensive development at townhouse and medium multi-family densities in areas of 15-25°x6 slopes and medium density single-family development on slopes of 30% or more. This concept would therefore require modification of Policy 1 which stipulates low density residential development on moderate slopes and highger intensity on the flatlands; Policy 2 which prohibits disfigurement of ridgelands; Policy 3 which maintains slopes predominantly over 30% as open space; and Policy 5 which requires regulation of development on steep slopes. Concept 3 results in the fourth highest deficit of housing for potential local workers and would therefore require modification of Policy 4 regarding the jobs-housing ratio. Finally, Concept 3 may also require modification of Policy 6 regarding achievement of at least Level of Service D on roadways unless the modifications noted in Appendix D are made to the land uses shown on Figure 12 and the circulation network shown on Figure 19. Concept 4. This concept is consistent with existing General Plan policies but may require slight modification to Policy 6 regarding Level of Service unless the modifications noted in_Appendix D are made to the circulation system shown in Figure 20. Concept 5. This concept results in the second highest deficit of housing for potential workers and would require modification of Policy 4 regarding jobs-housing ratio. The concept would also require the same changes as Concept 4, described above, to achieve Level of Service D or better. Relation to Market Projections Due to the large size of the East Dublin GPA Planning Area, each concept contains acreage in one or more uses that exceed what can reasonably be absorbed over the next two decades, even making allowance for competition. Concepts 1, 2 and 3 contain substantially more retail acreage than the twenty-year requirement. All except Concept 4 provide more than twice the twenty-year projection for business and industrial park acreage. Concepts 2, 3 and 4 allocate land for more than twice the residential demand projected by ERA to 2010, especially in the higher density categories. Due to the current and anticipated shortage of housing for Tri-Valley workers, however, a high proportion of those units may be absorbed within the planning period. Jobs-Housing Ratio Concepts 1 and 5 result in a severe housing deficit. Concepts 2 and 3 result in less severe deficits. Concept 4 preserves a favorable ratio, in that therewould be a sufficient amount of housing for anticipated East Dublin worker households. Traffic Impacts As noted above, each concept requires modifications to comply with Policy 6 regarding achievement of LOS D. In the case of Concepts 4 and 5, these modifications would be minor. If the land use intensity of Concepts 1, 2 or 3 is unchanged, the required infrastructure additions would have significant implications for the quality of life, design character and cost of development in East Dublin. 17 Infrastructure Cost and Fiscal Feasibility Capital cost items include roads and highways, water, wastewater and storm drainage facilities, and community facilities. Overall costs are high by comparison with recent Bay Area developments but are in line with comparable large projects being planned currently in California. The fiscal analysis of the concepts indicates that all but Concept 4 may be unable to support the expected high front-end costs and may require additional funding sources, beyond assessment districts and similar mechanisms. It should be noted that the figures in Table 1 do not reflect the costs for level of service modifications listed in Appendix D. For further comparison of the concepts, see Appendix C. 18 Table 1 EAST DUBLIN LAND USE CONCEPTS -- COMPARATIVE EVALUATION Descriptor/ Concept 1. Concept 2. Concept 3. Concept 4. Concept 5. Evaluation Factor Land Use Concept Single center, Main & 2 Main & 3 Main & 3 3 village Ctrs, v. low density village ctrs. village ctrs. village ctrs. low density hillside res., low density higher density low density hillside res., flatland mix - hillside res., hillside res., hllside res., flatland retail flatland flatland flatland mix business park emphasis business mix business mix residential emphasis emphasis Capacity Dwelling Units 11,465 17,384 20,797 17,937 12,237 Population 29,882 43,684 52,556 46,012 34,288 Square Feet (000's) 18,173 16,496 16,902 11,491 15,193 Employees 40,111 37,205 39,623 28,710 36,503 Open Space (acres) 3,430 2,857 2,223 3,520 3,499 Consistency with Key General Plan Policiesl 1. Land Use Consistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent Consistent 2. Ridgelands Consistent Partially Inconsistent Mainly Mainly Consistent Consistent Consistent 3. 30% + slopes in Consistent Partially Inconsistent Mainly Mainly open space Consistent Consistent Consistent 4. Jobs-housing Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent 5. Ridgeline Consistent Generally Inconsistent Consistent Consistent development Consistent 6. Traffic service Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Virtually Virtually levels Consistent Consistent Market Residential Yes No No No Yes Commercial No No No Yes Yes Office Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cost Capital 2 $606,637,000 $681,247,000 $773,902,000 $675,377,000 $625,449,000 Operating 2, 3 ($26,000) ($15,000) ($37,000) $0 ($69,000) Operating 2� 4 $ 11,268,000 $ 2,290,000 $ 3,239,000 $ 714,000 $ 1,716,000 Long-terT Fiscal Effect2, $ 12,270,000 $ 8,832,000 $ 7,688,000 $ 5,599,000 $ 10,050,000 1. Refer to Table 2. 2. Effects of Land Use/Infrastructure Modifications for Level of Service Not Included. (Appendix D.) 3. Annual Fiscal Surplus (Deficit) Attributable to East Dublin Development, 1994. (Source: ERA) 4. Annual Fiscal Surplus (Deficit) Attributable to East Dublin Development Upon Theoretical Buildout. 5. Net Present Value @ 6% Discount 20-Year Fiscal Cash Flow: 1990-2010. (Source: ERA.) 19 Table 2 EAST DUBLIN LAND USE CONCEPTS GENERAL PLAN POLICY ISSUES General Plan Tolicy Concept 1. Concept 2. Concept 3. Concept 4. Concept 5. (Paraphrased) 1. Consider residential Amend to allow Amend to allow on moderate slopes, slight substantial multi-family densities encroachment encroachment on flatter land & near on areas of on areas of business park areas (1) 30 % slopes 30% slopes 2. Site grading and access Address by Amend to allow will not disfigure the design review grading for ridgelands (3) roads and sites on steep slopes 3. Maintain slopes predom. Amend to allow Amend to allow over 30 percent as open some encroach- encroachment space (19, 20, 21) ment on 30% on 30% slopes slopes Development will not (Address (Address (Address (Address (Address terminate viable through through through through through agriculture (4, 25) phasing) phasing) phasing) phasing) phasing) Designate a 600-acre Amend to Amend to Amend to Amend to business park on allow mixed allow mixed allow mixed allow mixed Santa Rita property (7) use on S. Rita use on S. Rita use on S. Rita use on S. Rita Consider (other) sites Amend to restrict for business parks (8) business parks to S. Rita 4. Prior to approval of Amend to allowAmend to allow Amend to allow Amend to allow more than 9,000 of the on-site hsg. on-site hsg. on-site hsg. on-site hsg. potential iobs in E. deficit deficit deficit deficit Dublin, designate land for housing (9) Key Policies (see Table 1) identified by bold-faced type, underlined. For full text of policies, identified by numbers in parentheses, see Appendix B. 20 Table 2 (Continued) Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Geologic hazards shall be (Handle in (Handle in DR. mitigated or development design Owners will shall be located away review (DR)) remove slides) from hazards (22) 5. Reeulate eradine and Amend to allow Amend to allow development on steep substantial substantial slopes (24) grading and grading and development on development on steep slopes steep slopes Restrict structures on Amend to allow Amend to allow (Handle in (Handle in hillsides that proiect designated structures to design design above maior ridgelines (26) hilltowns project above review) review) major ridges Incorporate previously May need to May need to designated scenic routes amend with amend with (29, 30) respect to respect to ridgelines ridgelines 6. Strive for at least Reduce land use Reduce land use Reduce land use Reduce land use Reduce land us LOS D at maior street intensity and/ intensity and/ intensity and/ intensity and/ intensity and/ intersections outside or expand or expand or expand or expand or expand the CBD (33) streets streets streets streets streets 21 Table 3 EAST DUBLIN LAND USE CONCEPTS ACRES BY USE CPT. 1 CPT. 2 CPT. 3 CPT. 4 CPT. 5 Governmental/ Institutional 89 89 89 100 98 Retail Commercial 446 307 374 180 177 Office 43 45 74 75 55 Business Park 259 272 169 200 458 Industrial Park 441 402 419 152 146 Sub-Total: Employment-Generating 1278 1115 1125 707 934 High-Density Residential 104 189 190 246 65 Med-High Residential 82 131 188 114 114 Med. Density Residential 230 414 552 509 479 Low Density Residential 669 847 1056 433 433 V. Low Density Residential 978 1014 1193 1092 1092 Sub-Total Residential 2063 2595 3179 2394 2183 Rural Res./Open Space 2800 2194 1483 2800 2800 Stream Habitat 460 460 420 460 460 Schools, Parks, School/Parks 120 113 125 180 167 Citywide Recreation 50 90 195 80 72 Subtotal Open Space 3430 2857 2223 3520 3499 Total Acresl 6771 6567 6527 6621 6616 1. Totals vary due to normal planimetering errors. 22 Table 4 DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN CPT. I CPT. 2 CPT. 3 CPT. 4. CPT. 5 TYPE DENSITY Multi-Family High Density (30) 3120 5670 5700 7380 1950 Med-High Density (18.5) 1517 2424 3478 2109 2109 SUB-TOTAL 4637 8094 9178 9489 4059 Town House/Single-Family Medium Density (9) 2070 3726 4968 4581 4311 Low Density (4.5) 3011 3812 4752 1949 1949 V. Low Density (1.35) 1467 1521 1790 1638 1638 Rural Res./O.S. (0.01) 280 232 109 280 280 SUB-TOTAL 6828 9291 11619 8448 8178 TOTAL 11465 17385 20797 17937 12237 Table 5 POPULATION AND HOUSING GENERATION CPT. 1 CPT. 2 CPT. 3 CPT. 4 CPT. 5 Units Pop. Units Pop. Units Pop. Units Pop. Units Pop. Single-Family Units 5793 7428 9135 8448 8178 @ 3.2 Persons* 18538 23770 29232 27034 26170 Multi-Family Units 5672 9957 11662 9489 4059 * @ 2.0 Persons 11344 19914 23324 18978 8118 Total Units 11465 17385 20797 17937 12237 Total Population 29882 43684 52556 46012 34288 * Source: City of Dublin 23 Table 6 EMPLOYMENT-GENERATING FLOOR SPACE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE (in 000's) Land Use FAR* CPT. 1 CPT. 2 CPT. 3 CPT. 4 CPT. 5 Commercial 0.25 4857 3343 4073 1960 1928 Office 1.00 1873 1960 3223 2450 1797 Bus. Park 0.40 4513 4739 2945 3485 7980 Ind. Park 0.28 5379 4903 5110 1854 1781 Govt./Inst. 0.40 1551 1551 1551 1742 1708 TOTAL 18,173 16,496 16,902 11,491 15,194 * Source: Economics Research Associates Table 7 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION Land Use SF/Employee* ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 5 Commercial 510 9523 6555 7986 3844 3779 Office 260 7204 7539 12398 9424 6911 Bus. Park 425 10618 11151 6929 8200 18777 Ind. Park 590 9117 8310 8662 3142 3018 Govt./Inst. 425 3649 3649 3649 4100 4018 TOTAL 40,111 37,205 39,623 28,710 36,503 Square feet per employee Source: Economics Research Associates 24 Table 8 JOBS/HOUSING RATIO CPT. 1 CPT. 2 CPT. 3 CPT. 4 CPT. 5 Total Workers 40111 37205 20797 28709 36503 Units Provided 11465 17384 20797 17937 12237 Worker Housing Required @ 1.6 Workers/Household) 25069 23253 24764 17943 22814 Housing Unit Deficit 13604 5869 3967 - 10578 % Deficit2 54.3 25.2 16.0 0 46.4 1. ABAG Projections 1990, (Mean of 1990 Estimates and 2005 Projection) 2. Percentage of East Dublin worker households in excess of available East Dublin housing units 25 .a.- ._ ••, �.��•t'{•a�• 'r + i� ' ".yam. _•.: . � • _�,_ ._ co` 1�{ ��!r4:��* ��• �'re, .°� ;,��. �r ��..�• Vii•'.` • .'d�_*�t ��' �?•. �+.: �} +`!�.� •.G,': .,.�:�ts�• ^:.915,•- �_ _ � _ i. ` . '�.•.� '1 �, ��, �t.`y ,+�'�+-,,.�,. Aia( � •�L � ;I� :+��+.. �a 1i '+ ��' a''" .. � 111 rte' �t� -t�t'v' � •.r / + �'� -`�,,,,4: �. r.ti`.`.-r E .�*+ou �' �. 'S"'73``ti ti.•;at+, BS^�4:� .:,i..j F' L',-� .r- � .��s F•_ `� a'•+•o.•�, \�'�� ,►''�•i � -(u-•-}c� u .v� ♦ � + ate-. h. �: �•!•�`'' .. � •tti ,rte � :j t '� • ,tt{�'.i"—T �%' ._-,,tom` .� .,�,•.. - .. ',�' ��!• +�•, _ .a.�� . h �, _ _ �t-'�.7, `.a,�` `mac.. j\ • Y.i:�..c.,- � {.'. � , t. r:,-:•. _ . 7 _� .fie, fir � � 11 F` �� _ a •� a. ��S1.�Y��- y `�u•i 1\ F :J'.�`�.��� �j,.. +� lia F ) _! • 4 �, a ; + i`..C. _1' 7+ •` � .a./al�,7ji`�^^ r: � � ��.r'f.ci.'c`� ' �'.c.w.. _� i � ��i�. _rr• _. •: ��._`._ `*r ti: 1ti ,11."��t� .;. � c;� ., 1 .'t r •:�.,-�`��.r r - `q�iY " .. I� "1" i i� +,� 1tp�u = n`+wMr ,y it; �,,•ac�'j `44Y ,y��i,e�.•'sr��A' f"�+� �t �t r'�� ` ' ti '�`. 'r` _� r'�,t.�.'tr,..��i7 ��: } '0•,•_{.b.?�EJy;Z.'�s"���-s�!` .r,, +ii.,t \ r`' .° � .�'','r �` �`. yi� .,, � ����; \'� \ '�Ti �i ,� �!u� 1..: '�c+Ej_, qs Jti,,� •r* f' r. i M,pn •V^' �Wj �fly�;S{]c �y _� a �' � = r i 'Y .t.� �yy"�`+�.< •�-{/ e `=. - �I'c�}"`t'° _., •'•,`- +ti °i� �'t :r� r". `;i`'' i.. _ " •1':3 ,r:." I .. _ icy-i,��r •c t`k. � f�'!• � �� - -t�6 ' t �. ;. •�- ,�"•.7\ � eZt r• �,'... r��,� a �2 lr..• �r. \ � ��I"'jc�{ . j1.014 1 :i y�A '�°1' �i'� s L 1 � ,rra q.1�f'�,��'M1J{ , 17 A'��.,y�ei., { � - ;,� •:.i;{.: • 74 •. • a- t ITW ' �'112��1a' � ��.��� �'� � `A y✓� �� `•..�,; �� % lk., i J.,a +'C� { `.� _'� Y � ! _rre J'+ r. 5T .•e.� .t,.J >,214�.� !. ,tea. :;\ .a�.. r.}t:/•'"'.T'. '�•�._e� «+7r.;.... .�` `ti ;r t�`>\ �` _ d - � 6r3 t-•,`- .�, ,tY.j!Y'-tir .rj' :,•,:r*`s a, ,d } +y tv'? 'S 'rr : r r r }?d� a.✓ a s� Y �a �:rfq 1 v�S' r r _ , 1~ c "'ti r _ �•�...'� :Li:'� - '.f� �Sti_i F1� Y¢ 1[ rl� � �.>� f ��., �• +yam.., .;'� �� .�,,�� '1 �r'` 't� ,�: 1- ��' ,\;'�} ,�•il', �,r�,�ir�t}�r i _? � . ` \�, 1? ,ter '�,,�'y�.�p� � .,s� ;�-• r�, � �••?.1' �" .. �r � Ln fr .�<c r�'`may .•� `.ir•� 'i�� a►-=t � •yea r- - {, � -may ,} � '�w•. l �"• r \T� IVr s'�i►'S'�1 ��i� !J fl,,. '� �P. j�� Ate.; ST tev lovy P, Him ` 1� •� „ 1F B�;]'pp~ r �!rf '.''}• �'•.yam s • t 'Z7'L♦ 7 ! T It All IL . . . ........ ------ U;", ma Geotechnical a ��11\��s ,•� ��:�.4_;��,,�. •,�► _� , -�:. - '• • . �,_�;� Suitability � :,i' I .(„ � �•, ,"� lf�'f ' � .�` ,r-' .,8,�1� Legend General Plan Amendment _Q r,;;;44t' I' Study Area �` � fir, l-� ��`'�, �'��d� >> ��;,� .�• ------ Specific Plan Study Area 4-5 Avoidance recommended; �'1•' _ �t Roads and infrastructure may be feasible. (r• 1 ; 1 ,,�, I_ �' _ r r� Q 23 Moderate development /I •• ••�zj - \ t \i ( suitability; Low or moderate l �/ \' •� ' /'� `\ s 1) 1 density development 11✓ l,. �� j �,;• �(� { .t a \ maybe feasible. 0-1 Optimum or high development �i f�, .• _ i \" �, suilability. it r�..... �1 W w 1'�• ra eorniolo fai 00,,t-tor to te.t • �_�.i_;;f.��i'a5 t :ce--'—o-..•.a_r _-1•.j y-.:_o.s n�_�..-_ ---, I 1 Q '� '1 v - p 7 L L L O ,.r 4.. W°.allace Roberts&Todd... East Dub lin ,,,.. ..,, -t� ; ;,::_�:a,,r.•ua,� _ - ,$ �_ ..r i :'•>,'�';o°�°C,°.�°� Figure 4 w.. Water _. ; �•. ;->� . . ,- Storm Flooding Y �'' �° `:)• Legend S i ,' ; 1. °,:•" = C I..� �1 I Collier creek ____ - - f ! t 4 .l, � General Plan Amendment is Study Area '\ Specific Plan Study Area M L Creek •l';i•, Jli /. '. ,`,`vtP �(.�o .,� ..�o C - o i r _ �_ -. !.,� . -. i .. Zone Al-A30 Areas of 100-year flood;base flood /� •�l �� �f ,,\° ( �__° ) H 1 . elevations and flood hazard factors t -Cottomvood Creek .j / determined. ? } �•` i <- $ , �,I,, 1 /I •' ! ..Zone B ,w�' Areas between limits of 100-yeer flood ( r"" fTaxstjjara"Creek %.5 _-I _ , and 500-year flood;or certain areas t• �' ( ! '1�l ` - i subject to 100-year flooding with t /•� -•�, _ "( , average depths less than one(1)foot f - - -i _;• � or where the contributing drainage area I CV %'� is less than one square mile;or areas 1.-..,. protected by levees from base flood. .--Limit,oroeta;lad stti�a �/ ;J r ! _ �� � _f Zone C /' _C r\F '.�1.. °, 1 ! i Areas of minimal flooding(no shading) '•� .!' 1 7. ._ . ti al :l I; �1 F_.�. / source: Federal Emergency Management " � .. ,a-::•>i 1! Agency,Flood Insurance Rate Map — _ _ �___a__��._�-._.._._��._ ✓ �I ,\�._- - -` L,, Alameda Areas).Panel 115(, o Revised 2/19/86)and Panel 120(4/15/81). I �, I �----Limi��of Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton uutruw .tu.L' '! li9S - 1! , Date `+. + - LL I \ �, ,�, ,Study _ East uu.iwwt�-=+•I�-`'-------- _----- �-°fr��2pteportne -- - ---•----- Dublin n 100-and r oos A6 6• '- ��l Contained in Channel Wallace Roberts&Todd i1 .4• _ . onuenni i z. t — - Figure 5 UIUU*:uul Zone A3� Line G3*,, -- , i t p0=aiid SOQ-Yer FToodi �� ^".. „•,,,,.,„•••.•,• Containeb fn Channel City of Pleasanton ' / -? `� i Zone ABM.cloh -_-11 »' Area Not Include _ �i((((, 1 RArroyo Las Posy •�•/ yY/ i ll �'Arroyo .Zone A5 •. City of Livermore Z ` Area Not Included l� Habitat Legend � � :�-5•.. -r-_'<';' >.':`�?i' ,a General Plan Amendment �' tw • ( ::r;::;:r'i:. Study Area 1 ' ` •f 1` / 1�/'� ` ��"���'-��`� �.� 1 / t ' 4�'. � � Specific Plan Study Area Developed , �.. I " ".ic::: i ! .:gt...:.....,... : +�, ,, � .._ .. �...1.............. :�... . .. . ............. .. ;::,;:..<:... .. � � Northern Riparian ...................�......... :I• . :. ..:.Y,:.._...:,':.<:....._:v:....::.. ::•. :r:.::... an forest ri ' i ......... 1.i. � a:�.�,..•. ..'t:•,....n..:.., :...:a. ,..:.....:;..yy... t::.. :::'s!rr:_':. 43tL' „r:>'i�>''�•F , r grassland .. .................... :.......... .:.1......,:::....:.:: .> . t f t i .......... r / .. aY..-. �;r>• Non-native ..1..............: � y:::r: .:....:.:: .:... �:-. •. . •, .......... :.....:. ,...... s::+• _:L:,y 11 , ti. I 1 .... ........::.::::;:..:::::::::::::.:::::. -.. .;::::•.::.:... ............:'!�:,::�,.:.::::.::., - I Dry-farming -I.. ., -• .:�:�::- t;::�:;;:<;.<;;,: :,:.... ..::.Y::;..::.:_:::•.>-.;. ...... : ..�:I+ ...:.c:a(a;>;;::;. .... :>,,?.:-;;,i:::::::.:-?.%�i6==. rotational cropland Intermittent streams .... .,i!:,. ....::::. '! ~Y:':..G55.:•.•..... ,:4.4 ,1 .:-. ::P• ,.....:::.. ...:: ......:::.. � -:..,:..: ............{.., .:...t.;_,t;:•:�::,::;,::,,.:..,,.: :� Alkalai grassland >r::r A 1 i n ...i:ii : ••c• r'iii i:: . � �'� � � i- i s 1 Arroyo o willow ,.....�ili is ` riparian woodland I n d ,i 7: Ei c. i R de ra l field a ��'M: �F�'��� t<1::•l•t::••:::::�f[ff.....1[f::•..:1::itt[' 1.::::: ............................................................ > ..t r t................. . _ :::r.::::::::::::::::::: i t" Freshwater marsh — , (� .......... _ uW r � .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.l� i•<,.,:-.z<r,'+.•- .................................................................................................. r :.. .................... ....:::• .................. , • Springs.seeps.s ................................... :::: ....... .. uUl . .......... .. Stock tanks ponds .............. ......... ....... .......... .............. .............................................. II111 11111 .1................................... / ( \ I......... ....::: L .................................... c... .............. .. .................t... ................................... ...... :.::... . .:...3./ .1... .. ._::...:..: .. 111 111. Z' .: 4c ........ ................................ ............ .. ........................................................... ... 1 I Z'X'. 1............. ...��; 3.......... } 3 1 IY ........ ........ 1 I i ..,-............... M. ............... ..................... r.....,. ..... ............... _. ............................................ .......... .. ---- ULLUDWIL. ........ ........ ........................................' .t................. t• I' ... ........... .... ...................... ............I:::::::::: 3 , East Dublin :::::::::::::::: ............ .............. .......................................................1.................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: , ;;.. . : :, . tit's .........::•::!:::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::: �- ..........................i.............. ; ;; F Wallace RobertsBTodd ....... I. ...... ........................ .r:::::::::....:::::::::::: ...: ::::-::...:., :�:(' lNUen•:W l.nr.pv,wnlul l'I..:.w:• ion _..... .1u....................................... ................................................................................................................�.. ......... ...........:.:.:.:.:. ,.: :::>:,:.:. � •�t�� VnJ a5„e ;I Figure ..... . 6 i/ .I _. .',. ��- X111 __ .• i t Sensitive Species Legend i General Plan Amendment !.I 21 l 1.,n .n°p5 0 , c ' (i i \ Study Area r4Y j ---' Specific Plan Study Area 1 r �,fi • Red tailed hawk t ii f4 i(' J p 1 1 Or other raptor nest /' N ,�' l •c---� - r -'��; , , '�( Golden eagle nest A Western pond turtle location .- .�. ,� E , ' . ♦ ,r:' .i ■ Red legged frog location `� 1 ✓sit i ' ?�i�� 4 1 i. '4♦ L ♦ Potential kit fox dens Approximate area searched i 5l" t f` �' %1 j e /♦ - for San Joaquin kit fox dens ZI - niu it _ �I � i' /♦� �� �'.{ �1 W �J •:C�� Illli �Iw 1i �J LL v' ij IW IIIIIIPI .•.-. �-,�r-r�_ -I - --- -�' - •- - -- _ .. - •----'-'-•--'--'— East Dublin 1 a _ 1 Wallace Roberts&Todd nn rnn I 5 i —"�'i'; • iii r ,...r i,'1.V� ;. i� % Ulu �u .... A� i `•�I i _4 ��, �,.�,•.•.'.'.; t')\ �� � .I 1 ,i s,i n�u iii o" Figure 7 ' Visual l7 Sensitiv ity i1 ' { tl a` ;� �r-•.� Legend •---•- General Plan Amendment 0 `=N^P �'�o. . .I + ...` Study Area ---- Specific Plan Study Area Ridgeline Areas where ` l r - Development would be ' i._•_._.__.__.__�. f'. �-- , ,; f Visible from Scenic Roads i , :,!`=� f rte• I , r.«-._._._._._._.__._.--------------- .._.� .»Iw .,,11,11 VIII 11,11 ! ¢ C.. .,�a•"'�• S 11u J-J LLB - �' ; i .�� .'t' _.. Icl uuulll- i' - -- _ ..--�-r-�1rr- -I -. .----...- _. .. '_._._ - - , East Dublin 2 i = t; \;•"! Wallace Roberts&Todd i' Figure 8 1 0 :__ ---- Ownership i Patterns ' Laid 6lC. L ; + -, Legend H`rnra.-.7•9t)"�4 ` --•-•- General Plan Amendment Study Area ��,,y- St9•fooia -- - Specific Plan Study Area j -363oc - =0-'Lin C 5U tale Kane k ctrti,l.inrsl'4k-ta► vt. , , RcdBwlok I�oolsn}zaru.h Jon¢a. (Weat) 921,7ec ( et) - 213.09 Ar 3bD.z4.ti hilvara Aar zo tw o AZ Ta•1�6�ita Krk vs v.G :. ! 1 � .lunch 1� � 9•t351�G Plato to AG i'I,chlfbux ' Zimmer ioIGG Is7.74 20 �G (talcy -,.-Is a.z� __ •. lo..c. Chang9 5u-4 Lin Man , ltaat Goblin Banc h 7 Cntar rr{rcp 4.91rG 1244,-Tkal 3t4.42ic. wA ' ;Icollir I I(�j.1ow �nigqaahn � , '..; i•n.SbIG I 9s.sg�c t uJil lull,i Ca�+tir"SOn MA 17"I4 - : . ..iw JOnClirl �Ciroai�. i IIIUI,un � , te'1•ti.IC ' i .1(i2 i.G . Jill iw + _ ��LL�. l E <tlf .or(tVBY�YIatLt� 1 ll .! Count �.: ,'- 'Alerr+tCle-r � � r is t'eo-Un --- ,� .�.� East Dublin I 9sa is s ..,� _...._ 4.11 ia 'iT11 • ; `, gf nn,rnn N�5.61/�C Ido.�S� •_405 ` :a Wallace RobertsBTodd „t it r, 5)5 DaM Figure '1.15 5.a 04,6-'t- Concept 1: Single Center i legend -•-•- , i - General Plan Amendment 0SI I i Study Area ---- Specific Plan Study Area F-R—cl Retail Commercial /�•- 0' 0- 3-6 J i �O Office 0-3 ,- ---- i �� --r - r» Business Park 0-3 v --I Industrial Park �. •,Rwos 3.6 6 0-3 F C/1 Government/Institution _ J 0-3 Hs High School \.. 3- I tr3 0-3 3-6 RR.'O JS Junior High School t - 0-3 0 3 scH Elementary School `1 .E 3, os I 3 6 i Lr ] Community/Neighborhood Park / i 0 i R c City-Wide Recreation ,• o- 0-3 \ �`, 9 1 Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat o-3 o-3 ---- F_ J 3 6 Not Applicable (not wan.,,vanr,la Cty t i 36 I I �,os i0_3 0-3 Residential RR/ i 0 High Density 25•c>,'ac i ¢ 3.6 - OS RR/os ti JSIPK 5 r 3� y R o3 a 1'2s Medium-High Density 122S,tdaC A..........�..,. 6 1� o-3 i 6- 2 3-6 -.-.---.-.- 3'6 _ _ ___ s , Medium Density ;,2'%""C - 03 r v/os r --�`. 36 Medium-Low Density 36c1,1ac I•iii .-.-.-.-.-.-.-�.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- - -- � o-3 Ca`I RC' 12-2` 'I 6'12 HS 36 I • (1 3] Low Density n3 ct,'ac III,�':m , • EP BP 'RC RC ' .\ 612 '..t " G 12 3-6 - ! I - 0-3- 'i y ! - s,2 3 6 I' MOST aR Rural Res/Open Space ,o- ■I�a .� BP 25• �.2 'O 12-25 ( :� 1612' 612 36i _—�..1— t_! / 1 IIJ IIl,11iq +`° - 0-3 IIR OS , ■ I -� East Dublin zs• - o z zs o-3 \ I nc i i -- — :: o-3 ' lt. i l, / RC RC R eP RC o 3 _�.. .� vo " Wallace Roberts&Todd !�c 'M uu T1'tu � �C� � � RC � � Iv �i.,�, +\l'. RC- Ip �1 s.,�,�.m�><o a o„oi,,, - u — h{/CSC/s+l s..oe�o Figure 10 .•. lb w'9fmac C/SH -\ Nas•S..Wck' u _ +•>a ai I % Cj �`7Ssa s•i" oT' ! 1 — _ o auk a Htl• ..... ,1P•ip 6 Na• -A,F 6,MW: «,;F S IWi ...u.•.e..e...vu. ' .c... Concept 2: Multiple Centers i Legend - General Plan Amendment 0 i Study Area ----- Specific Plan Study Area f'�-RwoS - Rc Retail Commercial r A .-g3' o-3 3-6 o-3 Do Office _ -_ _T --I ----------�._._.-.__.-•-°–°_• aP Business Park 0-3 3 6 612 _I * I 3-6 o-3 ,. .36 IP Industrial Park 6-12 +"12 � _0(, . 36, 36 * I Gn Government/Institution u(-3VJ`Y� ! RR�OS 1 Ziq.0s `/ 0'3 3 6 t HS High School ~� SC 6"12 7.6 /OS , _-- 0-3 o-3 _� 3'6 a3 i JS Junior High School 3 - - I--i i scH Elementary School 0.3 + - 3 '"..'3P-n 0 3 6 o-3 i i 3 36 i PK Community/Neighborhood Park � ,y 612 6.12 City-Wide Recreation PK _._. / ` I Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat rf o-3 ;•t FRwos--- � ---_._._•' {/- 36 Ri 3'6 1 i wn Not Applicable (no:vV,11x+Alarnetla c,yt ! - 03 ' s I i Residential 10-3 7 t i i 0-3 High Density zs• ✓.+c ! C RR/ 0-3 I 12-25 Medium-High Density 1225+f✓ac .......,_.°c.,,,. i 03 3-6 3-6 0'3 Sc/ -'----'--- -- C� Medium Density 612 r✓ac HS ;TC �J \I RR.Os R.O t 3's Medium-Low Density 3b+.✓ac I •. &6 - PK 3 ; ow Densit 03 ✓ac{ 3"6 f ® L� .. "� ,. , ° 1 6-12 0 y . • 12-2® C! 3-6 i i � 1, I � ' —i Rural Res/Open Space 10-auw , a /__ +�- � 6'12 ac � I a IRRios -------- __ - s' mi 25 f - RC '5 ' 6-12" 12'25 12-25 6-12 ! 3-6I - — I 'ri: -.��, . I'L'911IIIII .! RP 11L 2 r 'Ir" Q3 22 SCH -- ; 1 ,2.5 : East Dublin z5 251 5• 6-12 Js cx 1 r i0. �Fft Rc Rc � RC Rc ,o aP Rc P o-3' o-3Is,2I Wallace Roberts&Todd . 1' -__. ,. .. •"+ vso„„,nom,aw. ♦♦BP ,;V ,yf; ` o c Rc I 0 RP RC Rc P +�('s)s+,"ca]o l Figure 11 ♦ o. sCJSH I_I l SC/! ase Sri -- -�' t+asa BIDD<M � \� " ' -�'� assn Samac� ( yt + ,,,,,,�,,,,,,• / 0 PY &R,ay V v\ Concept 3: Multiple Centers- ` Higher Intensity Legend _co ✓f r'1 r 03 _'_'_ I - General Plan Amendment OS\A 1 c."A �'co�° I RR/OS i Study Area 36 ---- Specific Plan Study Area _.•�tgiOS 0-3 RVOS 0-3 SF 1 3-6 1 RR/OS i Rc Retail Commercial %NiA"_._. 3-6 0-3 0.3 = office _ o-3 _ _ 36 _ BP sal Business Park r€c , 3-6 3.6 3 ; �� 03 i IP Industrial Park 0-3 + Government/Institution 612 6-12 „ 36 i -f Rwos 36 0-3 cil; Hs High School �s Junior High School 6 12 i !•` -- 3�6 - ; 61 36 -1 = --i Elementary School ' i 3fi i �> 36 i 3 /i 36 ! Pn Community/Neighborhood Park RWW s tr3 Moo , 1 0-3 i sc 1 � FFEcl City-Wide Recreation 0-3 I ! ® Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat o-3 :36 N A Not Applicable (o l-it-Alam,ala Cly) R[C � ' i t : 36 I i Residential so- 3-6 I RH'os 25 High Density 25•"ac 3.g 0 3 R .1'1 a-3 s � , s 1Medium-High Density 121225,o1✓✓aacc �6 12 --------------------- SCH 61z 612 2 Medium Density 6 3 i 3/PK i2- ; 03 Medium-Low Density 3.6 n✓ac 1 6-12 FG, 0 3 Low Density o3 n✓ac Br/= . 12.2Qi V g ! 12-z5 1 sc/sr1 3.6 ;—I 03 RR'os ® Rural Res/Open Space 10 acJrL wl■,u: 1 a _. , t22s 612 i 6.,2 _..---- — 1■ I !BP,. 25' -5 RC RC '25• I t 225 .l u;1 I;ul�lll .t • —• ; 6-12i -- ---- 7 J"CH'PK s•5 6,2 East Dublin - o-3 1225 ' ..i 25 5• 125. 1225 , 0.3 G12 ,'j lO i p 1P IP 1P RC, RC o-3 0.3 16.12, '� Wallace Roberts&Todd Hf I ;.. n,.•,•4.. O RC HC HC f i n,,uow ♦♦ _ gfou Ew 1P 1P Rc `� s.�i,, ,c�,ue.ios Figure 12 ♦ . r. RC RC 0° IP 'iSl a.W 5a10630 n •, i ,. C/SH Nase Seieac. :.1 �'..I rta�„S �-_Sel�jec.� ; Pxh 6 fMe .6 flub I '-{•.un a M..>, `� ..... M.ewna.Ou.n.uu.u, �.. � .... .e•_ � 1 �.� � BSI}.��J ..,_.•:..•.�•, ===�1 '° , ,'.f� Concept 4: Multiple Centers- rt� � '��l` Housing Emphasis 'Rwos ,,- . �/ Legend -•-•-•- General Plan Amendment \ r. It \ rti -oH`Po. 1 ,, ._ }. +, - ,;. Study Area Specific Plan Study Area Rc Retail Commercial Office _ woos wvos _0-3 -s . ----- -- -t\= RP Business Park / l 6- 6-12 6 i P3 3 1 iP Industrial Park '• C,.. ,j 3-6 3 3 RR/OS iii os Davos " K } / G/1 Government/Institution ' !' O` 3-6 03'• I ! ! HS High School o-3 - 3-6 *I Js Junior High School ` _ } 0-3 r - - v 3 } Fsciij Elementary School wL 3-6 i os i rK_ Community/Neighborhood Park ii RR/os °3 i ( / 3-6 City-Wide Recreation RFVO / o-3 0 3p --__- �r /s Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat _ _ n `' ' - '-- 36' 1 i Nn Not Applicable !oo,wu Aia.,,Wc,y) o-3 fi-i2 Bw S I I woos o-3 Residential - .J , �:. High Density z5•,10- z o-3 \ I [L2 z5 M 9 Y Medium-High Density ,z 25 e✓ar. - - Y+ .•� .. ! ,R1:cF o-�- --- - _ , ��� Medium Density s,:`,�.•.�� (Hs/ K P3 36 —"�� 3 6 Medium-Low Density 3.6 cwac 111'1114. 3 G/I _ Y• ,6-12 y ,r 3 0-3 ' N 12-25 . 5-12 __- C-3_..� gA/OS 1 0-3 Low Density 03 A,'aC IP 11ir, 1 6-12 al„ 3-6 I + °f°_°_q Rural Res/Open pen Space , aca,i, 12-25 ,i: a�..,�• �25•, 12-25 i SC11 G y. 1 h 2-25 �:, - ----- ----------- - - 1225 • •`�?3 ,a % East Dublin •� •• if 5X 25 2-25 1 ..PK v 6-12a �f O�= 6-12 6-t2 C ,RC PK /PK 1 i _� �r iP Wallace Roberts&Todd Cr 12 .�k o Ho (nuw r u0!8 iI SH BF � ARC ' IP ' 'j •IP�� IP n�,,.` Figure 13 w w r —— - - 7 -- J. , Concept 5: .l 1 IV" ,,, -r 70 c_ - Business Park- (�o Village Centers }'N :4. AR/OS +.- \. J % Legend ((' S• i. General Plan Amendment 1«._ :t.�/ oN�n�°O �oa Study Area 3- MOS I �; Specific Plan Study Area s , 1-n FRcj Retail Commercial 38' o -' -6 3 1.111, �P3 Office ewos Rwos Business Park ...../ l 0-3•r .r .6 t l _ 1 6 &12 0,3 3 P Industrial Park IDS ir - OS y, 3-6�c K J Gii Government/Institution C X12 0-3 t Hs High School R - ---�-------- o-3 - 3$ Junior High School 0-3 3 v scH Elementary School 36 ! l 0-3 3 6 11 i [�] Community/Neighborhood Park FIVOS I 1 RFVO �. U City-Wide Recreation 0-3 Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat f 3.6 } Noy Not Applicable (not w.Thn Awnvw City) J 03' 6 12 BR s I Rwos Residential - • High Density zs•n✓ac -2 .;A o-3 R C o-? 5] Medium-High Density ,azs,�✓ar. - -- -- 0-3 6=1 2 Medium Density 61za✓.,,. uin w t F „ l 0-3 36, I ; , ;Vii s-tz 0.3 o-3 3 6 d Medium-Low Density 36 ,lac u1�aw, ' _ , i 12-25 6-12 ( 0-3 II ro�j Low Density 03«.a pr 1ao, BP:, _ BP BP BP,u1[, G• e-t2 o-12 al , , 3s ---- I 1. � Rural Res/Open Space ,o-ac/,v 25•, 12-25 } SCH •�',� i• ~ R r. ` 12-26 m 2-25 , 6-12 "e v LUUtlUI• _ _ -T r�. _1 2s r_ 2-25 PK , 1225 b-1 „ P3 "OI3'� J East Dublin JS PK � r c�lu1r df „ PK BP BP I 6-12 'y I ' BP., 61z C ,RC PK I iP Wallace Roberts&Todd rBP iii" BP Rc RC(Auto Mao _ i Ho O IP IP R _iP 8 P �. f, Figure 14 ,n – -- -— — — -- J --- _ ----- O • ;1_ Open Space Framework PROPOSED t � 'r• ° �� � -� '•( �� Legend / %n J t S. .S 1 I' �� a ---•- General Plan Amendment I i f�, ► j " ' ' .r r� a. Study Area ---- Specific Plan Study Area Intermittent&Ephemeral Streams _ �• t _ I Riparian Habitats n;; as `.t ,I--1 •\;•� �� Jis( _ o�•. :� �I „•. � � Northern Riparian Forest r ?y a� y" •.D.4� d� ° I�}11 [� Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland Freshwater Marsh • springs.seeps&Impoundments M�#�� •:F•J�:: :? �t 0 ( 100-Year Floodptain 0 � � �• ...... Ridgeline Visually Sensitive Ridgetop /_ ¢© ., �• m , j' I�. ® Noise Exceeding 70 dB(CNELT { „: ♦ .1, ( , In :1 i`� :t�: �' c •. s •G„ Golden Eagle Nest q2 Mile Buffer) ' "j "•^'e:'• `•^'t I �' �'; 1`L\ " °l• P'Wl j` �i �] Geotechnical Avoidance Area II„I ��~ -i 1 •••m' Geotechnical Avoidance Area- IIII1 -W / .•• Infrastructure Feasible 4% Till l'nm .I •j UDu laidill.. ..-- -_--.. _.-_. �.;_ �-_---I------- _ _ --- =----...--- ` - •. ,. -; ; -- -.- - - - East Dublin •p� •`'1•' ', j •;Jll Wallace Roberts&Todd a-nn-r.nn uwn.,n,In •un� , 111 S111a S-11.711 I: oa Figure 15 li' � a �-�t1: . ;1�, ;� , : ;;:�•�:_,_�;_- _-. . .I Pedestrian �,...,,.,;• ; ` � ; {. i' Network (Propose " r ��• �1: �;� III , ,,. Legend - a�Aao •'�y General Plan Amendment S�o•' �: ft �' l.`.:` ( j'i� \ Study Area !\lam' ----- Specific Plan Study Area ...... Pedestrian Path/Trail Rldgetop � � ' 4 Stream Corridor/Drainage f�} I < r It - '•. 1 n. }• ��' , l ��1 ..f r♦ _ 1 • t I \ o f �` I 1 .`. F 4P 1liu i!.w_.�.�.�.�_�.�.��.�_��.��._ FI i ���, J 1 �l ^ .'t �n e�•.` .� L �. y.• I _' � 11111 IMI i LLB.,. L.ALI� f\ l J - '• �:�_ 1' _ uu.WHIZ '.••" - �. fietai• '•..' - --------- ` r , �, _ - _--- ---- East Dublin MI k, 1 r _.-_._ i• Wallace Roberts&Todd nn rnn ,l,S.corW SVC I,n, BART C �� ul��+.0 t ff s.�I,.an[u.a v.,os ♦ �,.r;...:" f Dublin PIvQ g ;i I L,bI s..o.�o Figure 16 It fRft ll -- w...w.r.w..r... _ -- ..... Concept I Circulation Network r,o GOO ro Coe PA Arterial - Collector ..................... 4 Number of Lanes Study Bound 0 ................... ........................... ......... 4 4 2 EW 3 0 o z 2 (0 6 6 6 6 6 Dubj,- ? 0 M M 0 0 S 4 Ab 4 0 4 4 E 1 4 M CL North Gay jot\ P kwy. 0 M CL M 580 580 10 10 8 8 8 WD Figure 17 Concept 2 Circulation Network Gosta G°. Go��ta•'da Go.•• •p\ad`e Arterial ...,•,.......•• Collector ...................... 4 Number of Lanes Q d m 4 a 0 ? :................... ...........Study Boundary.........e ID N 9. ....... a :1 EW 3 N 4 EW 3 4 Z4 4 4 Z 4 ? d°tea A nCni b A ,:u p tZJ> 4 Y O0 EW 2 cr d O 2 2 2 2 2 �• O' a N � N a �� ns Pkwy. ti F 6 6 w 6 6 6 6 6 Dublin Blvd. 6 6 Nor 1h Ga ° 6 sao sao 10 10 8 8 8 WD a� Figure 18 Concept 3 Circulation Network Gos�a Go •• � Go0��a•da Go.•- .•P�ame 2 N Arterial .•..,,,.•....••••p a '• Collector ..................... 4 Number of Lanes p 4 A V d d A ~ A o 0 ? ..........S..t.u.d..y..B..o.u..n.dar.y.......... .....................d o A n w EW3 N 4 4 T Ew ; y z 4 4 4 4 0 3 ? N a D N Q ] Q 0o EW 2 P p d 6� 4 4 4 N 0)PA 0 p Of Nz m s P WY. (A W 41 n on a Dublin Blvd. North Gay 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N 580 r1 10 10 8 8 8 W D a� Figure 19 Concept-4 Circulation Network Go• G°nkfa'da G°'• P\ame �■ Arterial ............... ti \ Collector 4 Number of Lanes a i >? 2 4 N m 46 ..... LP h 2 Study Boundary e, a rn N ° ° ..................... ........................................: eti, 4 EW3 '4 4 4 A 4 4 4 ry 4 EW4 z �u^i 4 0� D 4 N z N Z p E W 2 4 6% 2 2 2 2 A 4 d n S Pkwy.Q. ° Q.6 6 "' 6 6 6 6 Dublin Blvd. 6'MM� 6 sso sao 10 10 8 8 8 Co D a� Figure 20 Concept 5 Circulation Network GO5%a Ida GO- FI\a Arterial ry Collector .................. ..................... 4 Number of Lanes oh Study Boundary 0 0 M No (P ..................... .......................... EW 3 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 EW 4 z Z Z 4 4 U) 41. co Y bpd EW 2 Cn 4 2 2 2 2 4 CV 4 Pkwy. 0 0) 6 6 6 6 6 6 a 6 6 Dublin Blvd. Ivo Gan 0) 0) 6 0) seo 10 10 8 8 Figure 21 Concept I Projected Levels of Service r Go 30. III mmm LOS E .......... LOS F .....................• Study Boundary 0 ...........•....... ...........................Lx......... ................. 49 Cn z 0 .............. ........... ........... V 0. 0 Pkwy. EW 1 m IV so 8n CO D Figure 22 Concept 2 Projected Levels of Service G°. Goy....-da G°' p\aR`e IIIIIIIIIIIII LOS E ...............• E LOS F m .Z14 _N m I Study Boundary ° ° •• :................... ......................................... a °- Fa//°� � EW 3 EW 3 tia ai Z Z oe' ro N °a D D ' 2iP °w a w s Pkwy. o Dublin Blvd. N°rrh Ga°� 580 0o D a� Figure 23 Concept 3 Projected Levels of Service ••P�ame 2 IIIIIIIIIIIII LOS E . .• LOS F r• ��P ................... w w w n O � 7C ° .........Study Boundary........... o 4 E W 3 T IV w 3 e�od E W n Big z o z M a n °n3 Pkwy, Dublin Blvd. N°nth �,a�y sao CD 9-. Figure 24 Concept 4 Projected Levels Go of Service Gp5�?.. GoOva Poe 1111111111111 LOS E LOS F .................... i� d N _d d D F� Z O •; Study Boundary w° a, °o_ •°"°"""'°" .........: n EW3 EWq z z Z ydc'0 N N Nn co �d E W 2 u D ' a g Pkwy. w o n Dublin Blvd. North Gang seo �D of Figure 25 Concept 5 Projected Levels os�a co of Service c -• Go�t�a'da Co. P�ame 1111111111111 LOS E LOS F ................... N d d Study Boundary m° 6 0 .••••••••••••••••••• ........................................ a, ; Fal/off � EW 3 EVV q z z Z ad E W 2 a D e�OO Z a o ns Pkwy. Dublin Blvd. %�Ih �,a��o seo Oo D of Figure 26 APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY The following paragraphs provide a full description of the suitability criteria used to prepare Figure 4, Geotechnical Suitability. The criteria were derived from a study of geotechnical opportunities and constraints by Harlan Tait Associates. For further information, refer to Harlan Tait Associates, Geologic and Seismic Setting, August 1989, available from the City of Dublin. 5. AVOIDANCE RECOMMENDED a) Areas underlain by active landslides greater than 15 feet thick; and b) areas of steep slopes greater than 50 percent. Development in these areas should be avoided. Development feasibility would require detailed feasibility and design-level geotechnical investigations and any development will require special and costly engineering design mitigation involving significant alteration to the form of the land. Any development in these areas would likely include a significant level of residual risk. 4. AVOIDANCE RECOMMENDED: ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE FEASIBLE Areas underlain by dormant landslide deposits greater that 15 feet thick. Development in these areas should be avoided, although roads and infrastructure may be feasible. Development in these areas will require sensitive siting and careful, and possibly costly, engineering design and mitigation. Development in these areas may include a moderate level of residual risk. 3. LOW DENSITY CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT MAY BE FEASIBLE a) Areas of moderate to steep slopes (15 to 50 percent) downslope of slopes greater than 30 percent which are underlain by colluvium and/or landslide deposits less than 15 feet thick; and b) areas of slopes steeper than 30 percent underlain by colluvium, artificial fill, and/or landslide deposits less than 15 feet thick. Low density, custom development may be feasible in these areas. Development in these areas will require detailed design-level geotechnical investigation and development may require special and costly engineering design mitigation. Development in these areas may include a moderate level of residual risk. 2. LOW-MODERATE DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS FEASIBLE a) Areas of moderate slopes (15 to 30 percent) underlain by colluvium, landslide deposits less than 15 feet thick, artificial fill and/or highly expansive soils; b) areas of steep slopes (30 to 50 percent) underlain by non to highly expansive soil; and c) ponds. Low and moderate density custom development is feasible in these areas. Development in these areas will require detailed design-level geotechnical investigations and may require special, and possibly costly, engineering design mitigation. Development in these areas may include a low level of residual risk. A-1 1. HIGH DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY I a) Areas of gentle slopes (0 to 15 percent) underlain by colluvium, artificial fill, landslide deposits and/or highly expansive soils; b) areas within 100 feet of an incised stream channel; and c) areas of moderate slopes (15 to 30) percent underlain by non- to moderately-expansive soils. Development is feasible in these areas. Development in these areas will require detailed design-level geotechnical investigations and, in general, standard engineering design mitigation, although special, and possibly costly, engineering design mitigation may be required. I 0. OPTIMUM DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY a) Areas of gentle slope (0 to 15 percent) underlain by non- to moderately- expansive soils. Development is feasible in these areas with minimum risk using standard engineering design techniques based on design-level geotechnical investigations. A-2 APPENDIX B FULL TEXT OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE EAST DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING AREA East Dublin Extended Planning Area Guiding Policy (1) Consider residential development proposals (including support facilities) on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on flatter land and next to business park areas. Land Use Element 1. Residential Land Use o Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will require determination that: (2) - Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses. (3) - Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands. (4) - Timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. (5) - The fiscal impact of new residential development in the extended planning area supports itself and does not draw upon nor dilute the fiscal base of the rest of the City. (pp.11-12: 2.1.4.C.) 2. Commercial and Industrial Land Use (6) o Allow for creation of an auto center east of Parks RFTA. (p.12: 2.2.2.B.) (7) o Designate a 600-acre business park on Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center property ... with the 200 ± acre portion fronting on I-580 to be business park/industrial low coverage. (p.13: 2.2.4B.) (8) o Consider sites for business parks east of Parks RFTA. Retail uses to serve nearby businesses and residences will be determined by General Plan refinement studies prepared in cooperation with property owners. (p.13: 2.2.4.C.) (9) o Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than 9,000 (22%) of the potential jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more Specific Area Plans shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being proposed; and to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided. (p.13: 2.2.4.D.) B-1 Parks and Open Space Element/Conservation Element/Safety Element 1. Habitat Protection and Drainage (10) o Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. (p.15: 3.1.A.) (11) o Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource. (p.28: 7.1.A.) (12) o Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors. (p.28: 7.1.B.) (13) o Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access and prevent flooding caused by blockage for streams. (p.29: 7.1.D.) (14) o Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration. (p.29: 7.1.E.) (15) o Maintain natural hydrologic systems. (p.29: 7.2.A.) (16) o Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right-of-way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow. (p.35: 8.2.3.A.) (17) o Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision approval. (p.35: 8.2.3.A.) (18) o Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be completed prior to approval of development in the extended planning area. (p.35: 8.2.3.D.) 2. Slopes (19) o Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent (disregarding minor surface humps and hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. (p.15: 3.1.13.) (20) o Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. (p.15: 3.1.C.) (21) o Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. (p.29: 7.2.F.) B-2 3. Geotechnical Safety (22) o Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in order to protect property, and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities. (p.31: 8.1.A.) 4. Grading (23) o Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands. (p.12: 2.1.4.C.2.) (24) o Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. (p.29: 7.2.B.) 5. Agricultural Oaen Saace (25) o Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as - rangeland, provided that specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be considered not sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. (p.15: 3.2.A.) 6. Ridgelines (26) o Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines. (The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills.) (p.16: 2.3.E.) 7. Historic Resources (27) o Preserve Dublin's historic structures. (p.30: 7.6.A.) 8. Outdoor Recreation (28) o Expand park area to serve new development. (p.16: 3.3.A.) 9. Scenic Routes (29) o Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General Plan and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. (p.23: 5.6.A.) (30) (1-580, I-680, San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are the routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; so it is important that the quality of view be protected. In the extended planning area, Tassajara Road and Doolan Road are designated by Alameda County.) (p.22.) B-3 Circulation Element (31) o Improve freeway access. (p.19. 5.1.A.) (32) o Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the least friction. (p.19: 5.1.D.) (33) Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan area so that the operating level of service (LOS) for major street intersections shall not be worse than LOS D. (5.1.D. as added for Hansen Hills Ranch, 1989.) (34) o Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment ... . (p.21: 5.2.B.) (35) o Provide safe bike routes along major arterial streets. (p.22: 5A.A.) (36) o Restrict through trucks to I-580 ... (p.22: 5.5.B.) Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element (37) o Support retention and development of Tassajara Creek Regional Park, or if it is re-acquired by the Army, replacement by East Bay Regional Park District lands in or adjoining the extended planning area. (p.17: 4.2.B.) (38) o Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary. (p.18: 4A.A.) Housing Element (39) o Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects (p.7: 2.1.2.C.) (40) o Encourage housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet current and future housing needs of all Dublin residents. (p.25: 6.3.A.) (41) o Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public services and will be accessible to public facilities and employment and commercial centers. (p.25: 6.3.C.) Noise Element (42) o Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated for land use compatibility. (paraphrased from p.37.) Fire Safety (43) o A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential developments adjacent to undeveloped open space. (Hansen Hills Ranch, 1989.) B-4 APPENDIX C EXPANDED EVALUATION OF THE EAST DUBLIN CONCEPTS Conformance with Existing Dublin General Plan Policies Conformance of the five land use concepts with current General Plan policies is displayed in Table D.I. Concepts 1, 2 and 3 are inconsistent with policies regarding jobs-housing ratio, use of the Santa Rita site, and projected street and intersection levels of service. Because Dublin Boulevard Extension follows the central alignment through residential areas, Concept 1 is also inconsistent with the policy on noise/land use compatibility. Concept 2 would also require minor amendments to policies on grading and visual quality while Concept 3 would require substantial amendments to those policies. Concept 4 and 5 are generally consistent with all policies regarding the use of ridgelines, hillsides and stream corridors. Because both include residential areas in closer proximity to I-580 than the first three concepts, they will require mitigation to achieve consistency with the general plan noise policy. Concept 4 is inconsistent with the policy for use of the Santa Rita site. However, while Concept 4 achieves a better than even jobs-housing ratio, Concept 5 would require a change in the policy. Relation to Market Projections The holding capacity for the first three land use concepts substantially exceeds the City's projected commercial needs for the next twenty-year planning period. (See Table C.2 for the land use projections prepared by Economics Research Associates (ERA).) This is due to adjustments made to provide greater opportunities for retail development and other uses suited to the constraints and opportunities of the flatland. Concepts 2, 3 and 4 substantially exceed the planning area's projected residential demand over the next twenty years. This is due to an effort, in Concept 2 and especially in Concept 3, to match landowner expectations for hillside development. In Concept 4, the higher number is the result of an effort to achieve a favorable local jobs-housing ratio. Residential Uses. Concept 1 accommodates approximately 1.5 times the projected residential demand to the year 2010. While the total is approximately that recommended by ERA, the percentage of medium-high and high density units is three times higher than in the ERA program while the single-family count is similar to the original projection. Concept 2 provides 2.4 times the ERA projection for housing unit demand. The increase is achieved by including more multi-family units on the flatland, increasing the limit for units in the 3-6 dus/acre density range from 25 percent to 30 percent slopes, and adding a hill town to the east of Upper Tassajara Road. The increase represents five times the basic ERA projection of multi-family unit demand and 1.5 times the single-family unit projection. Concept 3 provides almost three times the ERA projection for housing units. The higher holding capacity allows six times the basic ERA multi-family projection and almost twice the single-family figure. C-1 Concept 4 provides approximately 2.5 times the ERA unit projection by increasing the acreage on the flatland devoted to housing, especially between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. That area provides opportunities for high density attached single-family and townhouse development. The total includes an even higher share of high and medium-high units than Concept 3. Virtually no expansion of the General Plan development envelope is involved in this concept and densities on intermediate slopes are reduced to create higher value single-family housing opportunities. Concept 5 provides virtually the same number of single-family units in hillside and upland village locations as Concept 4. However, because less flat land is available for housing, the overall count represents less than twice the ERA projection. In terms of unit type, this alternative is closest to the existing Dublin breakdown, with single family units representing two-thirds of the total. Commercial Uses. Except for office uses, the first three alternatives contain commercial development that greatly exceeds the ERA twenty-year projection. The combined business and industrial park acreage ranges from 3.5 times the basic ERA projection in Concept 1 to 2.9 times in Concept 3 (decreasing as the flatland residential acreage increases). In Concept 4, the combined acreage is exactly twice the ERA figure, while in Concept 4 it is 2.5 times higher. ERA's basic projection did not include region-serving retail. In response to discussions with City staff and the anticipation of a concerted marketing effort, acreage was added to accommodate such uses as an auto mall and/or major discount stores, either freestanding or within a "promotional' shopping center. These additions increased the total basic program to between 140 and 200 acres. Retail acreage in Concepts 1, 2 and 3 greatly exceed this range. It is probable that much of this acreage will not be absorbed for several decades. In Concept 4 and, to a lesser extent, Concept 5, a higher proportion of the retail space can be expected to be absorbed within twenty years. Jobs-Housing Ratio Examined solely in terms of the General Plan Amendment Planning Area, Concept 4 achieves a numerical balance between total housing units and units needed to meet the requirements of future workers employed in the planning area. The remaining alternatives result in a deficit of housing within the planning area. Concepts 2, 3 and 5 leave 25 percent, 16 percent and 46 percent of workers, respectively, unhoused locally. Over half the local workforce would not be housed locally under Concept 1. Development of the planning area under Concept 4 is expected to maintain the current favorable ratio of employed residents to jobs. Development under Concepts 2 and 3 will result in a reduced but likely still favorable ratio. However, Concepts 1 and 5 may result, overall, in an adverse ratio. (Refer to Tables 4 through 8 in the body of the report.) Achieving a local numerical balance or even an excess of housing units to local worker households cannot guarantee the ability or the preference of workers to live close to work. However, the preponderance of multi-family residential units proposed in most alternatives would expand the supply of affordable housing for single individuals, single-parent households, first home renters and buyers, and other moderate-income segments of the market. Such units could offer the convenience of shorter commutes, direct transit access, and proximity to work and a wider array of amenities and services. C-2 r Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts were measured based on full development in East Dublin under the land use concepts, combined with approved and pipeline growth in the Tri-Valley region, including Contra Costa County. The results provided in Figures 22 through 26 are preliminary and do not represent the modifications to land use or infrastructure that are needed to achieve LOS D or better. The first cut tests show that development under the first three concepts is projected to generate traffic demands which would approach or exceed roadway capacities in many locations. The most impacted locations include the I-580 freeway, Hacienda Boulevard, Tassajara Road near the freeway, and Dublin Boulevard near freeway access routes (Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard). High volumes at these locations are due in large part to the amount of retail space in these alternatives and the dependence of the planning area on access from I-580. The high volumes would be reduced significantly by the substitution of industrial, business or residential uses or by expanding the capacity of the circulation system planned for each concept, as discussed in the evaluation of the concepts in the body of the report. Land use substitutions in the freeway corridor in Concepts 4 and 5 result in near acceptable levels of traffic throughout the planning area, requiring minor intersection improvements. Approximately 40 percent of projected total trips would remain in East Dublin. Under all concepts, the majority of trips to and from outside East Dublin would have origins or destinations in Pleasanton or Livermore. Concept 3 would generate the most daily trips with a total of 500,580. Infrastructure Costs Capital improvement costs for civil infrastructure (water, wastewater and storm drainage facilities), roads and highways, public buildings and parks, estimated in 1990 dollars, are as follows. The cost of developing civil infrastructure for East Dublin will range from $393 million for Concept I to $482 million for Concept 3. These costs include water distribution, wastewater and storm drainage collection and wastewater treatment and disposal. This assumes collection by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), disposal according to the Tri-Valley Water Authority (TWA) proposed West-5 disposal plan, and treatment by East Bay Municipal Utility District. Costs were also estimated for development of in-valley reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater, including an advanced wastewater treatment system with reverse osmosis for desalinization and a parallel distribution system for reclaimed water delivery for irrigation use. The marginal additional cost for this option ranges from $27 million for Concept 1 to $33 million for Concept 3. Estimated costs for street and freeway improvements range from 148 million to nearly 200 million dollars. These costs do not include the costs for right-of-way acquisition. In addition, between $38.5 million for Concept 1 and $64 million for Concept 3 is required to fund development of schools, a fire station, other public buildings, and park development. Total capital improvement costs for the infrastructure components summarized above, including the in-valley wastewater treatment option, are estimated at C-3 approximately $607 million for Concept 1, $ 681 million for Concept 2, $774 million for Concept 3, $675, million for Concept 4 and $ 625 million for Concept 5. Costs would be 6 to 7 percent less if the TWA disposal system became available. Fiscal Feasibility The total market value of the various residential and other real estate products provided by the concepts ranges from $4.3 billion to $5.5 billion. These estimates are based on the development type and intensity shown in the alternatives and on comparable market values in the Tri-Valley area. They are also based on the assumption that for single-family residential units, the average sales prices are highest for Concepts 1, 2 and 4, which have the lowest overall densities in single family development areas. The estimated capital costs have been allocated among the various land uses according to the value each one generates. In all three concepts, capital costs represent roughly 14 percent of the estimated market value. The estimated value of commercial and business land uses, and therefore the ratio of capital cost to value for those uses, shows little variation among the concepts. However, because individual home prices are assumed to be higher in Concept 1 than Concept 2 or Concept 3, profit margins would also be highest in Concept 1. ERA notes that development fees, assessment districts and other mechanisms for financing capital costs for new development have been increasing throughout the Bay Area in recent years. The estimated capital costs for East Dublin are not wholly insupportable and are in line with recent large-scale development projects in California. However, the proportionately greater costs in the early years of the project may slow the absorption rates for land in the planning area. Other financing mechanisms may be required to spread some of the front end costs into the future. C-4 Table CA EAST DUBLIN LAND USE CONCEPTS CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES General Plan Policy Concept 1. Concept 2. Concept 3. Concept 4. Concept 5. (Paraphrased- See Appendix B) Consider residential Consistent Generally Inconsistent Consistent Consistent on moderate slope; consistent Residential multi-family densities development is on flatter land & near proposed on business park areas (1) steep slopes Site grading and access Consistent Generally Inconsistent Consistent Consistent will not disfigure the consistent Moderate ridgelands. (3) densities on steep slopes Maintain slopes predom. Consistent Partially Inconsistent Consistent Consistent over 30 percent as open Consistent space (19, 24) Development will not Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent terminate viable depending depending agriculture on phasing on phasing prematurely (4, 25) Allow for an auto center Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent east of Parks RFTA (6) Designate a 600-acre Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent business park on Santa Rita property (7) Consider (other) sites Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Inconsistent for business parks (8) Prior to approval of Inconsistent Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent more than 9,000 of the Severe hsg Severe hsg potential jobs in E. deficit deficit Dublin, designate land for housing (9) Preserve oak woodlands, Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent riparian vegetation, natural creeks (10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16) C-5 Concept 1. Concept 2. Concept 3. Concept 4. Concept 5. Promote access to Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent stream corridors (12, 17) Geologic hazards shall be Consistent Generally Consistent Consistent Consistent mitigated or development Consistent Owners will shall be located away Can be remove slides from hazards (22) handled in design Regulate grading and Consistent Partially Inconsistent Consistent Consistent development on steep Consistent slopes (23, 24) Restrict structures on Consistent Partially Inconsistent Mainly Mainly hillsides that project Consistent Consistent Consistent above major ridgelines (26) I Preserve Dublin's Consistent May be May be Consistent Consistent historic structures (27) Consistent Consistent Expand park area to Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent serve new development (28) Incorporate scenic routes Consistent Consistent May be Consistent Consistent with design review (29-30) Consistent Improve freeway access (31) Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Reserve right-of-way Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent and construct streets to accommodate development with least friction (32) Achieve at least LOS D at Must be Must be Must be Consistent Consistent major intersections modified for modified for modified for outside the CBD (33) consistency consistency consistency Support improved local Partially Consistent Partially Highly Highly transit (34) Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Support retention ... of Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Tassajara Creek Regional Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Park or replacement lands in or adjoining the planning area (37) Require a mixture of Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent Consistent dwelling types in large projects (39, 40) Mitigate traffic noise Inconsistent Consistent Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent for land use compatibility (42) C-6 Table C.2 MARKET PROJECTIONS FOR EAST DUBLIN TO 2010 Land Use Type Marketl Market x 22 Residential (dus) Estate/Single Family 5,200 (10,400) Town house/attached 1,000 (2,000) Multi-family/apt 900 (1,800) TOTAL 7,100 (14,200) Commercial/Retail Hotel/motel 1-2 hotels (2 hotels) (11 ac) (11+ ac) 120,000 sf Neighborhood/community/ highway commercial 440,000 sf (80 ac) (0.25 FAR) Regional retail (auto sales/disco u�t sales) 440,000 sf (80 ac) (0.25 FAR) Total Retail 1,000,000 sf (180 ac) Office (0.5 - 1.2 FAR) 1,600,000 sf (75-100 ac) Business park (0.4 FAR)/ Industrial (0.28 FAR) 2,464,000 sf (400 ac) Governmental (Alameda County) 90 acres (0.4 FAR) 1,568,160 sf (90 ac) Institutional inc. Schools, Parks, Other Public + 100 ac + 200 ac Notes: 1. Market-driven forecasts have planning horizon of year 2010. 2. Figures in parentheses represent a doubling of the projection to allow for adequate competition. 3. Added at Staff request. Source: Economics Research Associates C-7 APPENDIX D LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS TO CONCEPTS TO ACHIEVE LEVEL OF SERVICE D Based on a preliminary traffic analysis of the five land use concepts, a number of modifications are required to comply with the City's General Plan Policy 5.D.1., referred to in this report as Policy 6. This policy s.trive:s for Level of Service D at intersections outside the City's central business district. The modifications range from intersection improvements(provision of turn lanes) to the addition of roadways and/or the reduction of land use intensity. Concept 1 (For land uses, see Figure 10; for circulation network, see Figure 17.) o East-West (E/W) 1 Collector - Reduce retail along collector by 50 % and replace with residential or industrial; and/or - Increase to 6 lanes o Dublin Boulevard - See above; and/or - Extend North/South 2 Collector across I-580 as an overpass - Construct North/South Collector 5 and extend across I-580 via an overpass between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road o East-West 3 Collector (7th Street Extension) - Increase to 4 lanes east of Tassajara Road o Tassaiara Road - Reduce land use intensity - Increase to 4 lanes north of E/W 3 Collector o Fallon Road - Reduce retail between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard - Add another North/South collector o Doolan Road - Add additional intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard and North Canyons Parkway Concept 2. (For land uses, see Figure 11; for circulation netwok, see Figure 18.) o Dublin Boulevard Reduce retail commercial at Fallon Road by 33-50%; and Reduce office floor area ratio (FAR); and/or Extend North/South Collectors 2 and 5 across I-580 as overpasses D-1 o Tassaiara Road Reduce amount of commercial space o Upper Tassaiara Road Reduce residential densities Widen intersections at Fallon Road and E/W 3 Collector o East/West 2 Collector Increase to 4 lanes o Doolan Road Increase to 4 lanes between Dublin Boulevard and East/West 3 Collector o North/South (N/S) 4 and 6 Collectors Increase to 4 lanes Concept 3 (For land uses, see Figure 12; for circulation network, see Figure 19.) o Dublin Boulevard Reduce retail commercial; and/or Reduce office FAR; and/or Extend North/South Collectors 2 and 5 across I-580 as overpasses o Tassaiara Road Increase to 6 lanes from E/W 3 Collector to Doolan Road intersection. o East/West 3 Collector Increase to 6 lanes west of Fallon Road. o Fallon Road Reduce retail uses. o North/South 4 Collector Make entire collector 4 lanes Add additional North/South collector. Concept 4. (For land uses, see Figure 13; for circulation network, see Figure 20.) o Dublin Boulevard/Tassaiara Road Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at Hacienda Boulevard, North/South 2 Collector, Tassajara Road, North/South 5 Collector, Fallon Road, Doolan Road, and Airway Boulevard o East/West 2 Collector Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at North/South 1 and North/South 2 Collectors o East/West 3 Collector Add intersction improvements (turn lanes) at Tassajara Road, North/South 5 Collector and Fallon Road D-2 o Tassaiara Road Add intesection improvements (turn lanes) at Fallon Road o Doolan Road Extend 4-lane section 400 feet northwards. Concept 5. (For land uses, see Figure 14; for circulation network, see Figure 21.) o Dublin Boulevard/Tassaiara Road Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at Tassajara Road, North/South 5 Collector, Fallon Road, Doolan Road, and Airway Boulevard o East/West 2 Collector Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at North/South 1, North/South 2 and North/South 3 Collectors o East/West 3 Collector Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at Tassajara Road, North/South 5 Collector and Fallon Road o Tassaiara Road Add intersection improvements (turn lanes) at Fallon Road o Doolan Road Extend 4-lane section 400 feet northwards. D-3