Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Land Use Plans East Dublin `-�o -,30 AGENDA STATEMENT JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 22 , 1990 SUBJECT: Land Use Concept Plans for East Dublin REPORT PREPARED BY: 19e., Brenda A. Gillarde , Project Coordinator ATTACHMENTS : 1 . Description of the concept plans "T 2 . Buildout figures for Concept 4 3 . Staff report from April 18 study session 4 . Comments from August 9 , 1990 meeting 5 . Letter from Pilots to Protect the Livermore Airport RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Consider this staff report and receive public input . 2 . Conduct the meeting as outlined below: a. Open study session b. Hear Staff outline of meeting procedure C . Hear presentation of land use concept plans (WRT) d. Hear staff report e . Ask questions of Staff or Consultant f . Break for 15 minutes g. Open public discussion h. Close public discussion i . Request input from individual Commissioners j . Request input from individual Council members k. Request Staff to outline next steps 1 . Adjourn meeting FINANCIAL STATEMENT: N/A DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND On April 18 the City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session on East Dublin to discuss general plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: PA 87-031 Q j Project Planner ITEM NO. O . I Agenda File - 1 - PAGE /...OF policies as they related to five different land use concepts for the study area. The public and individual members of the Commission and Council commented on how current general plan policies should be applied or modified with respect to development in East Dublin . Based on those comments , Staff developed the following guidelines for selecting the concepts that would be further refined for the general plan amendment : 1 . Generally locate multifamily development in East Dublin on flatter land. 2 . Minimize disfigurement of ridgelands . 3 . Maintain slopes predominately over 30% as open space although consideration may be given for roads or emergency vehicle access routes . 4 . Maintain a positive jobs/housing ratio . 5 . Regulate grading and development on steep slopes . 6 . Maintain a Level of Service of D or better at major intersections . Of the five concepts presented at the April 18 meeting, Concept 4 most closely fit within these guidelines . It achieves a balance between jobs and housing , avoids areas of 30% slope or more , locates multifamily on the flatter land and has the fewest road links exceeding level of service D. Therefore it was selected as one of the concepts that would be further considered in the general plan amendment . (See Attachment 3 for the staff report on the April 18 study session. ) Due to explicit language in an agreement between Alameda County and the City of Dublin, it is necessary for the City to also consider Concept 5 . This concept designates the County' s property as business park, which is mandated by the annexation agreement between the City and the County, adopted in 1986 . The agreement specifies land use in the annexed area as well as the responsibility for the cost of municipal services . Unless the existing annexation agreement with the County is amended, Concept 4 could not be adopted to the extent it designates the County ' s 600 acres for uses other than business park. Alameda County Staff have indicated a willingness to consider amending the annexation agreement to allow for mixed use on the county property provided that the County does not suffer any detriment from the change . The County Staff have been supportive of the general land uses in Concept 4 which were presented as an alternative to the business park designation. Although the City has not received a direct request to amend the annexation agreement , the County Administrator has indicated to the Board of Supervisors that negotiations on these issues are anticipated in the near future . - 2 - PAGE. ...OF policies as they related to five different land use concepts for the study area. The public and individual members of the Commission and Council commented on how current general plan policies should be applied or modified with respect to development in East Dublin. Based on those comments , Staff developed the following guidelines for selecting the concepts that would be further refined for the general plan amendment : 1 . Generally locate multifamily development in East Dublin on flatter land. 2 . Minimize disfigurement of ridgelands . 3 . Maintain slopes predominately over 30% as open space although consideration may be given for roads or emergency vehicle access routes . 4 . Maintain a positive jobs/housing ratio . 5 . Regulate grading and development on steep slopes . 6 . Maintain a Level of Service of D or better at major intersections . Of the five concepts presented at the April 18 meeting, Concept 4 most closely fit within these guidelines . It achieves a balance between jobs and housing , avoids areas of 30% slope or more , locates multifamily on the flatter land and has the fewest road links exceeding level of service D. Therefore it was selected as one of the concepts that would be further considered in the general plan amendment . (See Attachment 3 for the staff report on the April 18 study session. ) Due to explicit language in an agreement between Alameda County and the City of Dublin, it is necessary for the City to also consider Concept 5 . This concept designates the County ' s property as business park, which is mandated by the annexation agreement between the City and the County, adopted in 1986 . The agreement specifies land use in the annexed area as well as the responsibility for the cost of municipal services . Unless the existing annexation agreement with the County is amended, Concept 4 could not be adopted to the extent it designates the County ' s 600 acres for uses other than business park. Alameda County Staff have indicated a willingness to consider amending the annexation agreement to allow for mixed use on the county property provided that the County does not suffer any detriment from the change . The County Staff have been supportive of the general land uses in Concept 4 which were presented as an alternative to the business park designation. Although the City has not received a direct request to amend the annexation agreement , the County Administrator has indicated to the Board of Supervisors that negotiations on these issues are anticipated in the near future . - 2 - PAGE zZ...OF�C.- If the City and County cannot reach a mutual understanding on the amendments , the City will have two options . One option is to proceed with further refinement of a plan showing the business park designation on the county property ( i .e . Concept 5 ) . The other option is to delay the planning process . I1 . ISSUES A. Description of Concept 4 East Dublin provides a rare opportunity for the City to plan for the future in a cohesive , rationale and economically sound way. It also provides an opportunity to plan with imagination and vision in creating a community where people can walk, drive or bicycle to work, shopping and recreation. Since the April 18 study session , Concept 4 has been refined to reinforce the idea of a dynamic community where people can work, shop and recreate within close proximity of their residences . The concept envisions a community of approximately 50 , 000 people housed in about 18 , 000 units . Higher density residential uses are concentrated in the flat areas of the site while lower density single family uses are dispersed throughout the remainder of the study area. Although linked to existing Dublin , due to the geographic size this new community will have its own distinctive identity and sense of place . The community is intended to be "pedestrian friendly" so that people can easily walk to retail stores and major transit lines . A town center is envisioned along Tassajara Road which will serve as a focal point for the community. The major share of commercial development (office and retail ) will be located here . Several smaller , neighborhood commercial centers will be dispersed throughout the residential districts to provide the daily convenience items needed by local residents . The community will be accessed by two major north/south arterials - Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Tassajara is envisioned as a 4-6 lane road which will split into two one-way couplets through the town center . Fallon is planned as a four lane parkway with limited access to promote its use as a reliever route for people wishing to travel directly to I-580 and avoid going through the town center. There will be two major east/west arterials - one on the north side of the town center - and Dublin Boulevard , which will ultimately be 6 lanes and run directly north of and parallel to 1-580. There will also be a two lane "green spine" which will connect the town center with the future East Dublin BART station. This roadway is designed to be the "Main Street" in the town center . It will carry the major transit lines into East Dublin and wi,ll be heavily landscaped to create a green space in the - 3 - PAGE OF �'-' center of town. Various uses such as community parks , cafes , art festivals , etc . could occur within the interior of this spine . (See Attachments 1 and 2 for the full description of Concept 4 . ) B. Description of Concept 5 This concept would create a community of approximately 34 , 000 people and 12 , 000 dwelling units . A large business park community would be located at the west end of the study area , creating about 8 million square feet of business park uses . This business park area is owned by the County of Alameda and, as mentioned previously , designation as business park is required by the current annexation agreement between the City and the County. The town center has been removed from Tassajara thus eliminating the community ' s central gathering place . Three local serving retail centers are dispersed throughout the site : one along the southern portion of Fallon Road, one adjacent to Upper Tassajara Road and one in Doolan Canyon. These centers would be primarily accessed by auto although some pedestrian access would be possible from adjacent multifamily areas . Generally higher density housing is located in the flatter portion of the study area with single family in the hillside areas . The open space network is similar to that in Concept 4 but the pedestrian connections between work, shopping and residential areas are substantially lessened due to the lack of a town center with surrounding higher density residential areas . (See Attachment 1 for a full description of Concept 5 . ) C. Discussion of Issues The primary purpose of the study session is to discuss the vision for East Dublin and what kinds of uses should occur in the area over the next 20-30 years . Two concepts have been provided to focus the discussion. As mentioned above , Concept 4 was selected because it adhered most closely to the guidelines suggested by the comments made at the April 18 study session. Concept 5 was carried forward because of the current agreement between the City and the County. A comparison of the two with the policy guidelines outlined in the Background section reveals the following similarities and differences : 1 . Locate multifamily development on flatter land. Both concepts follow this guideline closely. However , Concept 5 has a housing deficit of some 11 , 000 units . If an attempt was made to rectify this imbalance , densities would have to be substantially increased on the flat land and/or hillside areas would have to be intruded upon to provide the additional units . 2 . Minimize disfigurement of ridgelands . By avoiding 30% slope areas , ridgelands are protected in both concepts . However , if these areas were needed to accommodate a - 4 - PAGF '4 more favorable jobs/housing ratio in Concept 5 , some ridgelands may be disfigured. 3 . Maintain slopes predominately over 30% as open space . See comment under #1 . 4 . Maintain a positive jobs/housing ratio. Concept 4 creates a positive ratio between jobs and housing. Concept 5 creates a substantial deficit in housing units - approximately 11 , 000 units . This is due to the concentration of business park on the county property. 5 . Regulate grading and development on steep slopes . See comments under #1 and #2 . 6 . Maintain a Level of Service D or better at major intersections . Concepts 4 and 5 have the fewest number of roadway links where level of service D is exceeded. The impact of adding additional units to Concept 5 is undetermined at this time . The above discussion illustrates that there are some negative policy implications of implementing Concept 5 . It may be possible to reconfigure Concept 5 to achieve a better jobs/housing ratio. However , it is probable that the unit deficit could not all be located on the flat lands , thus necessitating increased densities in the hillsides and/or intruding into 30% slope areas . In addition to the policy issues there are a number of other factors that warrant discussion. These factors involve the vision for East Dublin and what kinds of uses should occur in the area over the next 20-30 years . To facilitate the discussion of the appropriate uses and level .of - development in East Dublin, a series of questions are provided below. These questions focus on the amount , type , mix and urban design of - development as well as provision of recreation amenities and conservation of natural features . It should be remembered that the land use concepts are preliminary and subject to refinement . No land use concept or plan will 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. Discussion Questions ss es 1 . What kind of community should East Dublin be - primarily residential ; primarily commercial ; balanced between housing and jobs? 2 . How much development (number of units , commercial square footage , active park acreage) should be accommodated in East - 5 - PAGE t' OF �� Dublin? Should large areas be devoted to a single land use type? 3 . Should it be linked to existing Dublin or stand alone? If linked , what kinds of connections should be made? 4 ., Where should the town center be located? What kind of character or physical appearance should the town center exhibit ? 5 . What kinds of uses/activities should be located in the town center? (Examples are : offices , retail stores , convention center , post office , library, cinema complex. ) 6 . What kinds of uses/activities should be located in the residential areas ? (Examples are : centrally located neighborhood parks with playing courts , picnic areas ; neighborhood retail centers with grocery stores , dry cleaners , video shops ; bikepaths/trails connected to open space areas and the town center . ) 7 . What types of recreation facilities should be located in the community? (Examples are : tennis courts , community pool , ball fields , basketball courts , bike trails , outdoor amphitheater , a sports park. ) 8 . Additional comments can be made on the following features of the plan : circulation network open space system preservation of natural features (creek corridors , hills , wildlife habitats ) policy implications of Concept 4 or 5 (See Attachments 4 and 5 for comments received at the August 9 , 1990 meeting on Concept 4 . ) 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 be seated at the dais . 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 . 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 explaining the proposed land use concepts and - 6 - PAGE OF��� receiving public comment on them. No vote is to be taken and no consensus is to be reached. WRT presents the 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 land use concepts and/or issues raised in the Staff report or by members of the public . Mayor asks for individual Council member comments on the land use concepts and/or issues raised in the Staff report or by members of the public . Staff describes the next steps in the process . Mayor adjourns the study session . Comments and discussion should focus on the amount , type and form of development in East Dublin as proposed by the proposed land use concepts . No vote or consensus on the concepts or any issues 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 the land use concepts and the issues raised concerning the amount and type of development in East Dublin. IV. CONCLUSION The key issues for discussion are the amount , type and mix of land uses for East Dublin , urban design , circulation , open space and conservation of natural features . The questions in Section II of this staff report will help direct the discussion toward these topics . Additional comments on any other items related to the East Dublin Study are also welcomed. After the study session , the Consultants and Staff will refine one of the concepts based upon the comments made at the session and any written comments received. The current agreement with the Consultants provides for the refinement of a single concept . The City and Alameda County will need to reach an understanding of the framework in which the annexation agreement will be amended, if Concept 4 is to be refined further . If this does not 7 - PAGE? OF 76 occur , the City would have the option to proceed with some variation of Concept 5 or delay the planning process . Once the plan is sufficiently refined , another study session may be held to discuss the refined plan . Work will then commence on the general plan amendment/specific plan document . A study session will be held to discuss the preliminary version of this document . The general plan portion will contain overall planning goals and policies for inclusion into the City ' s current general plan . The specific plan portion will contain goals and policies specific to development in East Dublin , guidelines and performance standards for development , a phasing program and a financing/ implementation plan. - 8 - PAGE ..OF LAND USE CONCEPT #4: MULTIPLE CENTERS-HOUSING EMPHASIS The plan for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan represents a refinement and elaboration of the conceptual land use plan entitled Concept #4: Multiple Centers-Housing Emphasis which was evaluated in the previous Land Use Concepts Report (April, 1990). Consistent with Concept #4, buildout of the current plan would result in roughly 18,000 dwelling units housing a population of 50,000, plus I1 million square feet of employment generating uses employing approximately 28,000 people. From a planning and urban design standpoint, the challenge is to create an appropriate structure for the East Dublin community that will unify the community and give it a distinctive identity, while enhancing the quality of life of its inhabitants by being well-organized and functioning efficiently. The large scale of the planning area and the projected level of development necessitates a carefully crafted structure that will ensure that the East Dublin community will grow and prosper. The fact that the planning area is not contiguous with the rest of the City of Dublin further accentuates the need for the East Dublin area to have its own recognizable identity and organization. The East Dublin plan has been developed so that the organization of the three major plan components: open space, circulation, and land use, complement and reinforce each other to provide an integrated foundation upon which the community can be successfully established. Land Use System The underlying concept guiding the refinement of the proposed land use system was that East Dublin should be a distinctive mixed-use community which is well-integrated with existing natural and urban systems, provides future residents with a high quality of life, and establishes a unique image and identity for the new community. To enrich the character of the community and ensure its success, the plan also attempts to build variety and balance into the community's structure. Employment-generating uses have been balanced with housing, and urban development has been balanced with the natural landscape. Variety has been provided in the types, sizes and cost of housing, the range of employment-generating uses, available modes of transportation, and in land use character, including urban, suburban, and rural settings. The emphasis on developing a mixed-use community derives from the concern for creating a vital urban environment where people can live, work, play, and interact in a manner that fosters a sense of community. As much as possible the plan attempts to minimize situations in which different uses are segregated into single function areas that are only used during a portion of the day or WAITS d f x �Gl week. To enhance the quality of life in the East Dublin community the plan attempts to create a strong neighborhood orientation by maintaining a pedestrian scale to the neighborhood units and locating stores, services, and employment uses in close proximity to residential areas. This neighborhood organization will promote increased pedestrian activity in the planning area and reduced dependence on the automobile, which in turn will benefit traffic conditions on local roadways and reduce vehicle-related air pollution. The creation of mixed-use areas and parks within each neighborhood provide activity centers to accommodat and enhance the development of a public life within the community. These public spaces contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood, establish individual identities for each neighborhood, and provide a focal point and gathering place where residents can interact. The land use pattern in the plan is heavily influenced by topography and proximity to existing or proposed urban uses. For this reason, the more level areas in the south would have the densest concentration of urban development and the hilly areas to the north would be more sparsely developed. Employment-generating and service commercial uses are located along the freeway frontage to take advantage of freeway access and visibility, and because these uses are typically less sensitive to freeway noise. Business Park designations are located along the freeway at the west end of the planning area and Industrial Park uses have been designated in the east. Regional Commercial uses which are dependent on freeway access and visibility have been designated along both sides of the Fallon Road interchange. These sites represent good potential locations for uses such as an Auto Mall and a Promotional or Discount Center. Office and retail commercial uses are shown flanking the Tassajara Road interchange. Having high end development at this entrance to the planning area would create a dramatic entry statement that would help establish an upscale image for the entire area. The commercial retail areas shown in this area are considered excellent potential sites for hotels. On the western edge of the planning area a concentration of office and mixed office and retail uses are designated in response to the future development of the BART station to the west. Although no plans currently exist for the BART station, it has been assumed that development surrounding the station would be very high density and include residential as well as office and retail uses. The location of employment-generating uses close to the BART station would encourage the use of the rapid transit system by commuters. As shown in the plan, the Dublin Boulevard extension would act as the boundary between the employment-generating uses along the freeway and the residential and commercial uses to the north. Government/Institutional uses have been designated for the area immediately south of the Santa Rita Jail. This band of uses is meant Per OF '70 to accommodate existing uses such as the California Highway Patrol facility and the Sheriff's training facility and other future County uses. It also act as a land use buffer between the jail and residential uses to the south. A small area of Industrial Park flanking Hacienda Boulevard would accommodate auxillary uses to the jail and county facilities plus other industrial park uses. The industrial park development would also create a land use buffer between Camp Parks and the residential areas to the east. A major element of the plan's land use framework is the creation of a number of mixed-use centers around which predominantly residential uses are located. The plan shows one main Town Center and three smaller village centers. These centers consist of mixed-use concentrations including retail commercial, office, and residential uses. The Town Center is located along Tassajara Road. The three village centers are located at the intersection of Tassajara and Fallon roads, on Doolan Road and the south end of Fallon Road. While the village centers are meant to serve the residential areas immediately surrounding them, the Town Center is planned to serve the entire East Dublin community. The Town Center is conceived as being developed along two axes, with the north-south axis along Tassajara Road being geared more toward auto-oriented, community-serving retail and office uses and the east-west axis along the transit spine/Main Street being more pedestrian and transit oriented with greater emphasis on neighborhood-serving retail and office uses. Along the north-south axis, Tassajara Road would be divided into a one-way couplet which would wrap around the core retail/office area. This core area, which is envisioned as the high density center of the planning area, would include a two block wide area between the two halves of Tassajara Road and have a local-serving street down the center (parallel to Tassajara Road). Ground level retail and multi-story office uses would be concentrated in this area with select sites set aside for key municipal uses such as a post office, library, fire station, etc. At the north end of the core area, a major community-serving shopping center would be located. This location provides excellent access from both north and south bound traffic on Tassajara Road while maintaining good pedestrian connections with the rest of the core area. Open Space System From the beginning, the planning area's natural characteristics have been an important factor in determining the overall character and organization of the plan. Guided by city general plan policies to protect habitat areas and drainage ways; to preserve ridgelands and slopes over 30% in open space; and to protect the quality of views, the plan designates approximately half of the planning area for some form of open space. The largest concentration of open space, roughly PAGE t Of 7`2 3,000 acres, is located in the central and northeast corner of the planning area. This area consists primarily of hilly terrain that includes areas of steep and geotechnically unstable slopes, visually prominent ridgelands, and sensitive habitat areas that constrain its developability. Preservation of these hillside areas is considered an important element in preserving some measure of the area's natural character as the planning area develops. The intent of the plan is that this rural open space would be permanently preserved as a visual and natural resource area with little or no additional development allowed. While much of the open space is contiguous, the plan also designates as open space a band of hills in the southern portion of the planning area which is separate from the taller hills to the north. This narrow band of hills, which is roughly parallel and about a half mile north of I-580, forms a distinctive visual feature which will serve as both a natural visual backdrop to proposed development along the freeway and as a buffer screening development to the north from freeway views and noise. The open space concept calls for connecting urban and open space areas through the preservation and enhancement of planning area drainage ways. The planning area includes two major creeks, Tassajara and Cottonwood, and a number of minor drainages and washes that offer the potential for creating linear open space corridors that will provide a link between developed urban areas and open space. The stream corridors would be improved and enhanced as necessary to serve multiple functions as drainage ways, riparian habitats, aesthetic resources, and areas for passive recreational use. Stream corridors are proposed to have pedestrian/bicycle trails developed within them which would accommodate the movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians throughout the planning area (particularly from urban areas to open space areas) with minimal conflict from vehicular traffic. As shown in the plan, these corridors are shown extending from the southernmost portion of the planning area to its northernmost extent. It is intended that wherever feasible, plannning area trails would connect into adjoining regional trail systems. To the extent possible, the plan has located all schools and parks adjacent to a stream corridor to take advantage of the stream corridors' aesthetic benefits and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement to and from school and park facilities. Open space for active recreational uses is provided in the plan in the form of community and neighborhood parks. Two community parks are provided in the plan, both situated along Tassajara Creek. A major, 70-acre sports park is proposed along the east side of the creek just east of Santa Rita Jail. This park would accommodate development of major active recreation facilities that would serve the entire city. A second community park would be created just north PAGE OF of the freeway and west of Tassajara Road in the floodplain of Tassajara Creek. Numerous neighborhood parks are proposed in the plan. The neighborhood parks are centrally located to the residential neighborhood they serve. This facilitates user access to the park as well as providing a focal feature and identity element for each neighborhood. The distribution of neighborhood parks throughout the planning area is based on the distribution of population, thus there is a greater number of parks planned for the flatter, more densely populated southwest corner of the planning area. Current City park standards call for 5 acres of park space per 1,000 population. Based on preliminary figures, the current plan is only providing about 4 acres/1,000, with the distribution being relatively even between community and neighborhood parks. Circulation System The intent of the plan is to provide an integrated, multi-modal circulation system that reduces potential traffic impacts by providing area residents with a high degree of choice in selecting a preferred mode of transportation. While ensuring that vehicular circulation is convenient and efficient, the plan puts a strong emphasis on accommodating alternate modes of transportation, including walking, cycling, bus, car pool, and BART (The plan also has the potential to accommodate light rail if that becomes feasible/desireable). The road system in the plan is characterized by having two major north-south and east-west arterials to accommodate both project generated traffic and subregional traffic that can be expected to pass through the area as surrounding areas develop. Tassajara Road and Fallon Road will be the major north-south arterials. The plan calls for these roads to differ in their designs and functions although both will be required to handle substantial numbers of daily vehicle trips. Fallon Road will be extended north to connect with Tassajara Road in the northwest corner of the planning area. Fallon Road is projected to be a limited access parkway whose main function will be to carry through-traffic to and from I-580. Rather than creating a T-intersection with Tassajara Road, Fallon Road would be designed with a through-alignment to facilitate the movement of projected traffic from Contra Costa County through the planning area with minimum impact on future East Dublin residents. The southern leg of Tassajara Road (i.e., south of the intersection with Fallon Road) would be reconfigured to form a T-intersection with Fallon Road. Tassajara Road would be the major north-south road through the Town Center carrying substantial traffic from both the planning area and beyond into the retail core as both a primary and secondary destination. PAGE 1. OF�� Tassajara Road would be divided as it passes through the Town Center to form a one-way couplet. This one-way couplet would provide two lanes of traffic in either direction with a two block area separating the--north- and southbound lanes. East-west cross streets would provide convenient access to the two-block area between the couplet. From a circulation standpoint, the one-way couplet provides for more efficient movement of traffic through intersections because of the absence of conflicting turn movements from on-coming traffic. Because of reduced congestion at intersections, the one-way couplet can actually accommodate more traffic than a comparable sized two-way arterial. The couplet also reduces a four-lane arterial to a pair of two-lane streets, which are easier for pedestrians to cross. By creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment, the couplet reduces the need for an automobile in the Town Center, and avoids having Tassajara Road become a major land use barrier. Two east-west arterials are provided in the plan to provide convenient movement across the planning area to the major north-south corridors and access to the freeway. The southernmost corridor, located approximately a quarter of a mile north of the freeway, would be an extension of Dublin Boulevard, providing the principal vehicular connection between East Dublin and the existing Dublin community. Projected to ultimately be a six-lane roadway, the Dublin Boulevard extension would also connect with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore to provide a reliever route paralleling the freeway. Approximately a half mile north and parallel to the Dublin Boulevard extension, a smaller four-lane arterial would be located in the 7th Street alignment. This roadway is not currently projected to connect with 7th Street or extend west of the planning area because of the presence of Camp Parks. The corridor would extend east beyond Fallon Road, where it would turn south and terminate at Dublin Boulevard. It is anticipated that this road would carry primarily local vehicle trips. The plan calls for a third major east-west corridor situated midway between the Dublin Boulevard and 7th Street extensions. Unlike the other two corridors, this corridor is not designed to carry high volumes of vehicular traffic or to move traffic quickly through the area. This corridor will be "Main Street" for the Town Center and its function will be to serve as the transit spine linking the Town Center to the future East Dublin BART station and downtown Dublin, and to serve local vehicular traffic. The proposed land use pattern concentrates commercial and office uses and population density along this spine to encourage transit use for local and regional travel. The transit spine can accommodate either bus transit or a light rail system. The plan places all of the residential uses in the Town Center and the majority of the commercial and office uses within a quarter mile of the transit spine. A quarter mile represents about a five minute walk and is the normally accepted planning standard for PAGE 19 nF '7i� what most people find a comfortable and convenient walking distance. It is anticipated that in addition to the transit spine a transit system would be established to serve the entire area with links to Dublin, BART, Hacienda Business Park, Livermore, Bishop Ranch, and other surrounding areas. In addition to the transit system, the plan will establish areas for park-and-ride lots to encourage car-pooling and develop a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths to support walking and the use of bicycles as alternative modes of travel. Street standards throughout the planning area will be developed with both the automobile and the pedestrian kept in mind. The goal is to create a convenient and efficient vehicular system which is also pedestrian-friendly. Two additional north-south corridors are planned which will play important roles in the circulation system. The extension of Hacienda Boulevard will facilitate access to the freeway for the population in the western planning area via the proposed Hacienda interchange. The extension of Hacienda Boulevard is planned as a four-lane road which will extend from I-580 north to the 7th Street extension. On the east side of the planning area, Doolan Road will be extended north and west to provide a connection between Doolan Canyon and Tassajara Road. The Doolan Road extension is projected to be an improved two-lane road which at its north end would form a four-way intersection with Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. A secondary access to Doolan Canyon is required to safely accommodate proposed development in the Canyon. PAGE OF 2L CONCEPT 414: MULTIPLE CENTERS-HOUSING EMPHASIS V-A Legend 'j, 4 T,_ . . . ....... General Plan Amendment 0 bw� Study Area to - -- ------- Specific Plan Study Area ?", �7, COMMERCIAL h' a] Office o Lv ;fj Neighborhood Mixed Use (Office/Retail/Res.)•0-3 a Community mixed use (Office/Retail) I v- -0-3 IaY 3�6 C r c Community Commercial "s /o v 7. 'A I F`C­1 Regional Commercial `) { i: ,- j d , , - r , 1 , / I `12 Business Park 3-6 VI Industrial Park 3-6 0-3 (�3 ftF�./OS -,0 RESIDENTIAL 03 25 du/ac Hgh Density 6-12 ------- Mediurn-Figh Density 12-25 du/ac FiVOS o-3. Mecliiurn Density 6-12 du/ac Medium-Low Density 3-6 du/ac• 3 r V 3, A, Low Density 3-6 0-3 du/ac 0-3 F-1 Rural Res/Open Space 1 du/100 ac 03 OPEN SPACE 3-6. M Neighborhood Park Cornmunity Park -6 o­3 Open Space Corridor or 3 i School aan'e ro;. 3-6 0-3 RIFVOS PARK ---------------- 0-3 ........... F­I Governmentfinslitutional Ills! 11 FRCS 'It ...... If.I I. 61, Preliminary aft an Use an �6 1 ........ 3 U East Dublin Cc Utw :77:71v:: Wallace Roberts&Todd 1P Uban and Enviromenial Planners 121 Second Street,71h Floor U*. •SU-'111.1, F(C 11 San Francisco.CA 94105 Ft. o F, IP (415)541-0830 CA Pz PAF1< - A—. P- 2GOO­1 e, a a a. a. L A11-1 ­11a LAND USE CONCEPT #5: BUSINESS PARK-VILLAGE CENTERS Land Use Concept #5 was developed primarily to reflect the agreement which exists between the City of Dublin and Alameda County regarding annexation of the County's Santa Rita property. The agreement specifies that the entire property, which includes approximately 680 acres within the planning area, be designated for business park uses. The principal difference between Concept #5 and Concept #4 is the elimination of the main business/town center on Tassajara Road. In the area west of Tassajara Road, the retail, residential, office, and industrial park uses designated in Concept #4 have been changed to business park. The land use plan for the area outside the County's property is very similar in Concept #4 and #5. The major difference being that the business park uses designated along the freeway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road in Concept #4 have been changed to a combination of office, industrial park, and retail commercial in Concept #5. This change has been made to compensate for the amount of business park added within the County's property. Overall, the two concepts share several features. Both concepts: -provide at least twice the 20-year land use projection in order to provide market flexibility, -provide three village centers, each containing neighborhood retail and services as well as park, school and other community facilities, surrounded by medium or high density residential areas, -concentrate commercial and employment-generating uses in the flatlands adjacent to I-580, -designate hillside areas that have relatively stable slopes and grades between 25 and 30 percent for low-density, single-family residential (0-3 du/ac), -protect areas with geotechnical concerns, slopes over 30 percent, and visually sensitive areas as open space, and -preserve and enhance stream corridors to serve as floodways, protected wildlife zones, recreational trail corridors, and neighborhood separators. Although the two concepts are similar, the change to business park uses on the County's property significantly changes the housing and employment-generation statistics for Concept #5. ,, Concept #5 Concept #4 Dwelling Units 12,237 17,928 Population 34,288 49,978 Non-residential ,(000's sq. ft.) 15,193 11,055 Employees 36,503 27,550 Open Space 3,499 3,610 _. iH nc °70 The Land Use Concepts Report (April, 1990) evaluated each of the five original land use alternatives against a number of criteria to give a comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each concept. These criteria included conformance with City general plan policies, relation to market projections, infrastructure costs, and fiscal feasibility. In terms of City policy, the evaluation assessed the concepts' relationship to key policies such as protection of ridgelands, preservation of slopes over 30% in open space, regulation of development on steep slopes, creation of a balance in the jobs/housing ratio, and maintenance of acceptable levels of service on area roadways. Concepts #4 and #5 were generally consistent with City policies relating to the use of ridgelines, hillsides and stream corridors. In terms of traffic impacts, the two concepts would only require minor additional road improvements to meet the City's level of service requirements, whereas the other three alternatives presented significant capacity problems. The most significant difference between the two concepts with regard to city policy relates to the issue of a jobs/housing balance. While Concept #4 generally provides a balance (a slight surplus in housing) between jobs created and housing provided, Concept #5 creates a significant deficit of housing for potential planning area employees and would therefore not be consistent with current general plan policy. Approximately 46 percent of the employees generated by planning area development could not be housed locally. In terms of market projections, Concept #5 provides slightly more commercial acreage than is projected to be absorbed within the 20-year time frame of the plan, and slightly less residential. Concept #5 provides virtually the same number of single-family units in hillside and upland locations as Concept #4. However, because less flat land is available for housing, the overall number of dwelling units would be less than twice the projected demand (Twice the projected demand is used as a standard for maintaining a competitive and flexible market). Since a significant portion of the higher density housing is designated for the flatter areas of the planning area, the use of the County's property solely for business park would have a disproportionate effect on multi-family housing, reducing the number of multi-family units provided in Concept #4 by more than 60%. This in- urn would mean reduced potential for the development of affordable housing in the planning area. The unit type breakdown for Concept #5 is the closest of the five alternatives to the existing Dublin breakdown, with single family units comprising two-thirds of the total housing stock. The amount of business park and industrial park uses included in Concept #5 is 2.5 times higher than the projected demand which means that it is probable that these areas would take longer than 20 years to build out. The cost analysis for the alternatives (refer to the April 1990 "Land Use Concepts Report") indicates that capital costs for Concept #5 would be about 7 percent lower than those for Concept #4. However, both short term and long term operating costs for Concept #5 would be significantly higher than those for Concept #4. 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 ("Land Use Concepts Report", April 1990). Pus I C7 nr `7() k�i' 1LIl �.� �( J Concept 5: eoo i �� � i( �r 1 f � �/! l �t'sie-,. d/ \_ /, l' �� � i it\ ,_r 1 '.• 4 '� _r r! .1 ��! � r Business Park- �� �.`(�.( �- \ ' 1� � \: ��' ' (' Village Centers II��i� Il,;) �1r - j I 1 '4 -ir r�� e ✓ -�l ;r � �RR/OS :�J. I ---t1 "/J.. //).1`� Legend o' �� I° - General Plan Amendment Study Area rig' ---- ;. Specific Plan Study Area ! � k j� �I, f -la 3 I ', 1 IRR/O$._/ fi �� / r\ ,k � \ �i � ;,�✓4�y\ ., 1 `� �� '\��✓': �l ( °Y'J,m __/`- f 1 .:i SAS ! / �;',1 ) )�1- -�,- 1i �1. -Itl t'i- , r RC Retail Commercial - A 3 ? _ .,'i I n tl �I�i) � � � �O Office - \.v� - RR/OS. RR/OS J 0 3 b 1 0?_ * J ,, L.c q /1� \ -- _YI "" r- - 36 J= - �,:-, \ 11 111 ! BP Business Park I / 6 kit, - , -•t t I ! � , , II y \\ M I 6 iz i 1}31 l - I 11 i I I P Industrial Park 3-6 RR/OS j N ! /OS C' e - - ` "iRR/oS *!1 3 6 G/I Government/Institution High School q o y.�1 •. 4v '0-3 i. 1 L .l �'T � ,'(,�•� 3+ -� o-s 3� '; * _� I �, I �s Junior High School s o i 3- J scH Elementary School RR/ '36 i I s s bi os 9a f "' + PK Community/Neighborhood Park y� / `k RRYOS '0-3 j 11. I \" \I j j ;;a / i t REC RR/O --! / •. City-Wide Recreation l _ I ! t l i Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat �/ ' - `-4. Ifs �'• ' 3-6 t - i N/A Not Applicable (not within Alameda Cty.) 03 Residential io- 25• High Density 25•du/ac ,, .0-3 I _ •-L_£ z i ,e / ;' tz z5 Medium-High Density 12-25du/ac � RECw 6-1 -� ..'w -. 0-3 i.-' - - I ) � \ 1 - - 1_�:11 �, /'� 6-12 y Medium Densit 6-12 du/ac 'HS/ K. 1 K I •I ,� i 0-3 ` _ t.P 36k. Medium-Low Density 3-6 du/ac :•6-12 m la /. i to �:�13 k1_ 0-3 _ -�*■,I I'a. J 0-3 \\R v $ ';I _ 0-3 Low Density 0-3 du/ac t IIm b _BP 1JI P. bj12 2Y I , pl RroS Rural Res/Open Space 10•ac/du BP Ie�B 6-12 /`. 12-25 , 3 5 '^ I.. !� tt3 ti --} East Dublin " P 'a' � L "11 f_ "R '� - 2-25 ■ :�PK M612 ea - 03 I f I It UJ /P18 Si �I�Pv BP' BP BP BpA s 12 s tz 4 C Rc[`q PK , /PK I i 1` / I— IP Wallace Roberts&Todd W _ u Urban and Env4onmebial Planners Y 6-12' I 9B .p = 1. 121 Second Street.711,Floor - p' 7�u� G BP ' RC RC RC(Auto Mao o �' San Francisco.CA 94105 Figure la BP I _ g ,, i:ii i���/SH of I O 1P IP w 1 .n I I I i o 'I (415)541 0830 c IP {�I-� IPo� IP /i M I ! . r -_ _•s -_ _,� .� `.. _ -�� — I I f I i ote - .1 Landslide 3/90 H.cland.—1,,...PVk .''' pp-'. , - •_'�I Acre. '.1 2000 F.el - d IOOO ex, �l�✓ � .. - LI .Air -_.Y: �0 0 al. �S� ' 4: MULTIPLE CENTERS-1-10 USING EM � asr 000Lm xPEop/c ,mw `,otiminv,r mmu Use Summary Total Planning Area (6.702.82 Total xcro°) August n. lvpo -'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' '''''''''' ' '''' '''''''''''-''''''''''' ''''''''''' sqvu,e Feet/ � Employment Land Use Acres Density/FAR ,io/u Employee Generated - ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''--'''''''''''''''''----''''--''--''''--'''--'''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''----'''----''--'''''' von'xcoiurnuvl oxco -----------------' Zem/L commnciuL 95 0.25 /.OJa million sq. ,c' 510 .2,031 Zaaii commenivi (Hotel) ZO 0.40 0'349 million sq. ft' 425 uZO zcoionui Commercial 125 0'20 1.089 million :n. f t' 1,000 1,089 Mice 91 0.75 2'973 million sq. ,t' 260 11'435 3umin000 pum 136 0'40 2.369 million nv' ft' 425 5,574 industrial po,k 127 0'28 1.549 million sq. ft' 510 2,625 3vve,nmen,/(rsbtvdonai 97 0.40 1'69 million sq. /t' 425 3'977 ----' --' ---'---------' -------' Non-Residential suutomb: 641 acres 11'055 million sq. ft' 27,551 employee �e*/denuvl uxoo -----------------' +u|u'rumilv units zs~ 133 25'45 uu/uc' 3.325'5.985 units z's personu/uu' 8'313'14'963 m'as ow 12'25 du/ac. 4'092'8.525 z's persons/du. 10'230'21^313 ---' --' ---------------' -------' xuui'Fmn/lv suo,vtom: 474 acres 7.417'14.510 vmuo 18'543'36,275 resident cu,e,uue yield: 10'964 du) (average yield: 2T,409) 3insLe Family unuu +m 403 6'12 uu/oc' 2.418'4'836 units n'a persons/du. 7'738'15'475 5'6 sva 3'6 du/ac. 1.194'2.388 n'a nernvny/uu' 3'821'7'642 o's 1.020 n'n uu/uc' m's.oao 3.2 peoonx/uu' sZ'v'rvz Rural Residential/open Space 3.075 o'so s'a persons/du. 0'96 --' ---------------- -------' single Family Subtotals: 4.896 acres o.azz'm.sw units 11.591'33,005 no/ucnt (average yield: 7'295 du) (average yield: zz'aeo) '---------- ---------------- -------' xr,iuenuol Subtotal: 5.370 ox,eo 11.0e3'24.804 units 30'134'69'280 resident � (average yield: 17'928 du) (o,eruye yield: *v.vru) ° Area mmi unex not include the r,ivo property which is inside the incorporated Limits of the City of Livermore. � . ^ � ' chools -------- Students/ Total Students/ No. Schools No. Schools ype Students/MF du MF Total SF du SF Total Students School Required Provided Acres ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lementary 0.10 1,096 0.3 2,189 3,285 500 6.57 6 63 r. High 0.05 548 0.15 1,094 1,642 800 2.05 2 41 r. High 0.07 768 0.2 1,459 2,227 1,500 1.49 1 35 ------- -------- -------- ------- ------ 2,412 4,742 9 139 acres arks ------ Achieved Number Total ype Standard Of Parks Acreage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ctive Park Space 3.84 ac/1,000 pop. 18 194.5 Neighborhood 1.84 ac./1,000 16 93.3 Community 2 ac./1,000 pop. 2 101.2 ,assive Park Space Riparian Corridors N/A 7 340 ummary Total Acerage: 6,702.82** acres Total Dwelling Units: 11,053-24,804 du (average yield: 17.928 du) Total Population: 30,134-69,280 people (average yield: 49,978 people) Total Employment: 27,551 jobs Potential for Employed Residents (at 1.6 employed residents/du): 28,685 employees Job/Housing Balance: +709 du `* Totals of acreage figures vary due to normal errors in planimetering 7 t eliminary Land Use Summary -- Specific Plan Area (3,272.44 Total Acres) August 8, 1990 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land Use Acres Density/FAR Yield -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �tail Commercial 90 acres 0.25 0.910 million sq. ft. !tail Commercial (Hotel) 20 0.348 million sq. ft. !gional Commercial 125 0.20 1.089 million sq. ft. 'fice 91 0.75 2.973 million sq. ft. isiness Park 136 0.40 2.369 million sq. ft. xiustrial Park 78 0.28 0.951 million sq. ft. wernment/Institutional 90 0.40 1.568 million sq. ft. --------- ----- --------- ------------------ Non-Residential Subtotal: 630 acres 11.368 million sq. ft. �sidential i+ 133 acres 25-45 du/ac. 3,325-5,985 units !-25 341 12-25 du/ac. 4,092-8,525 -12 343 6-12 du/ac. 2,058-4,116 -6 183 3-6 du/ac. 549-1,098 -3 384 0-3 du/ac. 3-1,152 .jraL Residential/Open Space 748 0-7 ------ ----- -------------- Residential Subtotal: 2,132 acres 10,027-20,883 units (average yield: 15,455 du) tream Corridors 262 acres arks 97 -hook 81 Subtotal: 3,202 acres TOTAL: 3,272.44 acres V A `7 O T C reliminary Land Use Summary -- Remainder of Planning Area (3,430.38 Total Acres) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land Use Acres Density/FAR Yield --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- esidential -3 636 acres 0-3 du/ac 6-1,908 units -6 215 3-6 du/ac 645-1,290 -12 60 6-12 du/ac 360-720 Residential Subtotal: 911 acres 1,011-3,918 units ndustrial Park 49 0.28 0.598 million sq. ft. etail Commercial 5 0.25 0.055 million sq. ft. overnment/Institutional 7 0.40 0.122 million sq. ft. chools 12 -------- ------------------ tream Corridor 104 0.775 million sq. ft. pen Space 2,327 Subtotal: 3,415 TOTAL: 3,430.38 acres b 7 n n CONCEPT #4: MULTIPLE CE ':RS-HOUSING EMPHASIS LAND USE SUMMARY BY LANDOWNER (August 8, 1990) 1. Specific Plan Area A. Sponsoring Landowners 1. Alameda County Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ....................................................................................... Residential 40 acres 6.12 du/ac 240.480 units 108 12.25 du/ac 1,296-2,700 80 25+ du/ac 2,000-3,600 ---.......-- Subtotal: 228 acres 3,536-6,780 units Office 46 0.75 1.503 million sq. ft. Business Park 100 0.40 1.742 million sq. ft. Industrial Park 21 0.28 0.256 million sq. ft. Retail Commercial 44 . 0.25 0.479 million sq. ft. Government/Industrial 90 0.40 1.568 million sq. ft. Retail Commercial (Hotel) 8 0.40 0.139 million sq. ft. Schools 36 .......... .............•• Parks 32 5.687 million sq. ft. Stream Corridors 72 Subtotal*: 677 acres TOTAL**: 678 acres 2. Anderson Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ............................•------•----•--•------....-•---•..--------.......................------.... Industrial Park 23 acres 0.28 0.28 million sq. ft. School 10 Open Space 12 Stream Corridors 2 Subtotal: 47 acres TOTAL: 48.9 acres * Subtotal is equal to the sum of the individual land uses based on planimeter readings from an 1"=80 scale map. Differences in the Subtotal and Total may be the result of normal planimetering errors or the presence of major roads which have-not been included in any of the land use area calculations. ** Total represents acreage recorded with the County Assessor's Office. 3. Branaugh Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 17 acres 0-3 du/ac. 1.51 units 14 6-12 du/ac. 84-168 31 acres 85-219 units Industrial Park'. 9 0.28 0.110 million sq. ft. Subtotal: 40 acres TOTAL: 39.8 acres 4. Chang Su-O-Lin/East Dublin Ranch Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 251 acres 0-3 du/ac 2-753 units 113 3-6 du/ac 339-678 105 6-12 du/ac 630.1,260 124 12-25 du/ac 1,488-3,100 ----......-- Subtotal: 593 acres 2,459.5,791 units Regional Commercial 70 0.40 1.22 million sq. ft. Retail Commercial 8 0.25 0.087 million sq. ft. Schools 10 ......... ............... Parks -- 1.307 million sq. ft. Stream Corridors 90 Open Space 458 Subtotal: 1,229 acres TOTAL: 1,244 acres 5. Mission Peak Homes Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 25 acres 3-6 du/ac 75-150 units Open Space 43 Subtotal: 68 acres TOTAL: 67.83 acres PAPFc� ) nF `�Q_ 6. Pao-Lin Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ..........--•---•------------------------------------••-•-----..........--•..................... Residential 19 acres 3-6 du/ac 57-114 units 75 6.12 du/ac 450-900 47 12-25 du/ac 564-1,175 42 25± du/ac 1,050-1,890 Subtotal: 183 acres 2,121.4,079 units Office 26 0.75 0.849 million sq. ft. Business Park 36 0.40 0.627 million sq. ft. Retail Commercial 3 0.25 0.033 million sq. ft. Schools16 ......... ............... Parks 10 1.509 million sq. ft. Stream Corridors 30 Subtotal: 304 acres TOTAL: 306.04 acres units 7. Redgwick Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) .................••-•------------•--------•---•----••--•-•--•-••------•---------------•----------•••-- Residential 5 acres 0-3 du/ac 1.15 units 13 6-12 du/ac 78-156 Open Space 142 0.01 du/ac 1 Subtotal: 160 acres 79-172 units TOTAL: 160 acres 8. Righetti Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ........................•---.....---•-•----•---•---•-----..........------..................----------- Residential 8 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-24 units 16 6.12 du/ac 96-192 Subtotal: 24 acres 97-216 units industrial Park 17 0.28 0.207 million sq. ft. School 5 Stream Corridor 3 Subtotal: 49 acres TOTAL: 48.78 acres vAC-C42'? nc f7i_-) 9. TMI Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ...................................................................................................... Residential 13 acres 6-12 du/ac 78-156 units 7 12.25 du/ac 84-175 Subtotal: 20 acres 162-331 units Retail Commercial 13 0.25 0.142 million sq. ft. Regional Commercial 55 0.40 0.958 million sq. ft. Open Space 30 ---".. Stream Corridor 15 1.100 million sq. ft. Subtotal: 133 acres TOTAL: 135.62 acres n n nr. ., nr !(� B. Non-Participating Landowners 1. Campbell Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Industrial Park 8 acres 0.28 0.976 million sq. ft. Subtotal: 8 acres TOTAL: 8.81 acres 2. Casterson Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Park (Sports Park) 15 acres Stream Corridor 4 acres Subtotal 19 acres TOTAL: 19.19 acres 3. Dublin Land Co. Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 13 acres 6-12 du/ac 78-156 units 11 25+ du/ac 275-495 Subtotal: 24 acres 353.651 units office 19 0.75 0.621 million sq.ft. Retail Commercial 17 0.25 0.185 million sq.ft. Retail Commercial (Hotel) 12 0.40 0.209 million sq.ft. Parks7 .......... ............... ----- 1.015 million sq.ft. Subtotal: 79 acres TOTAL: 80.14 acres 4. Herrara Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Residential 4 acres 6.12 du/ac 24-48 units Park 3 Open Space 1 Subtotal: 8 acres TOTAL: 7.95 acres PAGES OF *7D 5. Jordan Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ...................................................................................................... Residential 76 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-228 units 26 6-12 du/ac 156.312 55 12-25 du/ac 660-1,375 ----- ........... Subtotal: 157 acres 817.1,915 units Retail Commercial 2 0.25 0.022 million sq. ft. School 4 Stream Corridor 19 Roads 7 Subtotal: 189 acres TOTAL: 189.12 acres 6. Raley Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Space 4 acres Subtotal: 4 TOTAL: 3.75 acres 7. Koller Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 15 acres 3-6 du/ac 45-90 units Park (Sports Park) 30 Stream Corridor 26 Subtotal: 71 TOTAL: 71.56 acres 8. Leite Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 4 acres 6-12 du/ac 24.48 units Stream Corridor 1 Subtotal: 5 acres TOTAL: 5 acres 9. Moura Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ..............................••---•----•--...........-•-------••------••••.....--•......-••...--•.. Open Space 12 acres Subtotal: 12 acres TOTAL: 12.5 acres 10. Plato Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ......................••--•--•-----•-------...-•--------•----•----•---•---...-••-••-------••-•----•••. Residential 9 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-27 units Open Space 1 Subtotal: 10 acres 1-27 units TOTAL: 10 acres 11. Silvera Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) -••..........................•-----------•-----------------•---.......••----••----•••------•••-•••-- Residential 7 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-27 units 11 3-6 du/ac 33-66 20 6-12 du/ac 120-240 Subtotal: 87 acres 154-333 units Open Space 44 Retail Commercial 3 0.25 0.033 million sq. ft. Subtotal: 87 acres TOTAL: 91 acres 12. Zimmer Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ••.....................••--......--••-...................-•-•-----....................••-•-•-•---•- Residential 9 acres 0-3 du/ac 1.27 units Open Space 1 Subtotal: 10 acres 1.27 units TOTAL 10 acres PAGE L OF 2 i II. Remainder of Planning Area A. Sponsoring Landowners 1. Crosby Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ........--•---------------------•---..................-------•--...----•---••-•---------•--.....-•---- Residential 12 acres 0.3 du/ac 1-36 units 5 3-6 du/ac 15-30 24 6-12 du/ac 144.288 Subtotal: 41 acres 160-354 units Industrial Park 49 0.28 0.598 million sq. ft. Stream Corridor 45 Open Space 47 Subtotal: 182 acres TOTAL: 186.35 acres 2. Doolan Ranch (East) Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) Residential 43 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-129 units 126 3-6 du/ac 378-756 1 6-12 du/ac 6-12 ........... Subtotal: 170 acres 385.897 units SchoolSchool 6 million sq. ft. Stream Corridor 27 Open Space 669 Subtotal: 872 acres TOTAL: 872.56 acres 3. Doolan Ranch (West) Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) Residential 72 acres 0.3 1-216 units 16 3-6 48.96 8 6-12 48-96 Subtotal: 96 acres 97-408 units Stream Corridor 6 Open Space 113 Subtotal: 215 acres TOTAL: 215.09 acres PAGE 0 F B. Non-Participating Landowners 1. Bailey Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 13 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-39 units Open Space 500 Subtotal: 513 acres TOTAL: 513.6 acres 2. Bloom Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ResidentiaL 47 acres 0-3 1-141 units 9 3-6 27-54 Subtotal: 56 acres 28.195 units Open Space 31 Subtotal: 87 acres TOTAL: 87.52 acres 3. Croak Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ResidentiaL 88 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-264 units 7 3-6 du/ac 21-42 7 6-12 du/ac 42.84 Subtotal: 102 acres 64-390 units Stream Corridor 11 Open Space 48 161 acres TOTAL: 162 acres 4. Fallon Enterprises Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ResidentiaL 167 acres 0.3 du/ac 1-501 units Open Space 147 Subtotal: 314 acres 1.501 units TOTAL: 314.42 acres PAGE r OF 20 5. Flanigan Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 7 acres 0-3 du/ac 1.21 units 2 3.6 du/ac 6.12 Subtotal: 9 acres 7-33 units Open Space 86 95 acres TOTAL: 95.59 acres 6. Jones Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 34 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-102 units 15 6-12 du/ac 90-180 Subtotal: 49 acres 91-282 units School 2 Open Space 34 Stream Corridor 7 92 acres TOTAL: 92.37 acres 7. Jones & Muelhauser Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 30 acres 0.3 1-90 units 5 6-12 36-72 Open Space 85 .......... Park 5 31.150 units Retail Commercial 5 0.25 0.055 million sq. ft. School 3 Stream Corridor 4 ------ 37-162 units Subtotal: 137 acres TOTAL: 137.74 acres 8. Mandeville Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 42 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-126 units Open Space 127 Subtotal: 169 acres TOTAL: 169.90 acres �iL v7/% 9. Moller Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 54 acres 0-3 du/ac 1.162 units 23 3.6 du/ac 69.138 Open Space ........ 70-300 units Subtotal: 363 acres TOTAL: 363 acres 10. Triad Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ industrial Park Open Space TOTAL: 405 acres 11. Vij/Khan Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 12 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-36 units Open Space 101 Subtotal: 113 acres TOTAL: 113.33 acres 12. City of Livermore Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Government/institutional 7 acres 0.40 0.122 million sq. ft. Subtotal: 7 acres TOTAL: 7.12 acres 13. Silva Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 13 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-39 units 4 3-6 du/ac 12-24 Subtotal: 17 acres 13.72 units School 1 Open Space 2 Subtotal: 20 acres TOTAL: 20.6 acres PAGE:3e� OF 14. Mottin Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) .....---•----••--•-•-•---------------------------•--•---••----•---...--...........--•-.......----•---- Residential 2 acres 0-3 du/ac 1-6 units 3 3-6 du/ac 9-18 Subtotal: 5 acres 10-24 units Open Space 5 Subtotal: 10 acres TOTAL: 9.97 acres 15. Ogelvie Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ..--------•-------•--•-----------------•---------•---•-----•-••---•--•-----••--•----.....--....-- Open Space 10 acres 0.01 du/ac 1 unit Subtotal: 10 acres TOTAL: 10 acres 16. Nelson Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ..............•---......--•---•---•---.................----••--•--........-----.............---------- Open Space 5 acres 0.01 du/ac 1 unit Subtotal: 5 acres TOTAL: 5 acres 17. Foscalina Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ---------•----------------------------•---•--------•---•--••---...----........-----••••....-------•--- Open Space 9.85 acres 0.01 du/ac 1 unit Subtotal: 9.85 acres TOTAL: 9.85 acres 18. Morgan Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ..........--••-------•-----------------------------------------•--...----•-------------•-------••----- Open Space 4.91 acres 0.01 du/ac 1 unit Subtotal: 4.91 acres TOTAL: 4.91 acres PAGE,-:S� OF26 19. Adkins Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ...................................................................................................... Residential 8 acres 3.6 du/ac 24-48 units Open Space 10 Stream Corridor 2 Subtotal: 20 acres TOTAL: 20 acres 20. Funk Proposed Land Use Proposed Acreage Assumed Density/FAR Yield (Units/Sq. Ft.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 12 acres 3-6 du/ac 36-72 units Open Space 6 Stream Corridor 2 Subtotal: 20 acres TOTAL: 20.12 acres PAGE OF �� 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 d ill Brenda A. Gare REPORT PREPARED BY: � , 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 disc,tI'ssion g . Close public discussion h. Request input from individual Commissioner's 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 , VNE 43 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 : 1 . 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 V1 . 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 669 of the study area lies within Dublin ' s existing sphere of influence (Sol ) . 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 F 7q PAGE31 01 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 Eas.t 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 PAGE 4�) OF 72 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 Souare 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 PAGE:L!._OF �' 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) PArF? nr Ea° taw°mot (E/W) 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 Tassaiara 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 • NIultinle enters (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. PAU 4 nr�7C Would require modification to Policy 3 which maintains slopes predominately over 30% as open' space. Concept 2 encroaches into 309 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 33-500; 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 Dolan 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 Concept 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 . lmrroO� ! nr '70 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 15-259 slopes and medium density single family development on slopes of 30°10 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 ) Tassaiara Road Increase to 6 lanes from E/W 3 Collector to Doolan intersection Fns+ /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 PAGE'`? OF ��' Concept 4 Multiple Centers - Housing Emphasis (Refer to Attachment Description: Th-is concept is similar to Concept 3 in that there is amain 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 Coll.ector - 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 PAGES OF �� Conce t 5 Business Park Village Centers (Refer to Attachment 6A) Description : This concept reflects the agreement between Alameda County and tb-e 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) nublin Boulevard/Tassaiara 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 p 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 noolan Road Extend 4 lanes section by 400 feet northwards , PAGE 'L7 OF III . MEETING FORM&T 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 concegts 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 . i PAGE OF �� IV. C NQ L IQN_ 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 t-hat 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 .B) 4 . Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than 9 , 000 (220) 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. 132 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 . ) PAGE L!Of��' 4 Re Setfing J- :1Z F Legend % A v 1�'(m44' GeneralPlanAfflel)dfflent w jT -JL.- Q k Study Area Sj)(.,cilic Plan Study Area v San Ramon 0� County Boundary S !'?S'Sf) 1. '� L 1 '. �+ i if<"5 i 1y .i v t 1 }, f N K��" Dy SS.; Of!RA; I V� 11",r. '5P rit Are Amendment j,General Plan A. '47-! All 711 P -,11.)Ublin 00 mo "Zi,Y7- 0". 111.61 iverm ore'7M Pleasanton n Mi L.IA ma East Dubli Ax elf Yl 0 Q. Wallace Roberts&Todd 'or- '0 MF IN T 160 Yr, 'tw fi� . 0 it Concept 1 : Single Center .. i ' Legend i General Plan Amendment Study Area 0. c>13 i ....... Specific Plan Study Area 1 ; Retail Commercial Office i -• i G ,�) 0 3 �, /f71 - _-__—__�._._._._._._._._._._._._ eP Business Park T ruvos Industrial Park rI 03 Y I U V /I,// i ! �� 0-31 i O ♦ .- / 3-6 (/ ; Ir 03 J! G Government/Institution 6 --.I r i . IU I!s High School o-3 0.3 3 6 =js Junior High School • r ,,: -:(---- sc11 Elementary School l 0.3 �;`f 3.6 _Pr:] Cornmunity/Neighborhood Park Iz/os i � '' ,� i 1 _ �3�i I o, I n�c City-Wide Recreation f-/_q Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat - / _ ,; �-- --- 0 3 0 3 I ---- --- z� rI/n Not Applicable (not v,ilrtin Alameda c1y.) 'r- J 36 I --� Residential .03 mo 3-6 = 03 o i 25 a High Density 25• ,/ac j&IM M1 36' I 0 3 AJ 1 225 Medium High Density 1225 d✓ac 3_s i o- 6- 3 _ S _ 3-6 i 12 Medium Density 612"ac ,.n -.---•------- -- -- - _.Cf _ 6-12 -- 0.3 r vos 3-6 Medium-Low Density 3 6a✓ac 1) ;a v ' o-3 `Gq RC I I< 6-12 f 11S I 3-6 M i l'- i U3 ddac •`.122` I IS V r // 0 3 Low Density z Jill Glr t ' !0-3 `` ... Rural Res/Open Space 10-adW Bill nc G-12 3-6 7?5 !75 12-25 ;l, I G-12 � -12 3Gi I R/O y East D I r i '_ III .� 1 25. -25• B i O 1225 OP D >f— 0 3 ..j fa UO` Wallace Roberts&Todd !� RC RG i ''eo{ nran ! NLananJEmra.nenlalPl.vvvn I n N. r 12 r Secnrwl Slmoi,hn 1'iow RC IP sin oa,_� .cn 9,1 rob llc" IP u rsls, E9' 11P RC ♦��iC IKjuc•'��u wl Rrr r •, _ If_ .,C/��. r onoo C/slI uwsu seo,ack _ _ _ ' i _ W J 6!\ara :�alh 6 I1JO ....... 6 nWO. F�i tL YJ 1 i• If . i .. o Concept 1 Circulation Network Gos�a Go Gon��a'caa co. •Pram .— —• Arterial Collector q Number of Lanes t� N 2 .j a N N N p' d N 0 St Boundary N °m tu 2 0 a 1' q q 4 2 E W 3 2 2 6 6 p n d �� 6 6 6 uh/,n Qlvh ti Pkw N 0 ors Y• Q� �' ?2P A 6 i—— a Now, G°�V 4 q q q EW 1 4 0 —� \� 6 6 t A n 6 a' rn rn r \ seo a a 5BO Q yo yo �y r„y N ATl'ACIIMCNT 213 Concept 1 Projected Levels of Service p5�a Go GOO�c�, Paco uunuuul LOS E ® LOS F FS r N N w m DO ................. Study Boundary 0 o ..................................... ' I111111i1 IIIIHHIIIIIII�it� 4`, .: 'G yd 4O? (n II1tiII111Hi1 IIIIIIIilllllil i;Iflfl,�frY, ' v 0 0 s Pkwy, 'U m 2N 111 —— n North Gary 3} ° F:W t C12 a \ kk 1111111l11llZitlllll ►{���, 111 ; 580 T C� a ATTACIIMENT 2C Concept 2: Multiple Centers /x Legend ; 1 / -- General Plan Amendment Study Area CCI,�rF�xEU1.CC' I i -•---- Specilic Plan Study Area Rc Retail Commercial " nn/os I 0 011ice 36 i Business Pa k ,A --- ._._._._._. . r 3 6 industrial Park �•�.� 6.12 12 J VI, 36 o-� 3G 1 RR/OS G/I Government/Institution G 1 13s High School 3-G 1 .IS Junior High School r6kos 0-3 SC 1 , G 12 / 3 G f i/OS '__--- 0-3-_ _ 03 i s ;" iJl !-•: scu Elementary School '3 i i 3 '13.g i PK Community/Neighborhood Park 03 I ` 0 i y111 ;v' 3 s G11 6.12 ` " 'I REC Ciry-Wide Recreation ? --- ` Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat RR/os o-� G II\c• `----- �'� �'- .'-'-' wn Not Applicable (not wiltWl Alameda Cly.) IVA 3-6 S I _ , Residential \\ ! 3-6 � `I I �•• i, 2s• High Density zs•dx/ac ;i)31 �cr 03 RR/ 0-3 l �.., Iz-2s Medium-High Density 1225ddac 3-G 5'� O. I 03 I 1 o-3 3 s - / -� - 3-G ''_-- __ s Iz Medium Density s tz du/ac ______ c fIs �s I I 3 s Medium Low Density 3-6 d✓ac 4` —1 RIl/OS 1 ••'l` _._._._._.-._._._...._._._.0✓I - i ,1 Ij;H(J" ..✓ I 3-6 pK 1 { C I 03 Low Density 0-3 ddac s-IZ ! ! —' --- ® Rural Res/Open Space lo-acjw !y, lyx .'•...I I `U! j' , 12-2� 1,CI / 3-G ! —� IRn/OS Irnw , 1• 1i' i � iC Ili !. 1 G-12 CI � ,� �• � 1. _ !nt. G-12' 1225 ! 36 1 .l 25. /!1 rLSte <w• RC 11c '5' ,•G-12,. 12 _ 6-12 ; -- '_-.�.�-- --)/- 11111 - - I 1 East ' r luuun. ! fi1 2, 11 0-311 1 2-25 iSCI I.� I JS I K 1 12 25 J /•' b' 25, -! 12' (b5. G-I2 rl I 5 !: I 03 s-12 Wallace Roberts&Todd t 12;. - .1. o-3• I; O RC i U,b, a,w a,.anr.n.•mai nan brk is �ItC RC !i( 1� f1C RC—;O f5 RC RC P I I i /, 1 b i.. .21 saowm slrem,nn noon ° � �S! San Francisco.CA 94105 p iC RC` O RC r r SC,�' Ia1515x1U07U •: ----/ • —j h w _.. --I '; --y 1--j 5 ll'ack !' 1' JSLJu r ron SC/sH t Ilo:sa —� -',�j tlniso$o U�n[s. i _ n . ___. H t1 oiio X71 Q :1< yn SZ ....... Park L Ik.k, xt�!�b fb,kr • ;:::: •T C • . .. C >000 la., rn O rn lv Concept 2 Circulation Network Go. Gos�a , GO�`c� da Go . .•P�ame Arterial Collector 4 Number of Lanes 2 v r a '114 0 � TT o ' o N Study Boundary w w U N env 3 4 4 4 4 Z 4 2 y�o ACn tr A a y NN 4 © N U• ' EW 22 s 2 rn ? o 2 2 2 N w ns Pkwy. ryei[O p P, A ry N 2 � a N rn Dublin Blvd. 6 6 No�rh G3�lo A 6 .6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ti rn p0) seo G7 � II g Sao 10 a .10 O a w ATTACHMENT 3B Concept 2 Projected Levels of Service Gos�� nnnuunl LOS E LOS F w �q 1 4 a ....... d m 2d, O O Study [3oun Lary w ........................... n Fall°j� EW 3 EtV 3 11111111 z n Z N y N � ° U Gl % �s Pkwy. N X60 2� 0. m N a o 11{111111{Illli{111 II Dublin Dlvd. o�lh Gary ..0 suu m sou Lu }o ATTACTIMrNT 3C Concept 3: Multiple Centers- `� Higher Intensity Legend 3-6 ' 0-3 --•-•- General Plan Amendment i gin.,._•-•""� , i Study Area _.-._. I � - Specific Plan Study Area 36 x Rc Retail Commercial 0-3 MOS 0-3 ! r 3-6 Imo_t nn/OS O OI(ICe 03 J-G, _03 0-3 3-6'" _--__—__—__J•-•_._._._._._._._._._._ pP Business Park - �,% ------•- - .......— �•\ 'Cl si � IP Industrial Park 6 4 \. 03 ! _/ 013 , SOS 3 3-6 ; G/I Government/Institution i 0'3 '1 _ 6-12 l 6 12 1 3-G ` 3-6 0-3 Moo HS ra:c [� High School (r 3-6 to` s ,' 3-6 6-12 JS Junior High School r_12' - -- 36 sru Elementary School i" 36 � '�V(.q G-12 sr�1 I 3-6 3-6 i PK Community/Neighborhood Park J3 G 3 r �n< 03 nee City-Wide Recreation RR/OS N 0 3 1---I rows , :I sc 1 /s Stream Corridor/Sensitive Habitat _ o-3 }- 0-3 I-- - '-- --" "- rJ/A Not Applicable (not within Alarneda Cly.) 1 " FE 13.6 i ! ' I -_� r Residential 1 3-6 High g ' 3-15 I 1af1/°,, i4 Density 25•dl/ac I ' 3 6 SOS J r 0-3 1225 Medium-f-ligh Density 12.25 d,/ac 4 " G 12 '! 0-3 ' 'I ; 6-12 Medium Density 6-12"ac --.-.- -- — -----' 7—_ SO 6-12 1 G 1z -- / ! I t� 3�6 Medium-Low Density 36"ac P /1'K ---� l 6-12 3-6 Og " °.. ' .... 4.4 r 11'•! CA - 1 t2-7`i 0-3 Low Density 0.3 OA ac 12-2.I jlv ! > ---- �uic Rural Res/Open Space 10 a�dl 1 l�' U , 1—'� 0-3 rtl L'OS — rnl ILO � sc/sI ' i. §1_1 �A,..-�..`•.,. 1 12-25 1 6-12 0 12-25 3-6 'I 6.12 i ^^ ■ 1 -1in i lY' ., 25 ffC `�5� nC nC 25' .1, 2-25 1 _ G'1?! CC V+ ---•r!- 1 SCJL47< s� East Dub' a ' up ram!I .; RC, 1 ..•I1 125• I.1225 0-3 1225 6.12/1 1 l 0 tillC iri_12 i 25-* 2s• 1 ° ��I i fP Wallace Roberts&Todd j iu;, nc :11 Rc Rc 0-3 I i O fY' OP O —IfP IP ll' "RCi RC 1V3 16-12 „ wnc,,,C/SI� •'y rr l}Lnn snO Env.amu:••lal runwn !l " ._ ,. r ' _ j r_ j:r socona Si.cor./m noa 4 n I's-co.CA 94105 It(, U, ,y;/SI (115)541-00 0 �0 Fj�u1! '(a» a RC Il\ ---- 1p II' RC ,fl I1C I—f r i RC IP c t� sc/,.I1 Uul:u Sullu[A �Irass--Sao.a5i6 �..y -- ..L -_.._...___._. P k•— Vak 614x, -Ire 8 Mw ::::; 10 r..• I ' li..�..a•o+.gym..r«. .. .... _. ..- I� 0 I'� Concept 3 Circulation Network co. co Z: 04 Arterial Collector 4 Number of Lanes ti ..................... 0 .................... Study Boundary 0 ................................... F 3 4 4 4 4 4 0 /Y z 0 . t� (n 11* CY) P (P EW 2 0) -0 4 4 4 4 0 P %v 4 4 0) Dubin Blvd. IVOrtt, a 4 W 2 Oc" 4 y. D. 6 6 60 6 6 6 rn 6 6 6 CY) 110 580 10 ATTACHMENT 4B ttT iC Concept 3 Projected Levels of Service CI) O\e 61 uunnuul LOS E MMMW LOS F ..................... 0 0 ................... Study. . ..B.otnln......... 0 0 C, -n Ew 3 W- 0 FW 0 U) Pkwy. LP U) 0) A'Orl °n Dublin Blvd. C, a ATTACHMENT 4C Concept 4: iJ �'`� 11 �-. > / `r',`; ` ;`''. I• t..� , „ -�.' -_�';. I _-AV Multiple Centers Housing hasis Ho g Emp , o�� (� ,1`�; �• '( :\ h �!,I w ' P . � '�r f I`J Legend I t �. �` l f t .1v ( i f �� �r� )� .1.•�✓°�� nn/OS 'P,�•. '-,'. �.. J°� , ;,'�f'. �, . �. ��,,..r;•j� / ��i'( j `! S I !,' `r- / ) 'r / �,I .- General Plan Amendment i b� {. . . oo. r l l ;, I \ I. " n i Study Area {' !r/'1,'1•.•.'e. S, ', a�Cn•'���r•- '' ' �i-".y.v..t.:..: .:❑ `;.i L--. 'h( � 1: , %•/:` .l,,ii`,%..; ) . ra•,� 1 �'.�:.. ' (• �oo�--� �,� l , 1`it•:r•� ,. ,'1 t:.�_ i o,3 .:.�•. l l .''. '\ is °} ` i Specific Plan Study Area j I mos r ( ,{ i " ,, > (• �. ' , nc Retail Commercial ' as' I s,/ Eo O(lice `•. "I_ /-,:� rirvos•" �`arvCIS �°_ _o-3" ' *-----------,._._ _.__.--•}: ti uP Business Park ' /--j" { 0-1 ,� I i r3 �' ,, Industrial Park s 61z s 12 ' i' .o-3 , ; ' nrvos / ° --n Government/Institution ` 3-6 .3 �Rn/OS * 3.6 'K >� I.'i 'I` i -'I .�'' rIS l I � High SCI1001 ' 'O 6�2 - - --I - - Junior High School , * I t,0-3 36 `J ( LScr{ Elementary School os r' : \ ,� PK Community/Neighborhood Park nFVOS 0.3 I 3.s ` City Wide Recreation �c/q Stream Corridor/Sensitive Flabital j' N/A o-3• t`' 0.3 r------�- Not Applicable (not withn Alameda CIyJ 36 0.3 -1 .ii { 1 - J Residential 0 6 12 f1N S nn/Os' It I 25• 25. 7u/ac /. 1= High Density 1 `j l t ,{ L ,� a f t is -'\ t ; 11•I :�;;'., I -Ii( .25 d✓ac o-3 1 Medium ( T 0 3 r) _ :f - Medium Density 6 t2 du/ac AEC a .. s_ I --- •-i'0-3 - -- j 3 g ....... _11,=` \I 3 s Medium-Low Density 3-6 d�/ac ._•-•_ _.-r_.-. �1IS/I 1K .,-1•F t r i 0.3 0 3 1 0-3: w :_ 1 / liu� - ° / J '.i I*- 0.3"ac tut. 10/I _ `` 1 612 a ; t•' �`�( 0-3 NvoS' i y I ! 03 Low Density i ® Rural Res/Open Space 10-ao/d ulf 1P i ,. IF, 1 IP. ll jC \ IW�5,•j,I'i��: `_r-':�n�?� i,_�_-_\_�I t i..i i,;,t �.ti r ii'r'�_J__--'lt trM1... ..�_.._5�C C��R.•�((..�I Ic+,;.� �6 112 .y ( 12-25 6 ' (i SCH _' . 25 2-25 - z; -III) 25. I Y••c` : E:xt...n.aand n.s.w :t D M,s u b I i n 2-25 i -12 r- .12!25 o {i(IJ$/P Wallaz5• : sai � / ce Roberts&Todd 6-12 jP nianha,.111- i a ' 0 . 6-12 i oc •,A po t l. 121 Son<,Sn.•oi.,u,now �#•'_ �` , U!I an f.anirsco.CA 9a 105 • 'RC Inc NAO FAaO 5)5a 1.01,30 Td'9 ° - - --- -- — ar r , IP IP FbI:.J R IP 'D b G7 M O �� .•r-r�rrlMRAI'� SA Concept- 4 Circulation Network Go. GOS�a . G0 . Arterial Collector ti 4 Number of Lanes ......•......••p :...................... r 2 Lp A N N N N A m o N study Boundary a ry d N 4 4 4 N a rW .t 4 4 r_w 3 4 4 p 4 4 Z Z N y°'o N j' Ch N A a n N uZi N • : v a E W 2 2 rn D q p � �+ 4 2 2 2 4 _ 0 4 C 0ns Pkwy. N ..� W �co A a ZP A N N O� W a A 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 nublin f31vr1. 6 6 NOrur Gam 6 m a �, (3) 1 p 500 1 O a -,-, aD A'ITACIIMI'sNT 513 Concept 4 Projected Levels Go of Service os� G00\0•G�3 Go. illllllllllll LOS E ® LOS F ................. ................... i a N w .................. Study boundary rn ............• a........................... w Fallon Ew .l EW 3 fl{I{1!111 yd U) N Z cj n Cl) EW 2 ill111 " 11111 o Pkwy. O w ns C.A G7 °a 2�' HHH11 a Dublin Blvd. No�lh Ga�I� rn � � 111111 1111111{1 58U 0 N 580 ATTACHMENT SC - �- J.;,,`^t I ',;'U. =.�'• - ..�,; - t' -z: ' , (� j1,�� :� f � ,— �. Concept 5:Business Park- f Village Centers J Legend os o ri/ General Plan Amendment Study Area it Ic ,I I1� t\ l{f (1 ;�- ' �`~ `out"` I+�:�u ','f;l�' f /' ,%�•� `\ I .r I ui• 1 �- ;. (.. •i. -'-'-- Specific Plan Study Area y� ,' jAntoS ! (, I( t 1,1r 1 '� t " '1 I Ci ` i. , ' -_ RC Retail Commercial 3=6' fJj._ 1 y.'('I• ,j'�-� '.t{,j , `I' ! ,. - { Office I >y _ .3 9- tr� t UP Business Pa rk os Antos in) Industrial Park �, �• 0-1 A 6. 6.-12 s Iz '• i' _'t,• .0-3 '/3 1''• ;', ;:nfvos j J'• I c/I Government/Institution 3-6 �s , F ligh School G 12 0-3` ! �. */ { I. i ' JS Junior I-ligh School sell Elementary School r;; C os 3_6 \ :•,i f Communily/Neighborhood Park ' ` ' CilyWideRecreation 0-3 = m RF VOs / Habitat Rato g Stream Corridor/Sensitive 1 ✓ �_ ' / tarn Not Applicable (not wilt m Alameda C1y.) 0-3 -� ',i i Residential 0-3; 6'�2 .pR/ S C i RHOS', - , ( '.is I 1.. ; nSlty 25•(Wac _. I:' I b-3 a° ., •, , ) ),�`. ,1 ,1 !l.•' 'i(' i,li {I 25• High De I ' -:�(1•- J � '- ,� ( a - -_�, i=c; '', � '• �. .,•\, 1 ., ,,.. . 12-zs Medium-I-ligh Density 1225 d✓ac Y ,,? q. .'•'T'� a? '• .t (n -2' I .� _' I I:f 1 I -1' 'I.; I i 6-12 Medium Density 6-12 du/ac _ 0_3_ RECD s_1, 1 •'.,0:3• I '3:6 Medium-Low Density 3.6adac -- iunt_, --- ------------a '• Its/`I S�•I K 3 / -1 I tr3. ..'_..,/ 0-3 Low Density tr3d /ac G%I 03 ZR/OS 6-1P ( a Rural Res/Q)cn Space lo-ado., `21- SFII 6-12 p 3P 70.3 1 I o�{,, , Il SC�._I --1•--\-` _ ( .c.I F .. East Dublin 12-2 5 G-1 z; a °a ,K 13[25 j -25 i .PK �. :,. G IZ .a i -t ,/ i 1' 1 J$tPK I ,2s ° K ` <' ' — Wallace Roberts&Todd G-I2 8.12 iC nC P PI< i I IP B P [3P I C�r ., I G 12 I z t s,�«W S11--l. / " • __:y - _ �' " ' 't' I U�I $:.n fra„c,stO.CA'i.105 N `, 4, .OP�,t .�•,.,,c$G/SI I f--•-- —- -y� �nC(Al 'o— 0a83,0 b PC !r 13P ' . , is I ( o IP 00 a 0 LMJV rn 0 I.J V A'ITACHMfsNT 6A Concept 5 Circulation Network Go.. GO Go. Arterial Collector �, � n Number of Lane r .... /y / .................... 4 d N d A N . Jl QN oo :...................• Study Boundary W ry a rn CI ...................................... F.7/lpn 4 A 4 a 4 w 4 E4v4 a rw s 4 4 Z Z 4 1' N N A N y to to E W 2 °i rn 4 3) E 4 2 2 2 2 — 0 4 A C �S Pkwy. d) 6 6 N N 6 m a 6 Oul�lin OWd. G n 6 Norll, G��o G7 6 G 6 \ snn T 10 10 • mr �N) 1 s n TI ACIIMI N r 611 Concept 5 Projected Levels Go. of Service '`""�c� unununt LOS E LOS F ................... ................... i i d N N d - h O �y U-) °o :................... study Boundary m rn a n amo EW q EW 3 z 2 ti cn d�P N V �c E W 2 3 ` v 0 s Pkwy. 0 w /VO J�to Dublin Blvd. q a 1111111111 �Ih G � , Illitilttttltttttttt 111H1111 rn [f-ti, 500 T m A'l'rACIIMT?N'r 6C COMMENTS FROM AUGUST 9, 1990 MEETING On August 9 , 1990 two meetings were held to allow the public a preview of Concept 4 in its refined form. The first meeting was a progress report for the sponsoring property owners ; the second was for all property owners , public agencies and other interested parties . Approximately 45 people attended the meetings . The following statements summarize the comments and questions received. Many of the questions and comments concern issues that will be addressed during the next phase of the process - preparation of the general plan amendment and specific plan. Such issues include phasing of development , financing infrastructure costs , roadway design , maintenance of open space , design of the town center , to name a few. 1 . What makes this community so special . 2 . Is there too much higher density, apartment type development . Will this adversely affect the City in terms of property taxes . 3 . If you used Concept 3 would get more property tax per capita . 4 . If infrastructure costs per unit are too high, it will be difficult for development to occur . 5 . Need to evaluate the technical aspects of the presently proposed alignment of the Doolan connection to Tassajara. 6 . Need to address the sharing of infrastructure costs and perhaps look at density transfers . 7 . Will town center uses create congestion on Tassajara. 8 . Can Fallon interchange handle the increase in traffic given future increases in truck traffic from the quarry. 9 . Density credit should be given for areas shown as- greenways along drainage swales . 10 . Depending on how the 30% slope policy is applied to West Dublin, its application in East Dublin may be an artificial limitation. 11 . Should change the 0-3 residential category to . 1-3 du/ac . 12 . Should consider routing Hacienda Drive to the northeast ..to connect with Tassajara Road. � M; 7 14 . It is unfair to designate a major parcel as park. 15 . Should consider the Livermore Airport protection zone and not place schools or residences within this zone . 1. 6 . There will not be adequate wastewater treatment/collection - capacity to service East Dublin. 17 . Need to show how East Dublin connects to existing Dublin. 18 . Should not locate the junior high school across from the sports park on Tassajara . 19 . How would the open space areas in the plan be protected as open space . 20 . Should stretch the sports park along Tassajara over more property owners . Should consider building the sports park on plateaus . 21 . What will , the impacts of development be to I-580 . 22 . There will not be sufficient traffic on Tassajara to support major retail development . 23 . There will not be sufficient retail development along Tassajara to support the required infrastructure . 24 . Splitting the town center over two ownerships will make it difficult to develop. PAGE./ OF ` 0 PILOTS TO PROTECT THE LIVERMORE AIRPORT P. O. BOX 1065, PLEASANTON, CA 94566 August 9, 1990 Dublin City Council Dublin Planning Commission 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Re: General Plan Policies and Land Use Concepts for East Dublin Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: The pilots to protect the Livermore Airport strongly recommend that you consider land use concepts for the East Dublin planning area which are compatible with the Livermore Airport and its operations. The present five concepts (East Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Concepts Report, April, 1990) all reveal uses in close proximity to the airport which are incompatible with its operations. In particular, these concepts show low and medium density residential and/or schools within a 5000 foot distance from the Livermore Airport. Operations at Livermore Airport during its 1989-90 fiscal year were nearly 234,000. In June of this year, the level of operations was 23,000. Nearly one half of all operations overfly at a low altitude at least some portion of the area referred to. This low altitude flight is necessary for take-off and landing. Land uses in this area will be subjected to the noise associated with these operations. Residences and schools are not compatible with this noise. Conversely, once residences and schools are established as shown in your plans, their existence will in turn have a negative impact on the airport and its operations. In the Bay Area alone there are numerous examples where poor or uncoordinated land use planning resulted in incompatible uses which subsequently impacted existing airports. Either severe restrictions on its operations resulted or the airport closed. In each case, the utility of the airport as a regional transportation facility was denied to all area citizens. We understand that Dublin City government has a duty to future East Dublin residents and occupants to see that they are minimally impacted by noise from airport operations. We also believe that Dublin City government recognizes the airport as a valuable transportation facility serving the whole valley and must be preserved. Therefore, we ask that you reject land use concepts which do not serve these purposes. ATTAO WE5 Page 2. Dublin City Council/Planning Commission 8/9/90 In particular, we ask that you reject those concepts which simply maximize residences without the above consideration in mind. It has been common experience =that maximizing residential construction also maximizes the return on investment for those limited number of individuals who have an economic interest in the raw land. For East Dublin this means a few landowners and investment groups whose members live as far away as Taiwan. These are not the constituencies which present Dublin City government must serve. We call your attention to Concepts 3,'4 and 5 in the above-mentioned Land Use Concepts Report. These concepts result in 18,000 to nearly 21 ,000 residential dwelling units. Yet, in the same report, Economics Research Associates forecasts a total market demand in East Dublin of only 7100 units by the year 2010. Clearly, these concepts are out of line with the market. Although the Pilots to Protect the Livermore Airport do not take a direct interest in the future residential size of Dublin, we support Dublin City government in resisting the current pressures from moneyed interests to develop East Dublin intensely residential. We believe there must be regard for the mutual compatibility between the needs of future East Dublin residents and occupants and the Livermore Airport. The City of Livermore has the foresight to protect the Airport for the entire valley and future generations. They are currently in the process of adopting an Airport Protection Area which would prohibit any new residential development within that area (map enclosed). We believe that your concerns and ours are the same which would be to protect future citizens from possible noise and safety complaints and at the same time preserve the airport for the entire region. As business and industry grow in the valley, it will become even more valuable as a vital regional transportation facility. We, therefore, urge you in your planning of East Dublin to plan compatible land uses in close proximity to the airport. Sincerely yours, Connie Eccles, Chm. 4 26-501 8 Encl. Copies: Livermore City Council Livermore Planning Commission Livermore Airport Commission Local Agency Formation Commission Carolyn Morgan, Doolan Canyon ParF O'l nr?7 L- fii•i�iW1Yl� 0{�aiLL�fli�:.>ti➢�tJi4 Yi:JJ�1L4i+W Wud�Y.W i<�Yid® ®� ,� I � C `4 Safety Ione ■vo-Lirenore City Limit r I O y $m-llrport Protection fret i I.f•-arc' '..... _ __ - _ � --== _ +::`' ~:J• .r --= = _-=r��— _--- �i ' �?~ t 4 ��' i"r \ ti' a-t °. c __��_-_== —. _n= _ - =� �_. I__:__._.:<.: �qr;�:;:a li'.C�P.f —_--_=__== l= _�"��_ .e• 4 c �.. _=- _ -_-_-__ :_r_In•inweL=-__ _— -.fir.==T'1','��'=t � l e: -- -- HUM - - A Ar IVEN OAE Al11NICIfAL d1 -1`�it rn1+iS • G�ytn—•i', Y �•'�tC1 �'� - _=--_=- = r t 'I" `1 �. s,r'a`n _�•�c^" C no.. � 9� k Y� ~��x(�1� � e r� • `—� O oL �' .evQ t�+.wt. �- yr. T at Y Y y H.rv.a 7 tr. t _ t. .c�•w�•.,.. 6 6 f—_.----._/ �- i __. ° I _✓.r.�"c n..`r—� L at "`- If t: ��1 � = � \_a��` ••.111 �A( wa1 W •��1 � °y' 1 7 E� .r•'•n_¢ coon.• •Jn. N Ow.rf{M/ — —_-_ �� 1 t •__ • -_ _ . O .,,ar. c -{ ti ...uN•cr.R. � Hro•• t[ �__ ��• _ i ..�- ..... }5{/ _ ��a �• yr; r, �y 11/IVi ��,_�—.�-�- .•. .1...—�---.. .. 'd..0 C � ` �W .. n 1r' 1't0 1 k V ) , ri� ��� r.t••o � lab _ r • Y�•Y �s r N K�c R T PROTECTION AREA A I R P O _1 ! j Revised 2/20/90