HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 RevEDublinGPA&SpecPln (2)
....
,"
,..
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 23, 1993
SUBJECT:
I
PREPARED ~Y:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
11
~.
Potential Revisions to the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Brend~ A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator
t
1. ~ ~lternative 2: Reduced Planning Area Map
and Alternative Analysis Table 4.0-1
2. / Land Use Impacts of Development Restrictions
by Elevation and in Airport Protection Area
3. ~projected Jobs/Housing Ratios
4. '//Memorandum from ERA to City of Dublin,
dated February 19, 1993
5. ~Additional costs for Alternative 2 revisions
6. / January 14, 1993 Agenda Statement (relevant
portions only)
7. / Al ternati ve 2: Reduced Planning Area
Excerpt from Draft EIR
1.
2.
3.
Hear Staff/Consultant presentation
Ask questions of Staff/Consultant
Take additional public testimony on the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,
and hear additional public comments on
environmental issues and Eastern Dublin
Property Tax Exchange Agreement
Discuss issues outlined in agenda statement
and indicate by straw vote what issues
Staff/Consultants should further analyze
Continue public hearing or meeting to a date
selected by the Councilor provide other
appropriate direction --
4.
5.
========================== SUM MAR Y ==========================
The City Council directed Staff to analyze the implications of
Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area with several modifications and
the Livermore Airport Protection Area (APA) modifications as they
might affect the Proposed Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Council also sought information regarding the
effects of Camp Parks and the potential to acquire surplus lands on
Camp Parks.
are:
The major effects of the Alternative 2 and APA modifications
Reduction of dwelling units, ranging from -958 to -7,707.
Reduction of other land uses, including:
6.1
CITY CLERK
~
FILE ~
~ .
.
.
commercial area = up to -771,000 square feet
elementary schools = up to -4
parks = up to -6
potential imbalance in jobs/housing ratio, ranging from
1.06:1.00 to 1.41:1.00
neutral effect on overall fiscal feasibility to the City
I.
!
.
r.
If the City Council is interested in pursuing any of the
Alternative 2 or APA modifications, the City Council would need to
identify the preferred land use concept. The City Council should
also provide direction to Staff regarding issues raised at previous
meetings. Staff would then need to determine 1) the type of
revisions needed for the EIR and 2) whether the EIR would need to be
recirculated. The Alternative 2 modifications with a 670 foot
elevation limit and the APA modifications would not seem to require
the EIR to be recirculated..
The preferred land use concept would then need to be referred
back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and
recommendation. Additional funding would be needed for consultant
and in-house processing costs.
Camp Parks, as an adjacent land use to the project area, may
have some potential noise impacts on the proposed Plan. The EIR
requires an acoustical study prior to development in the potentially
affected area.
The surplus lands on Camp Parks is outside of the project area.
The potential to acquire it is beyond the scope of the Proposed Plan
and would need to be studied separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------~--------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
(See discussion below)
DESCRIPTION:
At the previous City Council meeting, held on January 21, 1993,
the City Council directed Staff to analyze modifications to
Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR for Eastern Dublin (The Reduced
Planning Area Alternative) and Livermore Airport Protection Area
(APA) modifications and return to the City Council on February 23,
1993 to address the following issues:
*
*
Implica~ions if development under Alternative 2 were limited to
the 500', 600' or 700' elevations
Alternatives to residential land uses within the Airport
Protection Area
Fiscal issues raised during previous meetings
Environmental and land use effects of Camp Parks operations and
master plan on the Proposed Plan
Potential for the City to acquire surplus: lands on Camp Parks
*
*
*
2
,
.. .
.
.
l.
Staff has also addresse~: two additional issues:
* Type of environmental documentation and process required if
Alternative 2 with modifications and/or APA modifications,
become the preferred land use concept.
* Costs associated with revising the General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan and environmental document.
'.
"
(.
As described in the Draft EIR, page 4-9, The Reduced Planning Area
alternative would permit development in eastern Dublin within the
current sphere-of-influence boundary (see Attachment 1). This
configuration would allow some development beyond the proposed
Specific Plan boundary but would not include Doolan Canyon.
1. Limitation of development in Alternative 2 to the 500', 600' or
700' elevations
Staff consulted the surrounding cities of Pleasanton, Livermore,
San Ramon and Danville to determine if elevation was used as a
criteria for defining the extent of development in hillside areas.
Pleasanton was the only city which uses such a delineation; it uses
670' elevation as the demarcation line in areas designated rural
density residential. Other communities have used criteria such as
maximum water pressure level, slope visual impacts, and distance from
the top of ridgelines to determine the elevation limit of
development.
Staff roughly estimated the number of dwelling units that would
be eliminated at various elevation limits under Alternative 2,
including a 670 foot elevation limit (see Attachment 2):
Elevation Limit
Number of Units Eliminated
Alternative 2 without elevation limit -4,039
Alternative 2 : Elevation 700 feet -4,176
Alternative 2 : Elevation 670 feet -4,459
Alternative 2 : Elevation 600 feet -5,185
Alternative 2 : Elevation 500 feet -6,749
The various elevation limits under Alternative 2 would also
eliminate 771,000 square feet of commercial area and 1,340 jobs.
Alternative 2: Elevation 500 feet would eliminate 4 elementary
schools and 6 parks, while the other elevation limits under
Alternative 2 would eliminate 2 elementary schools and 5 parks.
If lands above a certain elevation, that are currently
designated by the Draft General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan as
residential, were precluded from development, some other designation
would have to be assigned to these areas. Several options exist:
3
. .
.
.
a.
I.
i ;
DesiqnaEe as aqricultural
l
;;"
This option would retain the existing county designation which
emphasizes non-development uses. Residential usage would only be
permitted per the County density of one unit per 100 acres. Grazing
and other suitable agricultural uses could occur on these lands.
,
r,
b. Desiqnate as open space
This option would change these areas to permanent open space.
The underlying zoning could remain the County designation -
agricultural, with one residential unit per 100 acres. Methods of
ensuring permanent open space include public purchase, dedication to
a public agency, conservation easements and deed restrictions would
need to be further analyzed.
c. Desiqnate as a "Future Study zone"
This option would indicate the City's interest in the area and
the need for additional studies of environmental constraints, future
land uses, infrastructures, and other issues. No land use or policy
determinations would, be made until more information was available to
determine the most suitable type of development or preservation for
the area. The time frame for the future studies could remain open or
there could be a specific future date for determining whether the
studies should be prepared.
The underlying County zoning of 1 unit per 100 acres would
prevail. This approach is similar to the current City General Plan
language for the extended planning areas.
Elimination or reduction of dwelling units could significantly
imbalance the jobs to "housing" ratio for the City. "Housing" in
this context refers to the total number of employed residents at 1.62
workers per unit.
In theory, a balance of jobs to "housing" reduces the potential
for work-related trips to cross the City's boundaries. The greater
the imbalance, the higher the potential for work-related trips to
cross the City's boundaries.
The existing City currently has a near perfect ratio of
1.02:1.00. When combined with the Proposed Plan, the City would
maintain the near perfect ratio of 1.02:1.00 (see Attachment 3).
Reducing the units per the APA, Alternative 2, and the
modifications to Alternative 2 would result in jobs/housing ratios
ranging from a close balance of 1.06:1.00 to an imbalance of
1.41:1.00. The actual ratio will vary depending on the amount and
timing of the units and the commercial development.
4
. .
.
.
Council Action Required: Provide Staff direction on which,l'if any,
of the above modifications should be further pursued for :
incorporation into the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment.
2. Alternatives to Residential Development with the Airport
Protection Area.
Currently, the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan designates
residential uses within the recently adopted Livermore Airport
Protection Area (APA). Comments have been made that these
residential uses should be removed to avoid noise and safety
conflicts with airport use, and to protect the City from possible
litigation.
Within the Airport Protection Area, the proposed Plan designates
approximately 52 acres for low density single family residential (0-6
units/acre) and 75 acres for medium density multiple family
development (6-14 units/acres). Buildout at the mid-point of the
density range for these categories (4 and 10 units/acres
respectively) would yield 208 single family and 750 multiple family
dwelling units, for a total of 958 units.
In response to the concern, several options exist:
a) Redesiqnate the residential areas as "Future study Zone".
This option would indicate the City's interest in the area and the
need for additional studies of environment constraints, future land
uses, infrastructures, and other issues. No land use or policy
determinations would be made until more information was available or
preservation for the area. The time frame for the future studies
could remain open or there could be a specific future date for
determining whether the studies should be prepared.
The underlying County zoning of I unit per lOO acres would
prevail. This approach is similar to the current City General Plan
language for the extended planning areas.
b) Redesiqnate as rural residential/aqricultural. This option
would retain the current county zoning, which permits one unit per
100 acres. This type of residential use would be acceptable within
the Airport Protection Area.
c) Redesiqnate the residential areas to some other compatible
use. Such uses could include general commercial, neighborhood
commercial, campus office, industrial park, public park or open
space. _ However, the feasibility of developing such uses would depend
on slope, visual impacts, access, and other factors. If this option
was selected, some additional environmental analysis may be required.
d) Maintain the proposed residential desiqnations. The City
Attorney's office has determined that should the City decide to
overrule the Airport Land Use Commission~s decision regarding
residential uses in the Livermore Airport Protection Area, :the City
would not be exposed to any special liability. With such an action,
5
. .
.
.
State law would ~rovide that thetcity of Livermore as the operator of
the Livermore Airport would not be liable for damages to property or
personal injury resulting from the City of Dublin's decision. The
City of Dublin, however, would not assume any such liability.
Council Action Required: Provide Staff direction as to which of the
above options, if any, should be further pursued for incorporation
into the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment.
"
~
3. Fiscal Implications of the Project
During the public hearings, questions were raised concerning
certain fiscal aspects of the project. The City Council directed
Staff to respond to these concerns. Economic Research Associates
(ERA), the project's economic consultant, was retained to address
these issues. Responses to the nine primary concerns are contained
in the attached memorandum (see Attachment 4).
The supplemental analysis found the following:
The property tax reduction by the state does not change the
project's overall fiscal feasibility to the City.
The estimated sales tax revenues used in the Fiscal
Analysis are conservative and reasonable.
Over the long run, revenues would cover costs. Deficits
would occur in the start-up years and would need to be financed.
The project has the financial capacity to pay for its own
infrastructure.
Costs for treating, transporting and/or reusing wastewater
are included in the Specific Plan.
If residential development proceeds slower than projected,
the fiscal situation will probably be somewhat better than
forecast. .
The average value of the single family units for-sale was
assumed at under $250,000. The market was determined to be
approximately 10,000 for-sale units. Smaller for-sale units in
higher density areas were assumed to be rented and were not
included.
The infrastructure estimates and the f~nancing analysis are
conservative and adequate.
Overall the project would be fiscally feasible to the City
even with substantial reductions in the number of dwelling
units.
6
. .
.
.
I
A r~presentative from ERA will also be present at th~: February
23rp meeting to clarify and expand on the fiscal aspects of the
project.
Council Action Required: Review memorandum, hear Staff presentation
and question Staff/Consultant as needed. No further action required
at this time.
~~
4. Status of Surplus Camp Parks Lands and Impact of Camp Parks
Operations/Plans on Eastern Dublin
Camp Parks lands border the western edge of the Specific Plan
area. Current operations that could potentially affect development
in eastern Dublin are located adjacent to the northeast quadrant of
the planning area. The Draft EIR requires an acoustical study prior
to development in potentially impacted areas (page 3.10-4).
Recently, new personnel from Fort Lewis, Washington, replaced
the former commanders of Camp Parks at the Presidio in San Francisco.
The City of Dublin has contacted them several times regarding a
meeting but as yet no response has been received. The City is
continuing its efforts to contact the commanding officers to
establish a meeting time and place. Until such a meeting has
occurred, the City cannot accurately reflect the status of the Camp
Parks Master Plan or the availability of "surplus" Army lands.
The surplus lands on Camp Parks is outside of the Eastern Dublin
project area. The potential for the City to acquire it is beyond. the
scope of the proposed Plan and would need to be studied separately.
council Action Required: Hear verbal update report on the City's
recent attempts to establish contact with Camp Parks personnel.
5. Other Issues Requirinq City Council Direction
In the January 14 agenda statement, several issues were
discussed which require direction to Staff by the City Council.
These issues are listed below; the relevant portion of the agenda
statement is attached for the City Council's review (Attachment 6).
a. Grading policies
b. curvilinear street system
c. Relocation of high school
d. Availability of wastewater treatment capacity and water
supply
e. Financing of proposed eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan
f. San Joaquin kit fox
g. Tassajara Road
Council Action Required: Provide Staff direction regarding each
issue.
7
. '
.
.
6. Type of Environmental Documentation and Pro~ess Required if.
Alternative 2 is Selected, with Modifications ;
The City Attorney was consulted regarding the environmental
documentation required if Staff was directed by the City Council to
proceed with Alternative 2, as modified by the above discussions
regarding 1) uses in the Airport Protection Area; 2) changing the
designation of lands above a certain elevation; and, 3) changing the
designation of lands to the east of Alternative 2.
The City Attorney's opinion was that an initial study should be
prepared to determine whether there are any significant environmental
impacts resulting from the modification of Alternative 2 and its
selection as the preferred land use concept. Depending on the
outcome of the analysis, either a supplemental EIR or an addendum to
the EIR would need to be prepared. If a supplemental EIR is
prepared, it would have to be recirculated; if an addendum was
prepared, no recirculation would be necessary.
Determination of whether an addendum or supplemental EIR is
necessary depends on whether the revisions to the plan will result in
impacts not identified in the existing Draft and Final EIR. For
example, based on a preliminary review, the Alternative 2
modifications with a 670 foot elevation limit and the APA
modifications would not seem to require the EIR to be recirculated.
The city Attorney also recommended that if substantial
modifications were made to Alternative 2, they be referred back to
the Planning Commission. Government Code section 65356 states:
"[A]ny substantial modification [of a general plan amendment
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council] not
previously considered by the Commission during its hearings, shall
first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation."
While the Planning Commission did discuss the issue of
residential units within the Airport Protection Area, it did not
specifically discuss redesignation of residential uses to some other
use category or designation as a future study zone. Likewise, the
Planning Commission did not discuss elimination of residential uses
above a certain elevation.
Staff Recommendation: If the City Council is interested in pursuing
Alternative 2 with modifications and the APA modifications as the
preferred land use concept, an initial study should be prepared to
determine whether an addendum or supplemental EIR is required. Any
changes associated with residential uses within the Airport
Protection Area and in areas above a certain elevation should be
referred back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and
recommendation.
Council Action Required: Dir~ct Staff whether to proceed, as
recommended, or take some other action.
8
. .
~
~
.1. ~
7.;: Costs Associ~ted with Revisinq the GPA/Specific Plan Land Use
Concept ~
If Alternative 2 with modifications and the APA modifications,
is selected as the preferred land use concept for eastern Dublin,
both the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment will require
extensive revisions to the text and graphics. Staff has discussed
this issue with the eastern Dublin consultants, Wallace Roberts &
Todd (WRT). WRT has estimated an additional $6,969 would be required
to complete the necessary review and graphics work. This assumes
Staff wil~ conduct most of the work involving preparation of the land
use concept, review of the Draft EIR and preparation of the Initial
Study.
In addition, the supplemental fiscal analysis and Economic
Research Associates' participation in the meeting will cost between
$2,000 and $3,000.
Currently there is no funding source for the additional work
required of WRT and ERA. A funding source will need to be identified
and secured for the additional work.
Council Action Required: Direct Staff whether to proceed with
securing funding for additional work by WRT and ERA.
9
. .
.---------.. .
.
ca
G)
~
<C
C'J
c
.-
c
.. c
Nca
Q)-
>c..
.- "C
(OG)
C (J
a... ::s
,S"C
-G)
<Co:
u u '
'" III '"
S ~ :a ~ ~
, '}' :! <P :a
~ ;! <b 6 t-
11:I
.
..,
I
'"
Ol
~
z
-
..J e
m ::J
.... a: .El
--' _ u..
OW
"a
Z · "a
{!.
a:: c.. ""
W UJ i
t- · .g
UJ <C c;
<C c.. ~
w e" ~
. l!
~ .?: ..... .}t.
-~ '"' ~~~ ~ t:~~
.!!l 8 .~ z u u ::> c; '" U ::>
~ 0 c: UJ Jil (/J U) _ q. ,Q a.. 0 a
Ol Ol t3 :!il :s .0 1:: J:: 8E gj '"' .2 <II
E u u "'" .?: '2 -... ~ '" .11'.s;;; Ol ~ "" 'J! ~ '0
Eo:.:=: l..... >-.c. 'Vi :;... (l) 0 ..!... ...... J: (J CJ) U \.. ::I 0 0 Q)
o .2 0 ~ .1;i ,2' :ii '1;i :Q ~ E 16 ~ en -...~ '" ~ E i!.2 l;l
o 5 _ c;:f: Cl c; '" <D Ol E ,2 .s;;;. [(,., E ,2' ~ n
'iij J:J ~,~ -~ E E Q) & ::::;, ~ ~ 5.Ql aD."= 0 IV .p U)
Qi..c:oVj qa:!:JO_a..(Jw~J: UJOOZ.c::c
--.J c: .~ E :J .....J .r; n TI ~ (1;J ..J.. :::0 ! ~ .2' Q)
=s Ol '" '" u <( ',2' Ol '" 0 '5::;: ::>il5\IS'\il5\~ "'0""''''''''' On
"C 0 CJ Z 0 .s;; f= r ::;: ::;; -' cr: ~ 0..4!V1.5I~\l:lJ o..l.::I\Wwz
11~~lni~~~o~~Q . D.
....I o~~lillJlJ a:LJ~lJOLJ 0..0
~
<II
C '"
Ol ..
E ~
'" '0 <(
uc; ,.,
<OOl'O
_ ,!E 2
-:H =~ (J)
Q.)..... i:. 50 c
~ ~ ,~:ad:;f
(ij 9 ~ ~(ij .U
Z -~ M ~.~~~ TI
o t:: 0 1m Q. Q) 2{
f=<(ot=<IlClen
<(
~fB'.;::- ~;3 I ! i!"! I
::.:~.! .;I.~ a: .: .:
,,:,., 0 I I ! II I
=
!I
~
;,
('.
i
\
\
r----------' J
r----~~----_._w.-, ---J ".!
I .' --~ I I
il.--~- , \ _
: y....
,I \
'----...L"
j
,
"
ATIACHMfNT I
.................--
4.0_Alternatinll ~
.
.
Eutem. Dublin SP/GPA EIR
It
..
.
";:
..
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /SPECfFIC PLAN EIR ' .,
" l:
I,
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .
Table (.0-1
LAND USE, POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT sUMMARY ...
Land UIIe DeaigJlation Specific Plan The Proied: -No Projeet- RPA RLUl ,
COMMERCIAL (a) (Acres) 811.0 876.0 600.0 806.( 591.0
Units (msf) 10.928 11.647 9.2S<l 10.876 7.72( 'I
Jobs 28,288 29,540 21,462; 8,995 (b) 28,200 16,741
RESIDENTIAL (Acres) 1,702.6 4,993.4 n.a. 2,498.9 5278.4
Units (mf) 5,159 5,159 0 5,159 1,398 'I
Units (sf) 7,289 12,811 69 (c) 8,772 l1,H2
Total Units 12 ,(48 17,970 69 (c) 13,931 12,840 I
Population 27,79( (2,669 157 (c) 32,537 36,869
Employed Residents 20,182 29,124 n.a. 22,568 20,800 I
SCHOOLS (Total) 9.25 10.6
12 0 10
Elementary (K-5) 6.5 9 0 7 7 I
Junior High (6-8) 1.75 2 0 2 2
Senior High (9-12) 1 1 0 1 1.6 I
PARKS (Acres) 2(1.5 287.2 0 258.5 287.2
Units 17.2 25 0 20 25
OPEN SPACE (Acres) (12.4 571.1 0 442.3 571.1 I
AGRICULTURE/OPEN SPACE 0 0 6319.8 2,743.9 0
(Acres)
I
FOOTNOTES:
(..) Includes Public/Semi-Public
(b) 9,000 Jobs maximum permitted under current General Pla.n.
(c) Source: 1990 U.S. Census
,
1
I
\.1
1-
4-2
. .
.
.
I.
!
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS BY ELEVATION
AND IN AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA
D.U. LOST D.U. LOST CUMULATIVE D.U. REMAINING
ELEVATION APA LOSS
Project
Project
o
o
o
17,970
o
958
958
17,012
------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 2 0 0 4,039 13,931
Alt. 2 0 958 4,997 12,973
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 2 - 700' 137 958 5,134 12,836
Alt. 2 - 670' 420 958 5,147 12,553
Alt. 2 - 600' 1,146 958 6,143 11,827
Alt. 2 - 500' 2,710 958 7,707 10,263
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note: "Project" is as recommended by Planning Commission
/ELEVAPA1
AnACHMENT 2..
. . . .
PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING RATIOS f.
!
EMPLOYED
RESIDENTS
JOBS DU (DU X 1.62) RATIO
f.
Existing 12,210 7,100 12,000 1.02:1.00
Combined with
Proposed Plan 41,750 25,070 41,111 1.02:1.00
Combined with
APA Reductions 41,750 24,112 39,559 1.06:1.00
Combined with
Alternative 2 40,410 21,031 34,568 1.17:1.00
Combined with APA
Reductions & Alt. 2 40,410 20,073 33,016 1.22:1.00
Combined with APA
Reductions & Alt. 2
~ 700 ft el. 40,410 19,936 32,794 1.23:1.00
Combined with APA
Reductions & Alt. 2
- 670 ft el. 40,410 19,653 32,336 1.25:1.00
Combined with APA
Reductions & Alt. 2
- 600 ft. el. 40,410 18,927 31,160 1.30:1.00
Combined with APA
Reductions & Alt. 2
~ 500 ft. el. 40,410 17,363 28,626 1.41:1.00
ATTACHMENT 3
...
. '
.
.
I.
I
i
,
,
Economics Research Associates
Affi/iar~d wIth Onv~rs JoniJS
.
. .
MEMORANDUM
y..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Richard C. Ambrose. City Manager
Steve Spickard, EAA
19 February 1993
PROJECT NO.
RE: Eastern Dublin Fiscal Analysis
The followini fiscal and economic and fiscal questions have been raised thus far in the Eastern
Dublin Public Hearing process. In preparation for the public hearing to be held on February 23,
ERA has prepared the following brier responses. ERA senior staff will be present at the meeting
to explain funher.
1. What is the impact of the 9% propeny tax reduction by the State on the East Dublin Fiscal
Impact Analysis?
Because property taxes ma..~e up roughly one-third of City revenues. a 9% reduction
in propertyJaxes means total City revenues are reduced by approximately 3%. Although any
loss of revenues is important in today's depressed economy, the 3% revenue loss precipitated
by the State does not change any of the fiscal conclusions regarding the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The plan would still generate a fiscal surplus over the 20 years projected.
2. The sales uu per capita in East Dublin is higher tlwn the city of Dublin's current sales tax
per capita (which is one of the highest in the Statt). How do you justify these higher sales
taxfigures? What type of sales tax generators are anticipated?
Sales ta."{ revenues from Eastern Dublin are estimated from projected sales volumes,
not from per capita averages. High sales volumes are anticipated in Eastern Dublin for two
reasons. The fust is that strategic retail locations are available in Eastern Dublin close to .
interchanges along 1-580 which have the capability of capturing regional retail markets. The
second is that the type of retail planned is designed to maximize the regional draw and sales
ATTACHMENT 'i
:laa Markel Street, Suite 1550 . San Francisco. California 94111 . (415) 958.8152 Telex: 3408S0 (ERA SFO) Fax: (Ji5) 956.527':
U.lS Aii~aio!S . San Franc:sc: . San Diego' Chicago' Boston' Washington. D.C. . Ferl Laucercale
..
. .
.
.
:; : I :; l: >
Economics Reseatch Assoc\ates ':
Affiliated with Driver3 Jona.'J
ERA Responses to Questions
19 February 1993
Page 2
"
volume per square foot of space developed. The best articulated plan for this reUil concept
has been described by the Count)' for its Santa Rita site, where a 100 acre "power center" is .,
proposed. Up to 85% of such a center would be occupied by large tenants 50.000 to
100,000+ square feet in size. A "Mills Concept" combining "value" retailers with "outlet"
retailers has been proposed by the County. Although individual stores in such a center can
generate sales volumes of $600 to S700 per square foot. ERA and the County have based
projections at a more conservative average of S300 to 5320 per square foot.
3. Do tht current documents provide that the city's current reserves will make up for any
shortfall in revenues during the early years of developmlnt in East Dublin? If so, please
explain.
The current documents have examined the fiscal cost-revenue balance of Easter::.
Dublin over the long run without assuming any draw on current reserves of the existing Ciri.
Over the long run Eastern Dublin is projected to generate sufficient revenues to cover costs.
Deficits would occur in the St2J't-UP years and would have to be financed. The use of reserves
as a financing tool was not specifically investigated.
4. On Page 148 of the Specific Plan, reference 'is made to the fact that only 25% of the
infrastructure costs would be borne by a Mello RODS or some other type 0/ assessmer.:
district. Will the remaining 75% have to be paid by developers? If so, is rhat realistic?
Page 148 of the Specific Plan ma.l{esreference to the example financing plan in Table
lO~l which assumes that only 2.5% of the costs of"streets and mass grading" would be borr.e
by a Mello Roos district, but streets and mass grading account for only a portion of the 5532
million in infrastructure costs. Tne same illustrative financing plan assumes that Mello Roes
financing will be used for 42 %, or $226 million, of total infrastrUCture costs. The remainin g
$307 million could be funded through a system of impact fees. If half the rernainini COS:S
were loaded on residential development, the total impact fees would be about S12,300 pc:
unit. This is less than 50% of the amount charged today by cities in Solano County. Give;-,
that commercial development makes up more than half the assessed value in the Specific PI::..:"":
area and would a.lso contribute its fair share to infrastructure costs, the positive fmding L1::.:
Easrem Dublin has the financial capacity to pay for its own infrastructure is very realistic.
s.
Mere is the cos: jar the expansion of the Tri- Valley Wastewater Authority sewage e:\porr
cos;S included in the injrasrrucrurejiscaZ analysis? 'MIl these costs be paid through proper:-:J
tax assessments? If so, are t}uy included in the 0.8% used in the plan?
. ,
. : The costs of treating. transporting and/or reusing wastewater are estLrnat.ed at S 1:30
million and are included in Table 10-1 in the Specific Plan. These funds could be used fer
Eastern Dublin's pro rata share of the TWA, or they could be used to develop a reuse syster:1
..
.
.
(.
i
Economics Research Associates.
II.
i ~
,
"
. ,
, ,
p
Affiliated with Drivers Jonas
ERA Responses to Questions
19 February 1993
Page 3
"
in the valley. The existing DSRSD fee system, with anticipated escalation over time, is
e~pected to cover 94% of wastewater costs. The remaining 6%, about $7 million, is shown
on Table 10~1 as being a minor part of the M'ello Roos assessment. and would be part of the
0.8% tax bwden in the plan.
6. Since there were onfy 200 real estate sales and 300 listings in Dublin in 1992, is it realistic
to assume that 1,000 units can be absorbed each year? Ifnet, what is the fiscal impact on
the City if fewer than 1,000 homes art built each year?
The projected absorption in the Eastern Dublin analysis startS with JOO units in 1996.
The rate of ahsorption is then projected to increase over time to a maximum sales rate of
1.000 units per year early in t.l'J.e next century. For large scale land developments (5.000 to
7,000 acres in Eastern Dublin), which include a number of builders and a variety of housing
types being developed simultaneously, there is ample real world precedent for absorption
rates of 1.000 units per year or more. Mission Viejo and Irvine Ranch in southern California
are examples.
The geographic market for Eastern Dublin housing is much greater than the existing
city of Dublin. At the tir.1e the market forecasts were made, the Tn-Valley market was
issuing approximately 3,000 building permits per year for housing. It is realistic to assume
a wel1~planned 5,000 to 7.000 acre area could capture a third of the market
The time horizon L, the economic analyses included 20-year projections from 1990
to 2010, and the experience or a single recession year in 1992 is not indicative of the longer
tenn trend. At Lie time the market forecasts were made, ABAG was projecting long term
growth in the Tri- Valley m.arket at 2,500 units per year. Eastern Dublin could be the largest
development area in this market
If residential development proceeds slower than 1,000 units pet year, the City's flSCal
situation will probably be somewhat better than forecast. Revenues are genera~d
disproportionately by commercial development. Municipal service costs are generated
disproportionately by residential development
t.
. .
.
.
. .,
I
..,
,
,.,
':- I.
Economics Research As~ociates
I.
!
.
Affiliated with Drivers Jonas
ERA Responses to Questions
19 February 1993
Page :,
I,
,
f.
7.
Where is the market for $300,000 to $600,000 home! identified in the East Dublin plan?
The market assumptions for housing units for sale in the financing plan and the fIscal
analysis for Eastern Dublin were as follows:
'.,
DensitY of Upits
12-2S/acre
6-121acre
3-6/acre
Number of Units
Averaie Sales Price
2,722
4,891
2,394
$125,000
$225,000
$300,000
With the exception of 4 rural home lots which could be sold for more, there were no homes
assumed to sell for oyer $300,000 in Eastern Dublin. The average value of the single family
units shown above (i.e., densities of 3 to 12 units per acre) is under $250,000. Even in the
currently depressed real estate market, this is a highly achievable price for new 3- and 4.
bedroom houses in the Bay Ares..
8. Be prepared to discuss the adequacy of the infrastrUcture estimates andfinancing analysis
as proposedfor the current project. This discussion should also include the ability of high
density residential to bear these costs.
ERA. believes tlte infrastructure estimates made by the planning team and the
financing analysis are completely adequate. and we will be prepared to discuss this furtJier.
'The more affordable the housing, the harder it is' to 'produce and still pay a pro rata
share of infrastructure costs.
9. Be prepared to discuss the fiscal impact on the Ciry of reduced residential development in
the plan.
From a fiscal standpoint, there will be very little effect of reducing total plarlned
residential units to 12,000 or even 10,000. At projected absorption rates, the limitation or.
units will not even be felt until the year 2008 or 2010. We will be prepared to discuss LlUs
further.
l.
. '
.
.
EAST~RN DUBLIN GPA/S~ECIFIC PLAN/EIR
i
WRT Preparation Costs for Alternative 2*
The costs below assume city Staff and/or the eastern Dublin Project
Coordinator (PrC) would perform the major portion of the required
work. WRT's role would be primarily review, discussion and
preparation of graphics.
Task
Hours
Cost
*
Discuss & review land use
option(s) prepared
by Staff/PrC
24
$2,000
*
Assist in preparation of
EIR Addendum
Review Initial Study.
Review revised project
description.
Discuss Staff's review &
analysis of any changes
needed to Draft EIR impact
and mitigation sections.
Recalculate buildout
table based on reduced
residential development.
Prepare new graphic of
Alternative 2A Land Use
Concept.
40
4,100
*
Revise GPA & SP graphics
(in addition to those
outlined in contract
Amendment #6)
8
369
*
Direct Costs
Reproduction
Travel
500
72
$6,969
*Note:
Additional environmental analysis associated with
reductions in dwelling units due to Alternative 2
modifications and/or APA modifications are not covered in
these costs estimates.
ATTACHMENT 5'
. .
.
.
2.
GRADING I POLICIES
I-
i
_I.
Issue: 'A landowner in Eastern Dublin has requested:changes in the 'specific
plan text relating to scenic corridors, hillside development (page 69-70) and
to foothill residential area (pages 99-100). These changes would protect
scenic resources, ridgelines and ridgelands and allow development in hilly
areas subject to safeguards.
,
.
Response: On review of the above~mentioned sections of the Specific Plan, \
staff has concluded that there is some merit to the request and recommends
that the City Council direct staff to prepare alternative policies with regard
to scenic corridors, hillside development and development in foothill
residential areas for consideration by the City Council.
3. CURVILINEAR STREET SYSTEM
Issue: A land owner in Eastern Dublin has requested consideration of a less
specific street system in the Town Center area that would allow for future
consideration of either a grid or curvilinear street layout and potential for
four (4) lanes on the "transit spine".
Response: The Planning Commission recommends that the grid street layout with
a two (2) lane "transit spine" be maintained in the Town Center area as
conceptually illustrated on Figure 7.1 in the Specific Plan. It found that
the grid street system provided a superior mix of traffic flow, pedestrian
access, and neighborhood design. Staff finds that a mixed grid and
curvilinear street system along with consideration for the number of lanes on
the "transit spine" may have merit. staff recommends that the City council
indicate whether an analysis of such changes should be provided to the City
Council.
4. RELOCATION OF HIGH SCHOOL
Issue: Landowners in eastern Dublin have requested that the High School be
relocated to a major arterial roadway.
Response: The Planning commission and staff recommend that the High School
remain in its present location for the following reasons:
1. The location is in accord with the direction given by the Planning
commission and city council during workshops held previously.
2. Location on a major arterial would pose potential traffic safety
concerns.
3. Provides location of High school separated from Junior High School.
5. AVAILABILITY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND WATER SUPPLY
Issue: Members of the public have expressed concern that there is
insufficient wastewater treatment capacity and water supply to support the
development envisioned by the' Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific plan.
ATTACHMENT CD
9
Response: The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and specific Plan contain
detailed policies with regard ~o wastewater treatment capacity and water
supply to assure that developm~nt in Eastern Dublin rill not exceed tho~e
capacities. Testimony by Staff. from DSRSD and responses to similar comments
to the EIR support this finding. The Planning Commi'ssion and Staff rec~mmer:c.
that the City Council approve the policies regarding wastewater capacity and
water supply in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
.
.
. .
6.
FINANCING OF PROPOSED EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLA~r
i. f.
Issue: Members of the public have expressed concern over the feasibility of
financing of the proposed development.
Response: The specific plan in Section 10 addresses financing considerations,
sources, goals and policies. This section of the specific plan is not a
detailed financing plan but it does reflect the opinion of professional
economists that financing mechanisms exist which can be utilized to
successfully finance the Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment and specific
Plan as proposed. The Planning commission and staff recommend that the city
Council adopt the text of the Specific Plan relating to financing as proposed.
7. SAN JOAOUIN KIT FOX
Issue: The California Department of Fish and Game states that the General
plan Amendment area is suitable habitat for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, an
endangered species. It states that the loss of habitat will be significant.
It requests that impacts be addressed through the development of a managemer:~
plan proposed in conjunction with other jurisdictions in the valley.
Response: The Planning co~mission and Staff recommend the finding that the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Final EIR reduce the impacts to a
less than significant level. The mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to, 1) a requirement for pre-construction surveys within 60 days prior
to any habitat modification and 2) a requirement that the city work with the
California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and with other Tri-Valley jurisdictions to develop a management plan that
identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit fox.
8. TASSAJARA ROAD
Issue: Several comments have been made that Tassajara Road between Dublin
Boulevard and Gleason Road should not be a four-lane facility as proposed by
the Specific Plan but a six-lane facility capable of carrying regional t~a:fic
after the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley developments are built.
Response: The traffic consultant to the city recommends that this road be a
six-lane facility to accommodate regional traffic flows. It will remain a
four-lane facility (with sufficient right-of-way for six lanes) until
anticipated traffic flows demonstrate the need for the additional lanes.
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that Tassajara Road be shown as a
six lane.facility between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road on the approved
the specific Plan.
10
~
I~.
.1.
.'
I"
I
I
.
II
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. '
.
.
4.0 AltematiYl!lI Analysis
J-
~ Dublin SP/GPA ErR
I.
!
4.4
..
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED PLANNING AREA ("RP A")
'.
Description and Objectives
Alternative 2 _ Reduced Planning Area - permits development in eastern Dublin within the current
sphere-of-influence boundary. The purpose of this alternative is to arrive at a "midpoint" between
the development proposal of the Project and environmental concerns. Under this alternative, Doolan
Canyon would not develop and its current agricultural land uses and rural character would be
maintainedo The importance of this area's function as a "green" community separator between Dublin,
Livermore and the Tassajara Valley would increase as development occurred in eastern Dublin, and
North Livermore, and lands east of San Ramon.
o.
.,.
"
The principal features of the RP A Alternative are:
. Buildout of the Specific Plan as proposed.
. Buildout of the General Plan Amendment area within the current Dublin SOl boundary
according to the land use plan shown in the General Plan Amendment.
. No annexation and no General Plan Amendment for Upper or Lower Doolan Canyon. These
areas could develop under the Alameda County General Plan or under the North Livermore
General Plan Amendment but would not be analyzed as part of this alternative.
The land use development scenario for Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 4.0-B.
Evaluation of the RPA Alternative
Land Use
Development will occur on 3,313.7 acres according to the'land use scenario proposed in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. (The 14-acre Crosby property which lies within the Specific Plan area but
outside the City's sphere-of -influence would not be developed as part of this alternative.) An
additional 862 acres (the remaining portion of the City's sphere-of-influence) would be developed,
mostly in single-family and rural residential uses (806 acres). Lands outside the SOl would remain
in agricultural and rural residential use.
Significant land use impacts associated with this alternative are the loss of rangelands and locally
important farmlands, and the disruption of the existing rural community on Tassajara Road. As in
the Specific Plan, this alternative would commit land that is now largely undeveloped to long-term
urban uses and extend urban infrastructure, such as sewers, onto previously unserviced areas. These
actions represent an irreversible change to the site's environment, as defined by CEQA. This
environmental impact, however, would be less than under the Project in which the entire GPA area
is proposed for development.
Alternative 2 may also have growth-inducing land use impacts, not only within the RPA area but
possibly on adjacent lands. This is because the land use plan for the Reduced Planning Area proposes
urban land uses where its eastern boundary adjoins unincorporated lands designated as
Agriculture/Open Space (see Figure 4-B). Mitigation for this impact can be achieved through a
refinement to the land use plan for Alternative 2 which provides for transitional land uses.
. .
As in the Project, the Yarra Yarra riding stable on u.pper Tassajara Road would cease op,erations
under the RP A Alternative. The cessation or disruption of current economic activities at the stable
due to implementation of the Project are considered by CEQA to be a secondary impact related to the
proposed physical change to the site's land use.
ATlActtMEMT
1
4-9
, .
4.0 A1~.A:na!pia .
.
&.ateru Dublin SP/GPA Em
Compared to full development of the entin~lProject site envisioned ~nder the Project, Alternative 2
reduces land use impacts. Specifically, in Alternative 2,2,744 acres Of the General Plan Amendment
area would remain as unincorporated land in agriculture/open space use rather than being developed.
This acreage encompasses the upper and lower portions of Doolan Canyon or roughly the eastern third
of the Project site and could continue to function as an important open space rural area separating
Eastern Dublin from North Livermore. Given proposals for development adjacent to the Project site
in Dougherty and Tassajara valleys and North Livermore, retaining Doolan Canyon as a "green" buffer
is regarded as a beneficial local and regional environmental impact of Alternative 2.
An additional benefit of this alternative is that no disruption to the existing rural residential
community in Doolan Canyon would occur.
Williamson Act Lands
Three parcels located within the Reduced Planning Area would remain under Williamson Act contract
beyond the year 2000. Agricultural activities on these properties (Moller, Fallon, and Croak) could
come under development pressures associated with the land use plan of Alternative 2.
On lands outside the boundary of the Reduced Planning Area, the Moller and Bailey properties to the
north and the Bloom and Flanigan properties (approximately 183 acres) are under Williamson Act
contract. Under Alternative 2, these lands would remain undeveloped and designated for
Agriculture/Open Space; the Project proposes Single Family and Rural Residential for the same sites.
Thus, Alternative 2 potentially reduces the growth-inducing impacts of the Project on agdcultural
lands.
Relevant Plans and Policies
Alameda County General Plan (1977)
This alternative is not consistent with the Agriculture/Open Space land use designations of the current
Alameda County General Plan. The potential development constraints of Livermore Municipal
Airport's proposed Airport Protection Area are similar to those discussed for the Project.
Population,' Housing and Employment
The projected total population for Alternative 2 is 32,537. This is a decrease of 10,132 new residents
from the Project and an increase of 4,896 new residents over the Specific Plan. (133 projected new
residents in the Specific Plan have been deleted for residential land uses on the Crosby property which
will remain undeveloped in Alternative 2.)
A small decrease in the amount of commercial development proposed in the Project is foreseen;
10.876 msf for Alternative 2 versus 11.647 msf for the Project. This will result in a net decrease of
1,340 jobs. Compared to the Specific Plan, Alternative 2 will result in a net decrease of only 87 jobs
due to the deletion of 4.6 acres of Industrial Park land on the Crosby property.
The RPA Alternative will result in a less-favorable jobs/housing balance than that achieved in the
Project 1.25 jobs for each new employed resident of eastern Dublin or a projected surplus of 5,633
jobs versus 544 surplus jobs (1.02:1.00 ratio) for the Project. Alternative 2 represents a modest
improvement over the jobS/housing balance of the Specific Plan in which jobs surpass housing units
by 8,106.
Traffic and Circulation
The circulation;' transit and pedestrian improvements proposed in the Specific Plan will be maintained.
No link between Doolan Canyon Road and Tassajara Road is planned and the sections of Hacienda
4-10
I
I
I
: (
l'.
'I
I
I
I
I
t
~
,
I .
..
ill
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.0 Alterna.tiY~ ~
~ DubWl SP/GPAEIR
l
'..
;
t.;.
t ~.
Drive, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard may not need to be built
to accomodate eight through-lanes.
Alternative 2 would generate 434,000 daily and 37,700 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips, representing 90
percent of the traffic generation of the Project. Eastern Dublin traffic volume impacts on the
freeways and other regional routes would be reduced by 10 percent. Intersection impacts would be
reduced slightly, but all intersection mitigations required for the Project would also be required for
Alternative 2.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would reduce the following Project impacts to a level of
insignificance: 1M 3.3jB: 1-580, 1-680jHacienda between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive; and
1M 3.3jJ: Airway Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. All other Project impacts identified as
significant would remain significant under Alternative 2.
Community Senices and Facilities
Compared to the Project, the Reduced Planning Area would require seven (versus nine) K-5 schools.
Demand for two new junior high and one senior high schools would remain constant. New park needs
would be reduced by five (20 versus 25) and Open Space acreage would decrease by 128 acres.
Compared to the Specific Plan, under Alternative 2, eastern Dublin would gain 3 additional
neighborhood parks and complete an elementary school site. Modest supplements to the Specific
Plan's projections for increased police and fire protection services are estimated, Solid waste
generation and demand for utilities will increase in proportion to the new residential development in
the Reduced Planning Area.
Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage
Compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would produce less demand for new infrastructure, largely
due to the exclusion of Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon. Alternative 2 would require the
infrastructure proposed in the Specific Plan, plus additional infrastructure for the remainder of
Reduced Planning area. Table 4.0-3 presents the estimated Quantitative impacts of Alternative 2 as
compared to the Project and the Specific Plan for water, sewer and recylced water.
4-11
i
'..
I,
"
i,r.
'.,
. '
4..0 Al~l!II AnalyIIia
.
.
Euteru Dublin SP/CPA EIR
TABLE 4.0-3
I.
!
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED PLANNING AREA
WATER, SEWER AND RECYCLED WATER IMP ACTS
COMP ARED TO THE PROJECT AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Estimated
Estimated Estimated A verage Daily
A verage Daily A verage Daily Recycled Water
Water Demand Wastewater Flow Irrigation
Item (MGD) (MGD) Demand
(MGD)
The Project (General Plan 7.7 5.6 4.5
Amendment Area)
Specific Plan 5.8 4.2 2.7
Alternative 2: Reduced 6.4 4.6 3.1
Planning Area
Domestic Water System: The water demands for Alternative 2 are estimated at 6.4 MGD, which is
lower than the Project, at 7.7 MGD, but higher than the Specific Plan, at 5.8 MGD (see Table 4.1-3).
This demand is based upon the land use plans for Alternative 2, the Project and the Specific Plan.
All the infrastructure for the water system proposed in the Specific Plan will be required for
Alternative 2~ plus additional infrastructure for areas beyond the Specific Plan, but within the
Reduced Planning Area. The water system proposed in the Specific Plan has been sized to
accommodate the full buildout of the General Plan Amendment area. Thus the system as proposed
in the Specific Plan will be able to accommodate the areas of Alternative 2. In fact, there may be
some opportunities to downsize some of the pipelines within the Specific Plan if the full extent of the
General Plan Amendment area is not built out.
At 6.4 MGD, Alternative 2 would create a significant water demand on the DSRSD and Zone 7
systems. This demand will require Zone 7 to continue to explore other sources of water supplies in
addition to its imported supplies, as is also required by the Project.
Sewer System: As shown in Table 4.1-3, the estimated wastewater flows for Alternative 2 are
4.6 MGD, which is less than the General Plan Amendment area at 5.6 MGD, but greater than the
Specific Plan at 4.2 MGD. Again, this parallels the level of land uses for each. Alternative 2 will
require a collection system similar to that proposed for the Specific Plan, plus additional collection
systems for the areas beyond the Specific Plan but within the Reduced Planning Area. The collection
system proposed for the Specific Plan area has been sized to accommodate the full buildout of the
General Plan Amendment area. Thus, the collection system as proposed in the SpecifiC Plan will be
able to accommodate Alternative 2. Again, there may ~e opportunities to downsize certain of the
pipelines within the Specific Plan area if the full extent of the General Plan Amendment area is not
built out. i .
.,
4-12
I
,
,
~
W-.
. .
r'.
~
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
-' .
I.
I
.
.
.
II
.
,.
.
I
I
.
I
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
.
4.0 Alternativs AnaJym
Eutenl Dublin SP /GP A EIB.
I
,.
r
.
At 4.6 MGD of ~astewater flow, Alterna~ive 2 will have a si~nificant impact on the DSRSD collection
and treatment systems and on the planned TW A export system. DSRSD will have to expand its
wastewater treatment plant to handle these flows, although the expansion will not be as great as would
be required under the Project. TW A has planned its export system to accommodate the Project.
Thus, the planned TW A system will be able to handle the lower wastewater flows of Alternative 2.
. ~.
"
,
".
"
'.
There will be a substantial potential for a recycled water system for Alternative 2. As shown in
Table 4.1-2, there is a potential recycled water irrigation demand of 3.1 MGD. This estimated
recycled water demand is less than the estimated recycled water demand for the Project, since under
Alternative 2 there is less irrigable land. Development of such a recycled water system may prove
viable because of several large potential irrigation users, such as parks and open space. Such a
recycled water system could help reduce water demands to the site.
'r.
,
.,
Storm Drainage: Under Alternative 2, all the channel improvements proposed under the Specific Plan
will be required, plus additional channel improvements in the areas beyond the Specific Plan, but
within the Reduced Planning Area. However, channel improvements will not be required in Upper
and Lower Doolan Canyon, as would be required under the ,Project.
Alternative 2 'will increase the stormwater runoff, but not to the degree of the Project, which also
includes development in the Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon areas.
Finally, there will still be a strong potential for non-point sources of water pOllution under
Alternative 2, although not as great as under the Project. Again, this is because of the greater
urbanization proposed under the Project than under Alternative 2.
Soils, Geology and Seismicity
Under this alternative, impacts associated with the site's soils, geology and seismic conditions would
be similar to those discussed for the Project but would be limited to the Reduced Planning Area.
Mitigation measures discussed for Project impacts are equally applicable under this alternative.
Outside the Reduced Planning Area boundary, significant impacts are not encountered and no
associated mitigation measures are necessary.
Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would result in significantly less habitat loss than under the Project. Significant impacts
to some riparian and marsh habitats and special status wildlife species could occur. The golden eagle
nest is found within the boundary of this alternative.
Under Alternative 2, development would not occur in or adjacent to Doolan Canyon which provides
habitat for red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. More than half the locations of potential kit
fox dens or other special status species recorded in the GPA area occurred outside the Reduced
Planning Area. Although a large portion of the GPA area would remain in Agriculture/Open Space
use, these areas would not necessarily be permanently protected from future development; therefore,
this designated open space does not constitute a mitigation area for habitat loss that will occur within
the Reduced Planning Area.
Visual Resources
I'
Under Alternative 2, impacts to the visual quality of the Project site will be somewhat reduced, most
significantly in the undeveloped portion of the Project site. The key visual resources policies of the
Project will be retained: hillside development standards, ridgeline protections, designation and
maintenance of scenic corridors, and preservation of watercourses and natural features.
Consequently, impacts to the visual character of the Project site within the Reduced Planning Area
are the same as those discussed in Section 3.8; Visual Resources and same mitigation measures given
4-13
(.0 AlternatiYes AnalyU
.
.
Eutem Dublin SP/GPA EIR
for those impacts, are applicable. The main difference between Altetpative 2 and the Project~will be
perceived east of. the Reduced Planning Area boundary. Here the Project site will retain its current
visual character as a rural and agricultural landscape.
Cultural Resources
All impacts to prehistoric and historic sites identified in Section 3.9 would remain. At least two
additional historic sites and one prehistoric site would be affected by potential development within
the Reduced Planning Area boundary. Cultural resources in the Doolan Canyon area would not be
affected, provided this area was not developed. Thus, Alternative #2 reduces Project impacts to
cultural resources in this area but does not significantly reduce these impacts in developed portions
of the Reduced Planning Area. All mitigation measures for cultural resources impacts given for the
Project are applicable for impacts under Alternative 2.
Noise
Impacts and mitigation for this alternative would be similar to those presented for the proposed
Project. Since no development is proposed in the Doolan Canyon area, construction noise and other
roadway noises may be less of an impact for existing residences in Doolan Canyon. Therefore,
Alternative 2 reduces 1M 3.10jB for Doolan Road to a level of insignificance will impacts to existing
residences and businesses on Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Hacienda Road will remain Dotentiallv
significant following implementation of MM 3.10/2.0.
Air Quality
The size of the Reduced Planning Area will have little effect on air quality and will not significantly
re.duce the air quality impacts identified for the Project. Ideally, the larger the planning area, the
more effectively various TSM measures can be implemented. However, if Upper and Lower Doolan
canyons are not annexed into Dublin's sphere-of-influence, they will likely be included in comparable
Alameda County or City of Livermore plans capable of achieving TSM efficiency. Reducing the
plannning area, therefore, does not achieve substantial reductions in air quality impacts relative to
the Project's air quality impacts and would require the implementation of the same air quality
mitigation measures as those of the Project.
Fiscal Considerations
Alternative 2 will have positive fiscal impacts on the City of Dublin. Like the Project, this alternative
includes less housing and more commercial development than Alternative #3. This alternative would
therefore generate more net fiscal surplus in the long term than Alternative #3. It would require,
however, implementation of extensive infrastructure improvements such as those indicated for the
Project.
4-14
~
~
-
o
(.
. '
I
,
Ef
~
.1
~
I
!
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I