HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.3 General Plan EIR (2)
~.~
."
~!.. MÌ!
~~,~
\.
~.
.
-
., .
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 11, 1985
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
A - Resolution adopting responses to
EIR comments and certifying EIR
B - Resolution adopting findings and
Statement of overriding
considerations regarding
significant environmental effects.
C - Resolution adopting General Plan
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS
1 - Responses to Comments, Draft EIR
2 - Responses to Comments, Supplement
to EIR
3 - Pleasanton Housing Authority
comments on General Plan
RECOMMENDATION,~cj()
\
1 - Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation
~
2 - Take testimony from public
3 - Question Staff and public
4 - Close public hearing and deliberate
5 - Set number or percentage of jobs in
additional policy
6 - Adopt resolution adopting responses
to EIR comments and certifying EIR
7 - Adopt resolution adopting findings
and statement of overriding
considerations
8 - Adopt resolution adopting General
Plan
)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Undetermined
DESCRIPTION:
I. BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, the City of Dublin has held numerous and
extensive meetings to review, discuss, and consider the Dublin
General Plan. The process has involved the following:
- March 14, 1983
Blayney-Dyett hired as General Plan
consultants
-------------------------------------------------------~------
ITEM NO. 5\3
..
~
, ,
,~
.
.
"'
- June 15, 1983
Joint Planning Commission meeting
regarding detailed work program
- July 12, 1983
Citizen workshop
- July 18, 1983
Planning Commission Meeting regarding
Planning Issues
- July 25, 1983
City Council Meeting regarding
Planning Issues
- September 15, 1983
Planning Commission Meeting regarding
Planning Options
- October 20, 1983
City Council Meeting regarding
Planning Options
- November 29, 1983
Planning Commission Meeting regarding
Alternative Sketch Plans
- December 6, 1983
City Council Meeting regarding
Alternative Sketch Plans
- March 5, 13 and
19, 1984
Planning Commission Meeting regarding
Draft General Plan and EIR
- April 5, 9 and
May 15, 1984
City Council Meeting regarding Draft
General Plan and EIR, Primary Planning
Area
- June 14 and 20, 1984 Field trips to extended planning area
- July 17 and 31, 1984 City Council Meeting regarding Draft
General Plan and EIR, Extended Planning
Area
- September 10,1984
City Council Meeting regarding Revised
Draft General Plan and EIR
- December 21,1984
Supplement to EIR prepared
- January 1985
Final Draft General Plan prepared
II. ISSUES
At City Council direction, the Staff prepared and release for
review and comment the Supplement to the EIR (SEIR) and the Final
Draft General Plan. During the comment period on the SEIR the
Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Inc." submitted comments on
the SEIR and Final Draft General Plan.) The Pleasanton Housing
Authority submitted comments related to only the Final Draft
General Plan.
Jobs/housing Relationship:
State law (Government Code Section 65913.1) provides that, in
exercising its authority to zone for land uses, a city shall
designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use
with appropriate standards, in relation to zoning for
nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the
general plan to meet housing needs as identified in the general
plan.
To address the jobs/housing relationship concerns raised by the
Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Staff suggests that the City
Council consider adding the following implementing policy under
Section 2.3.4 Business Parks: ~
"D. Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more
than (number, %) of the planned jobs in the Extended Planning
Area, one or more Specific Area Plans shall be developed to
-2-
.!
.
.....
.
.
.
i
designate sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship
to total jobs and to demonstrate how needed municipal services
will be provided."
The number or percentage of jobs included in the above policy
depends on what is determined to be a reasonable relationship
between jobs and housing. State law does not specify a numerical
ratio for housing in relation to jobs. In the Silicon Valley
area of Santa Clara County, the jobs/housing ratio is estimated
at 1.30 : 1.0 for 1975 and projected to be 1.70 : 1.0 in 1990.
In the City of Palo Alto, the estimate for 1980 is 2.10 : 1.0 and
projected to be 2.15 : 1.0 in 1990.
If the above policy is set at 6,000 (15%) of the planned jobs in
the Extended Planning Area, approximately 200 acres of Business
Park development and a jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.26
1.0 could be approved prior to the requirement for the Specific
Area Plan. After that point, in order to create more jobs, the
Specific Area Plan would be required to designate land for
housing that would maintain a reasonable relationship to the
total number of jobs in the City.
If the policy is set at 9,000 (22%) of the planned jobs,
approximately 300 acres of Business Park development and a
jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.52 : 1.0 could be approved
prior to the Specific Area Plan.
Similarly, if the policy is set at 12,000 (29%) of the planned
jobs, approximately 400 acres of Business Park development and
jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.78 : 1.0 could be approved
prior to the Specific Area Plan.
If such a policy is acceptable to the City Council, the City
Council should determine what number or percentage to use, then
adopt the policy as part of the General Plan and as part of the
responses to comments on the Supplement to the EIR.
Southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road:
The Pleasanton Housing Authority recommended that the 4 acre site
located at the southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and
Dougherty Road be developed through a tax exempt mortgage revenue
bond with 20% to 25% of the units to be used for lower income
housing.
The revised draft General Plan, page 9, Site Number 8, designates
the Site for Medium-High Density residential, retail/office, or
mixed uses. The designation does not require use of mortgage
revenue bonds nor that any of the units be set aside for lower
income housing.
Staff finds that the designation in the revised draft General
Plan, in/conjunction with the other applicable policies, is
appropriate for the site.
III RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
I - Set the number or percentage of jobs in the additional
implementing policy
2 - Adopt the resolution adopting responses to EIR comments
and certifying the EIR
3 - Adopt the resolution adopting findings and a statement of
overriding considerations regarding significant
environmental effects
4 -
AdoPt~he resolution adopting the Dublin General Plan
-3-
."
.
.
.
.
<
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT¥ OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has prepared a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development
of the City, to be known as the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental
regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
including a Supplement, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR consists of the Draft EIR,
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, the Supplement to the EIR,
and Responses to Comments on the Supplement to the EIR; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council at
9, May 15, July 17,
1985
the final EIR was reviewed and considered by
duly noticed public hearings on April 5, April
July 31, September 10, 1984 and February II,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council adopts the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and the
Responses to Comments on the Supplement to the EIR; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council certifies
that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this lIth day of
February, 1985.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
)
City Clerk
/
EXHIBIT
A
DP 83-20
..
.
.
I
,
<
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has prepared a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development
of the City, to be known as the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental
regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
~HEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
including a Supplement, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified that the final
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR indicates four significant
environmental impacts related to the following subjects:
I. Increased traffic
2. Degradation of air quality
3. Loss of agricultural and grazing land
4. Loss of open space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on
the General Plan and EIR on February II, 1985; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given
in all respects as required by law
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council hereby adopts the following findings and statement of
overriding considerations regarding significant environmental
effects of the Dublin General Plan:
I. Increased traffic: unacceptable levels of service
are antcipated on 1-580, 1-680, Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road, and Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
/
Findings: The traffic impacts on 1-580 and 1-680
are under CalTrans jurisdiction and beyond control
of the City. The traffic impacts on Dublin
Boulevard are anticipated even after feasible
improvements are made by the City.
2. Degradation of air quality: Carbon monoxide
standards may be violated at times during the year.
Findings: Air quality standards are set by the
Federal Government and the State of California.
The Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District,
California Air Resources Board, and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission work to maintain and
improve air quality. The City does not have a
major role in air quality regulation.
/
rvtlltHT
~ .~ '1 ..,'11 ~
" ','. \ J' ~
óÂhI.._ .,i ,,;::;:¡;;¡'; .:i A
..-"f"ì
f")
-.-
DP 83-20
,
.
.
1
<
3. Loss of agricultural and grazing land: Urban
development will result in unavoidable adverse impacts
on adjoining agricultural operations and discontinuation
of agricultural and grazing land.
Findings: Urbanization as proposed in the General
Plan makes mitigation infeasible. Elimination of
business park and residential development has been
rejected because the area is as well suited to the
proposed use as other sites on which development has
been proposed or commenced.
4. Loss of open space: Urban development will
significantly affect the visual quality of the open
space.
Findings: Urbanization as proposed in the General
Plan makes mitigative infeasible. Elimination of
business park and residential development has been
rejected because the area is as well suited to the
proposed use as other sites on which development
has been proposed or commenced.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
, 1985.
th day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DP 83-20
,
.
.
<
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning
and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the City Council of
the City of Dublin to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general
plan for the physical development of the City, to be known as the
Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin
on March 5, 13 and 19, 1984, held duly noticed public hearings on
and approved the Dublin General Plan, and recommended adoption of
the Dublin General Plan by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold duly noticed public
hearings on the Dublin General Plan on April Sand 9, May IS, July
17 and 31, and September 10, 1984, and on February II, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the
City's best interest, and the public's health, safety, and
welfare, to approve and adopt the City of Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS,
certified to be in
Quality Act; and
an EIR for the Dublin General Plan was
compliance with the California Environmental
WHEREAS, Findings and a Statement of Overriding
considerations were made regarding significant environmental
effects of the Dublin General Plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby adopt the Dublin General Plan
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the Dublin General
Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any
other substantive changes.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of
February, 1985.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
I
,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT
(-;
\.-....
/'
(
DP 83-20
-' r'
( (
',.!. . .
,
Responses to Comments
Draft EnvironmentBl Impact Report
."
..
Dublin General Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for
City of Dublin
;. .-:. ", ...;"!':,..
".' .'
.
'.
.... ~..
-
"
. -'" .
... . . - .'- ~ . .
'.. - "". ~.'. "
:". ...'
~'. '.~ .:.~:~.-:':;>:::'"
By .' ..
Blayney-Dyett, Urban and RegioI1Bl p:Lanners
I
/
March 30, 1984
.-
A11ACHMfHT-
.'
,.
)
./
¡
¡
~'-"t
~
.,.
.'
.,-
....-. .
"""..:_:>:, ., ..:
';.':":' .,
.....
. .-, ."
}k?·> ,
, ,-
,
(
.
(
.
Comments ReceiveD on Dublin DEIR
Memorandum from Mara Melandry, District CEQA Coordinator, State Department of
Transportation, Environmental Analysis Branch
Letter from Milton Feldstein, Air Pollution Control Officer, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ,.', : .
',' .. '," -.. ..
.....
"
,'.., .
Letter from Jeff Georgevich, Environnmental Review Officer, Metropolitan Transpor-
tation Commission
Letter from Chief Philip Phillips, Dublih San Ramon Services District, Fire Depart-
ment
Letter from Bradley J. Inman, Vice President, Bay Area Council
.. '
Letter from Mun J. Mar, General Manager, Alameda COW1ty flood Control a.nd Water
Conservation District, Zone 7
Additions and corrections to the General Plan a.nd EIR text are underlined in tllis
document.
.~ ':.
. - ..
-' ':"'.;. ~-: ," ...
-
-
....
'.. ..,
, .
" ,
. _:~ :;/~_~:'~ ~~~;:~~~~:~'.~~ .:..~c~ ~.;~:<.
" '" -.~ ..:~c F ~ - .' .
. ,
'. ','.
'.'
/
I
-
"
-1-
..stote"': . ~'::.oljfornja
~ .'.
J
c
.
(.
OM e'm 0 ran dum
To
Terry Roberts, Manager
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
c.m, March 2, 1984
F;I, , Ala-680-21,O
Ala-580-20. 7/21.4
SCH #8401 1002
AL680011
From , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TION - 4
Environmental Analysis Br.
~j <:~ -:; ~:;'~"Œ:·_: ..
:ii Subi«d,;,;;DEIR'
~f':' .,_.<.,.:;.~'..i.'.:;:.: Vol. . ,
vol. 2
"
, ~:;.:~-~....~
, .
";.
'f::.;..-·
~.~~. ~ :
, .
Dublin General plan ( 2 Volumes)
plan policies ~ ,
Technical supplement DEIR
,
. ,._,-
caltrans has revie~ed the above-referenced documents and
forwards the following comments:
1. Regarding Volume 1, page 17, Item 5.1 Introduction:
Incremental traffic demands on 1-580 and 1-680 and
several of their interchanges will be caused by develop-
ments in cowmunities adjoining Dublin anè àeveloprnents
in Dublin itself.. Except for a reference to the re-
financing of certain improvements to Dougherty Roaå
(unèe:- 5.1..E.., page 18), no mention of cost sharing for
other potentially nee¿ed traffic mitigation ~e2sures
was found.
This introductory paragraph also states that "the free-
way to freeway interchange will be rebuilt." A project,
to rebuild the 1-580/1-680 interchange is not in Caltrans"
January 1984 Status of projects, nor in the 1983 State
Transportation Improvement plan (STIP).
.-.-.'
2,,"Regarding Volume ',1, ·1983 and 2005,Daily;projected
.Traffic Volumes,· following page 1: '. .- ::õ;_~::·_,,: ,
" '
,
.-- ,'.
:''':::::The' map in th is' ,s ec tion :'sho....s tr aff i Co. ';olume ,increments
:','on ','the '·localá'rterial' net....ork, the lane requirem'ents .',
'needed J-o mitigate the.1r impacts, and p~opo.sëd new 0; ,
changed'. ramp configurations (e.g. on 1-680 at Alcosta-
Boulevard interchange, north of Dublin Boulevard, and
at the 1-580 interchange). It does not show the projected
traffic demand volumes that these proposed facili~es
would mitigate. Also, no discussion of the financi.n·g·:-::~,.--
mechanisms for such improvements is incluòed.. : ......
LJ ~:~-;~:¥~~~~g';2~'!
_"4_ _, ..
~ L::.:i·· ;.t...-
2
"
J', \..
('
.
(
.
,
r
MS. Roberts
page 2
Mar. 2, 1984
3. Regarding Volume 2, paragraph 2.4.3. ("Free\lay
Capacity") :
,.
This volume refers to traffic projections made by TJKM
in the "Tri-Valley Transportation Study.~ Although we
,havereviewed the traffic data'in that ,document to:,,"
limited, extent,"'Caltransrelies on the'Lead Agency 'to ,-
have prepared ánd to utilize a professionally'responsible
study. We have generally assumed that this data is
reasonably correct, but this assumptionshouid'not be
construed as our approval of the data.
i;'~;'::,·,
..'
.~:
~,
.," -
. ....
"--,".
.-
-
4. Caltrans will not be financially responsible for
project-related mitigation measures.
5. Work in the State highway right-of-way will require
an encroachment permit and Caltrans' will be a reSDon-
sible agency.
Aèàitional cornmen~z en
related issues will be
traffic-related anè drain2ge-
forthcoming.
We look forward to reviewing the FEIR.
to: '
Please send it
,Mara Melandry
District CEOA Coordinator
Caltrans District 4
P.O. Box 7310
'San Francisco, CA 94120
:f~}~:i: pIe :s è ~~ ;i::~'i~~: ~,~.; ~'~;~~·i'~:'·~ ;;·;,~,:,~\:,·,:;~~~;;'~;~~;r~:~:~~;i~,;;~:;':"~ ,~
'}' '," any gues ti ons ,r eg ard ing thes e ',comments. .,";;.....~',:.:'::..:>";". ". '...
,~!'j ;'>~~~~~!::\"'~';i'!:f;¿~i~~~f'!;{~;~'"
MARA MELANDRY ~·"LJ
District CEQA coordinator
..
..
TCS:ysp
c~'
F.D.
RHJ,
Husum (DOT:?) ,
CLS, FC'!, MM.
RKD,
1'CS,
Chron, File.
,-
3
:
, '
,"
(
.
-
J
The Departm ent would like to see included in the EIR discussion of cost sharing for
traffic mitigation measures, projected freeway traffic volumes, and financing mecha-
nisms for related improvements. The Department notes that while the DEIR suggests
that Caltrans has pla:ns to rebuild the 1-5801I-680 interchange, this is not in fact the
case. The Department makes clear that it does not approve traffic projections made
. by TJKM, though it generally assumes them to be "reasonably correct," and notes that
'r~\/'; !E5H:;: :~~~~7'~'jY;:~'~O";b"fO' P:::'1:;~:~~,;f:~~~:IO' m~~~
Summary of comments from Mara Melandry, District CEQA Coordinator, State
Department of TransP<><'tation, EnvironmenW Analysis Branch
... -
.1
1
"
i;
"
,~
I'
!
..
" '
'Cost sharing' for traffic mitigation measures- The following is add~d at the conclusion
'of the Traffic Mitigation section on page 11 of the DEIR:",:>{,:~<,"
The portion of traffic miti ation measure costs that must be Iocall financed
should be shared b Dublin and ro 'ects that will have si ificant impacts on
Dublin traffic. These include Hacienda Business Park and Bishop Ranch Business
Park. "
-
:¡
.", ','
._.IJ
Rebuilding of freeway-to--freeway interchange.. Text of the final General Plan is
changed to read:
, '
i
I
i
I
!
i
I
\
the freeway to freeway interchange will need to be rebuilt
, Freeway traffic demand volumes. The General Plan is not required to project freeway
traffic volumes or to discuss freeway financing mechanisms.
"
Reliability of traffic projections.. Comment noted.
, Financial responsibility foc project"1:"e1B.t~ mitiiation measures.' Comment noted.
h ~_
Requirements for encroachment permits. Comment noted.
....
!
,-
" ,
..
" '
,-
.:""
. '.,
, ,-
" '
.'. ...
'.' '. . ~. - ;. . ,:... '.
. ::,":; . ..,:. ;"~. ,..... -'; ,;" ..; .- _.' . :.,
.....,. '::..
.' ", ~
....
, ,
, ,
.....
"
. ,
. .
"." .-
. . . ',-
....; ".
,
.; . '.: ~ ..... .
,
,
-4-
,,' .
,M.AMEOA COUNn'
Joseph P. Bon
Fted F. Cooper
L N. MJud9~" l.andb
ICh"¡fp~rson)
" F..n'H,a<;¡awa Laurence L. Tong
CONTAA COSTA COUNTY Planning Director
.. 'ThQ"'", J, Oo«o..n City of Dub 1 i n
... (Secret~ry)
,;\ SunM Wtloht McPu' .';', . P.O. Box 2340. ,', '
ë?':iA~;~ch~N;;' >0.:'};: Dub 1 i n,' CA --:94568'
:';\~,:, AI Ar2.mtu,,!ru :: "':'.-..~ ,,' ..:, .... ....-:.,::.,: ,.'.
:..~:,' NAPACOUN'TY ":'.' Dear Mr. Tong:
:'.~'_~., Harold L MoskowHe ,':'
u-:-. '. '." .,
J
.
,,'
(- (
. .
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT-
March 1, 1984
"
" '.,
.,
, '
-. . : '-:'.~..\ .::~ -.::.:~.;.._~.~.:/:';.;~ ..::::'\:":~~ ....~. ".:.: .: :.
.... :._, .'
. .
. :~
.SAN FRANCISCO COUN~, ....,: " . ~
.: ," , HaHyG.BtlU"'" ,: We have received COpleS of thëCity of Dublin General Plan
.' Ca,o'Au,ns;¡ver the Technical Supplement and Draft Environmental Impact Report.
. SAN MATEO COUNTY
.: . Gus J. Nicolopulo:s
..:; . ~ Jacqueline Speief
. SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Rod Qifidon .
(Vice Cröair1Jer:sonl
R.aJan P. Doec:scn. Sf.
RoDert.3 H. Hugh.a.n .
Susanne Wilson
SOLANO COUNrt
Jonn F. Cunningham
SONOMA COUNrt
t-ieren B. Rude-e
and
We believe that the City of Dublin and its consultants should be
congratulated for including air 'quality in the Conservation
Element/Environmental Resources Management Section. The action seems
particularly appropriate for a newly incorporated city in an area that
is sensitive to ~~ceedance of air quality standards.
The Technical supplement and the DEIR rightly point out that it
is difficult for anyone city to control air pollution problems,
especially when they--emanate principally from motor vehicle traffic.
Still there are measures that can be taken to assure that the local
contribution to pollution is minimized. Locally initiated transporta-
tion system management measures, along with continuing local pressure to
implement regional transportation improvements,:would see~ critical to
Dublin, given its location at the crossroads of major corridors in a
rapidly developing subregion. "c: ,,:.,,:
" ..,..."
.....
, ,
In fact, ,the threat of exceeding carbon monoxide standards is not
::. '. , . ,:. ' adequately handled in the documents. ',Our projections, based Oil Caltrans
'[3::;":"> ,:~,-:,,,~,,.~,.; -::' '::;monitoring 'data; indicate 'that carbon'monoxide'background .levels are,
~,.:.:',;'" "':" :",,,;:: and wi1lremain, 'relatively highnear"the';intersèctionof ,1-580 and
3:~> >: ',: '. " ' ,':,..,'~.I-680. 'f~Eight-hour average background :levels ~hav~ been ',recordèd as high
:''::'':''-',':'.' ';:;.' "':;"":,: as 8 ppm ;in1981at,RampartDrive;:and,are'·projected.to be 6.6 ppm in
:';::F,'.",> :.';.i'::: ,,~:"'~':;' 1987 :,;qhus'·moderaté,.levelsof .locally ~added 'carbõn iOOñcixide could ,
.,..... ..' _ .", ......' . .... " ..;0..
':'/:;':".' '::-:'"::,""', . elevate the~total concentrations"above.the"9 ppìn'standard.:3" '
'Z:,:",~. ," " ; :' :, :,' , ' -', ': , ,,' ,," :',,: ,.' -i,~''';-'';'::7-:~.,~;-'i;,:,,~,;-è~;'::~ ,', ',::,', . " '
'It might be beneficial to Dublin l('a"thóro'ugh seårch were made
of the various transportation projection studies and T1!sultant air
quality estimates for the Tri-Valley area. ]f the threat of carbon
monoxide exceedances is not adequately mitigated by the measures a1ready
in the Dublin Plan, we recorrmend that additional measures be formulated,
These shou ld be aimed at reducing the number of motor vehicle trips and
maintaining smooth traffic flows. As you'are probably aware, traffic
congestion causes excess emissions which contribute to carbon monoxide
and ozone problems. .' R E eEl V ED,
Mt.R 5 iSa~
"
s
0"10 '" , ,<: <:TRFFT .
DUBUN PLANNING
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94109 . 1415) 771,6000
,
'-1-
.
(.
......
Mr. Tong
-2-
March I, 1984
We enclose a draft of a chapter on project and plan mitigation
measures from our Guidelines, now being revised, You and your
consultant may also want to obtain a·draft chapter on local government's
role in transportation impact mitigation, being prepared by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
~.:.~.'. .,.,' If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
~;'~':.;~?<::'."'";':;-è'.::~.:\,,,,, Ir,¡in Mussen,the Senior Planner,'in our office;;,',:::;:",.:;'·,
:tt...y:':?--", ....J",':,''"'-'..' :', " .:." .., ::" .:: ,.- . . ~',' '::':'. '-:,'" ",:,-,:".,,,,,:;:,.:'ë;-:':>":'·<"
",..",. Sincerely,:'.," "
..~.",..._. '" ~
~ii>:,'" ,.,:'~" "".' :~"_: 'Àðð,~
.~-~;'..' ~
.......-:-..... ... .." -, ...
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
"
....
MF:ey
, ,
Enclosure
cc: A. Geraghty, ARB
S. O'Hare, MïC
. .'.-.'.,
"
~_... ..
-.
..
, "
..
. ,
. '.
~~(\':~. .
, ,
~._. '.
.' ,
. ..:',~-:":.'.. _."
~,- :,-','::);",,~~:.~: }?}~~f~~rf~'!t~~~tX~':\:: :'; : ~
.~';:'."'" ; d," "~.~';'" .~;·-:~:r..;:~«~::·"·:·
, ':
. ...
". '.
..
.'
,-.: .-,..._.
-'. " ',.."
".' "
,
1\'
~,", -:' )'
.,'
, "
"
--
b
'-
. .
(
.
.
"
Summary of Comments from Milton Feldstein, Air pollution Control Officer, Bay Area
Air Quali ty M BJI13.ge m en t D istr i ct
The Air Quality Monitoring District's letter states that the threat of exceeding carbon
monoxide standards is not adequately handled in the ElR and draft plan, citing rela-
tively high background levels near the intersection of 1-580 and 1-680, Additionally,
the District advocates'lbcally initiated transportation system management measures
to minimize the local contribution to air pollution.
[~ttf:;·:~". ...' ,::\~~ :~~~~;~,~~.'¡ :::' '::.::, ,\, .,:; :~,': i}:' ~:,~,,:::;:'};}~¡?;~~i=:~~::;: ~<'?;i.~:':";:.
~-:'::':~::" .'''' .": ' '. Potential foc exceedance'of carbon monoxide standards.7,PosSiblè future exceedance
{~/:;,' . " of CO standards within Dublin is discussed on page 6 of the DEIR: The BAAQMD
;:l/, , ." . specüically mentions high background levels near the 1-580/1-680 intersection. CO
~>,::-"". " ", levels near the intersection are not a' function of development in Dublin alone, but
'.' reGect regional traffic demand resulting from jobs and housing growth in the entire
sub-region. '
'.. .
Traffic levels in Dublin might be reduced iÏremallÌing available land were not desig-
nated for medium density housing as indicated in the draft plan. However, there are
two reasons why redesignating availàblè sites on the basis of potential ,carbon mono-
xide problems may not result in less air pollution. The first is that even with fewer
Dublin residents on the city's streets, it is likely that regional demand will absorb all
available trafficway capacity.
-"
... ..'
Secondly, while Will development at medium densities poses the threat of localized
CO problems, it is in many respects preferable to planning for the same number of
housing units in outlying undeveloped areas. Development on available sites in Dublin,
rather than extension of the urbanized area, contributes to jobs/housing balance and
: minimizes commutes, thereby lessening air quality impacts. The Local Government
.;' Guide to Project Mitigation provided by the District includes jobs/housing balance and
compact/infill development as desirable air quality improvement measures related to
, General Plans.. ..' " ' . ' ,
.-. ." '.
.. '
.~ .~. - ;'
"'--., .
, '
_, " Page 10 of the DEm notes that reduction of residential density in the primary plan-
~;;~;'::: ·(;í~~f~ ~::::;":B~~,~ri!~;f:~~~fi8;~~¡i~ffm1~~"
i,~'f,,:::::,,<:>,;:.::Nee<¡ fO!" loCally initiated transPortation system management inéBSûres.:'~The General .
;:,:';:':--¡::::-, : ""Plan depicts a BART station in down'town Dublin;and inclúdci¡pÕlicleÚo"Ïillow mixed .'
:;~:,?:::,:-,',,', ,': ;'use mid-rise development;ïncluding hoÚsing; An the ~downtoYm inteñSüication area.n
,.'. "', .- . . / . . --., - ".."
:'~:::: . . . The Plan also envisions a transit corridor along the SF right-;of-way.'.'A list of com-
mute alternatives, that may be required as project mitigation measures' at the
discretion of the City, is added to the DEIR.
','. .'
.; ....
-7-
"
,
.'.-; .
, .
"
'.
c
.
(
- f..,-. \,.0'. ,-
_ I-\IC ,(t'
"
MTC
r,r¡etropolitan Transportation Commission
March 8, 19S~
W,L: 902-90-01
Com....h~iG"..n
,At.m.d, Co....,!' '
JOse,-' SOAT Mr. Laurence Tong
,",,"c, COLl City of Dub 1 in,
~f;:~:i~:;.;~:~~~~.-Q~;~'cL ::f; ~: ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ri,~:~N:';\'?:;;>~,~: ~:,:::::~ ;;,;{~,}{~~.::::~à\~::;<:,:" ':
__','" -" " ..;,,"" ".. "Dub"n, CA 94568 . ' , - , "
¡;gfIT~~¡~!sd~';,;, M; ~::::'~,D~' ft EIRf"D~,' ,;~ ~'"'n l' P1 '"
Wlu.I.U.l.l C""E'Jt
.;:
$...,,,, ct... Cou"'y ',i
This letter transmits MTC staff comments on the Draft EIR and General
Plän.
;'::: .,.: ::~'~'~:::~~,",~.:!, ,'.
..'
s.." Fr.nci,Co-
CII)' "nd CQu'''"
1) The assumptions used for the traffic forecasts (see page 2-22)
are different from the assumptions in the discussion of the
jobs/housing balance (see page 3-30), as indicated below:
c::=o's"n ..;:....""
C~!~ :t~. l ",::: _ Ç,·.4·
Sa'..^CI c......>!y
Housino Units Jobs Jobs per HousinG Unii
Traffic, Scenario 2A 9ì,000 145,000 1.49
Traffi c, Scenario 28 119,000 242,000 2,03
A8AG Projections '83 90,000 132,200 1.4ì
Planned Jobs 90,000 201,000 2,23
S"" 101.'''"0 Co,,<\I)'
.:~...c; 9':''';;::=
:';:::..!~ Cj=,:::;c·:.a
WIt.:,, ~M J!~.(I~ ".
';::: ;.~~: ·s~"~~m~~';~~~.~::·::~i·:
.:<:···:.WI~r"'UR :.Ü~;~~,·:-::· ;.
The implications of more jobs and less housing than was assumed in
the traffic section in TJKM's,Scenario 2A should be discussed in
',', .....,......, ,!,,;~~ the traffic section, in terms of congestion on freeways and arteri-
,~,(, ..y....~...'.m.... " also Maintaining a jobs/housing balance should be listed as a
;",.::.,~.~lP:<C ~Ol"":;<,'~'-,;:,.."",__,.:'-::means of mitigating ,traffic"cõngestiori.·~i_';"""~<~~:J::': ,'-- ",
0~5;f££~.~::::~~~::':~~~';~>',:~::':i.::· ':,: /:: :(: ; ,~:1:'''2''?;'' 'f f.< :;:~if.¡::'7:~~',f:;;:~ ;<.¡t::;¡:;'7>;:::-':;':,~··, ',; , ,
,1:'i,',':".' 7.,., ,>,',~'.';:;..,..,: ;,,~-,'::':'2)The dl SCUSSl on. of:- the pr.oposed BART,,~xtenslonto ,Dubhn, on page
,h\~ ~'~l/:':','l,l~,,~~<;::·\'-;i:;",:;'.',.~;¿2_23, "does ',not,'indi ca te:a ,time ,frame ,for ;;mplementingBART service;
'~tk;'..:,~¡,"··;:;·:;:~~þ!:~:,~~;-~",:· :':,':5:,j':but;:the 'anålysis' of :traffic:'èon'geStiöñ'~åssumës' that by 2005, 5::
~;:,~i,P~:;:,';.':·;~:~':Xf~}:~;:::','::'''':X~:ÌJf peäk period trips 'will 'use B~RT':-"~.In-·:Yiewof 'competition within
:::r:~""~":;~c~::';,i:':~c,¡\':;:¿: ..,:, ,::, the Bay Area .for ,rail.funds,and the shortage 'of rail funds at the
:,"""--' ,....",:,.'c,· - ," state and national levels, the assumption that BART will be provid-
u,s,o..o,.IT".,..,..".. ing rail service to Dublin by 2005 may be optimistic. In order to
pCSõ.<' ~"". present a "worst case analysis,' the EIR should indicate the effect
'"'0''''''''' of not having a BART extension on local and regional roads,
E~.c"'II"'" O","CIQr
0",,"1'Y [...c........ ;JlfCCloOt
~
3) The Draft EIR lists BART, local bus, and the SP Transportation Cor-
ridor as mitigation measures, but indicates that those measures are
not "wi thi n the independent di scretion of the City of Dubl in': (see
page 1 of the DEIR). This discussion of mitigations on pages 1 and
10 should be expanded to ,include the following: '
RECEIVED
t,.:.........!:::.:::; :':'-'.'~.
'/."LI:''''·;:..-:;.'.
(3
,
U.:.R ~ í984
~ , ,
,.._'~r_._~_ f'\A"9"''' 'A.'" ..."'" ..._..._
.... ~'age 2: Letter from Ge(i'_ich to Tong, Draft EIR for {(.n... -
o ïnclude Commute Alternatives, which are largely controlled by local cities. The
traffic analysis assumes a 10% diversion of trips to carpools, which is unlikely
to occur unless Dublin and other Tri-Valley communities encourage it, The at-
tached chart, entitled "Suggested Commute Alternatives Program for New Development
as a Function of Cumulative Employment," offers a variety of measures that could
be mandated by the City through its development review process, The City may wish
to include the chart in the EIR and the General Plan.
o provide local funding for transit. Due to the shortage of funds for rail exten-
sions and transit operating subsidies, all levels of government [federal, state,
" and regional] are giving high priority to transit projects that entail local com-
~',,:<, ,,'." mitment of more than the required minimum level of funding. Dublin should evalu-
;~~~i.';-'-~::'>;,,';:'::ate the use 'of benefit assessment districts aroùhd BART and LRT stations, develop-
?;;~',;!;:':yt~:.inent feesearmårked for transit,a'nd other:loCal,;'rëvenue'generating mechanisms as
~",,>:,""~"means of providing local funds for transit projects. 'Provision of such funding
;:;»:i';:,',<>, is within the "independent discretion" of the City, and would sianificantly im-
::;:'}<":;'-:::>\<,c,'prove'the likelihood of transit beingprovided::,::':~",--'::';;::~'::': '~'" '
?.'.' ",' <,_:.....,., '",' .,..:". ," ..." .:.__, :.' ..", _",::,..' .,...' ...,:e,
HTC appreciates the opportunity to revi ew the Draft EIR, and looks fortlard to receiv-
ing a copy of the Final EIR.
, ,
.~ -,
...;' ,
,,' .
Very truly yours,
:NlLÞ~
Jeff Georgevich;
Environmental Review Officer
-,
, '
.,.'
..
JG:r
cc: A8AG Clearinahouse
AU.,.. -
'.~ .'.
-....'. ,"
..
:~: ..:""
..
, .
..
,
..
: ~ .:-'
;.-' ':.~~.. ~.~~~
",",' .
.-.' .- ".. .,'
......:;.;-.. 7":_".:··~.:-~·~'.;·
. .' ".-
, '
, , .
?~;*~?J;~~{~E~i;!Æl~f~i~f\::'::<~:'r:;,i:' ~~':; :'-'
-
.' . ..'
, '
,
.
,"
,-
.'
<1'
;
"
..
. ,
.
.
.
"
Summary of Comments from Jeff Georgevich, Environmental Review Offi~r, Metro-
politan Transportntion Commission
MTC questions inconsistencies in the assumptions used for traffic forecasts and for
discussion of jobs/housing b8.1ance, noting that the implications of more jobs and less
housing than assumed in TJKM's Scenario 2A should be discussed in the traffic
section, MTC would also like to see maintenance of a jobs/housing balance listed as a
,means of mitigating traffic congestion.
MTC 8.lso requests a "worst case an8.1ysis" relative to transit which would discuss the
, effect of not having a BART extension in the valley, and an expansion of traffic
;_:::',.': ,':,':"'" mitigation measures to include Commute Alternatives, largely at the discretion of '
":,:;?':f<::~:}-'~::': 10c8.1 Cities.' 'Another requested mitigation measure is the provision 'of local funds for
T:i':'-"",'·:"transit.': , .'.., " ,.', ,'...., '"",.
o'
- .0 p.
~~1f:::<:,'_::,'~;·'õ<:~~ to 'C'~';;;;~~t:::·~. ",,;'., ....
,"
4" ." .-.
,·',;,;,'::~X:~:'::~;~L,:::i/;·::~·,;;:;,': .
,
Traffic focec.ast assumptions- Page 2-22 of the Technical Supplement notes that
TJKM's Scenario 2B would result in LOS F 8.l0ng mos,t segments of both 1-580 and 1-
, , 680. The conclusion drawn in the text, that the freeway system will accommodate
" :: demand only if some current develoment proposals are not realized, if massive free-
way improvements are built, or if major changes in traverhabits occur, applies to the
potenti8.1 for a greater jobs/housing imbalance than that envisioned by TJKM as well
as to Scenario 2B. The DEIR sta tes on page 9 that planned development will result in
minimally acceptable or unacceptable service levels on 1-580 and 1-680, '
The effective mitigation measures would be major expansion and reconstruction
, , . of transportation facilities, including freeways, or substantial reduction in plan-
, " :',:,:; ned business park and residenti8.1 development in the Tri-Yalley resulting in .
';':jobs/housing b8.1ance. 'The first mitigation is infeasible and the second is beyond
, ' " ,:' the control of the City of Dublin 8.lthough Dublin's development policies will
,~~', :,' " .. _ " /" "affect the amount of imbalance. , " . .' '_ u', _,,'~ '>~" '.~:- i;".-','· ~o',,; . C'.:: - . ,
~tt).?::f:'~tj~;~~~~?;¿}~¡Si:':~;~ik-l:: (~::;?TY;::i~~:;'':''::' ;:~/y~'t~:}NjfiZ:~1~}:':~~~~bJti~~ ,~:::.::,:':~\. " ", ,
~);~i;<;;'::::: :::~~::\iÚ~t'~f~t'~~ ·a':BAiÌT'ert~~on. The~'~Üi~~~ys~'~it~dii;'Íh~ Te~hnicai
i~:::-~::/;-",L;:};?::Supplement arid DElR assume that by 2005, 5% of pèak 'period trips will be on BART. ,;..
. ' '" ... p-.. 'Õ . '-' _. . :,. .-. .,' ..' - ,-.. ....~... . .
;::":,,,:-,:;'!?"'~-:'-;Ç:'lf BART is not constructed, improved BART feeder bus service is likely to result in a ;, '
.!It' .......,; ...., ~ . -- :..~ .'. ..- . ."' . . ~..' '. - -.' .......... -
Ÿ':'7.'" ":":':'.;" comparable diversion to transit. No "worst case analySJs".1S consIdered necessary.
:i.::::"":: : '\_',':; :..' "., ":",,: " , : __ ", :',,{,' :: :,·.C ':, :':;:j:,'j,:'-'.:,':,,:,~~;,,~'i;:::.,:.;, '! ',":,," ,
.',., , Inclusion of Commute Alternatives as mitigation The Commute Alternatives chart
provided by MTC is reprinted on the previous page. The following sentence is added to
the second paragraph of the Traffic Mitigation section on page 11 of the DE1R:
Jobs(housing baJ1mce as a mitigation measure. The fin8.1 paragraph of the Traffic
Mitigation section of the ErR, page 11, is amended to read as follows (new text under-
lined): '
,
"!,",,-,
," .....
.....
"
,A t its discretion, the City mav require Dublin emplovers to provide commute
alternatives as a mitigation measure.
"
~
Provision of local funds foc transit. The scope of the General Plan does not include
evaluation of the relative merits of competing demands for city funds.
. [0- ø
,
0_- .--_.~_.~.... ~---_.-
., ~~, . ~ ...
--,--'-~ .-..
--- .#- - --.--.--'--" ...- -. .-... ..-.
.~ .
At .
DUBLIN SAJ~ RAMON SERVICES-;JISTRICT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
.' .
HEA~QUARTERS STATION
9399 Fircre3t l!lne
Sl\n Ramon. C!lJiforniø
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94566
T c:l~hon1!:
81~2333
-'
Febru3ry 21, 1984
,.
'. ,", "
~~:~1~~·~;j1f~}:':':\:';:::",;:,~,?>,
. -. .',' ~ . '.
. :.' .-.. .. . ..' ". .:.. '~ - ...-' '. '.
~::~Nif~ ;:h~~/';"{":'::-::';: ,:,,'
. ..... :....;.~. "..~"'.~- ~.:,.:: ....--::
'-'~ ',::::}.;:';,..;...: .....-'; ;..~.;.....',,~:.~. ='. -
ÞIr'."~L3uTenëe 'i.::'T0l1g;- Direct.or'
Cit.y Planning Depart.ment.
Cit.y of Dublin ,:> : ,'-
P.' 0.: Box 2340 "'.-'-;',:' "
Dublin,'CA 94568
.:'::::5':;:::1~t~1:f!W/~::\~'~,: '
.,'.
, ,
. ~'... .
'..,. .' ~ ,"
:", ':;.~-<:.~:~~~:~~~~~~::.:~ :;~; ,
..' .',' -. .....-
, '
Dear Mr, 'Tong:
, '
Toe Dublin San Ramon Services Dist.rict. Fir,,' Deparc.ent. has
reviewed Volumes 1 and 2 of the City of Dublin General Plan
as request.ed in your let.t:er of February 10, 1984', We have
found these t.wo document.s 'to be quite cOUIDlete and "e feel
they wiÙ be of great. value in assisdng ~s in 'the develoD-
ment of overall fire prot:ec~ion plans and programs for 'th~
Ci ty of Dublin,
We have found a few minor correct.ions "hich should be included
in t.he final docJIDentS: on page 31, Volume 1, 'the second line
under Sect.ion 8.2,1, should be correct.ed t.o "a sworn s'taff of
38 and responding to 1250 calls per year"; in Volume 2, page
4-25, Sect.ion 4.2.12, Fire Prot.ection, the second line should
show 38; the second paragraph,' line 2, the ':improvement: fee is
" " $600 per dwelling unit. as of yebruary 7,'1984~:;',_;;,'". ,
\{¥+:;Ú~;~'i~',?L"( '7P~:;: We ~ou~d l~ke -to be ..kePt~br~'a~t."pf :;r~~;i~ì{~ª~d\hè:,a~optfon
':fo;",;,:,~".:"",~,"."'>':',':": of the General Plan ,and WJ.ll;' at. any.tJ.me;-'be',avaJ.1able to ans-
-}~. ~ '- -.'.' . -" .. .' ... #'.. . .
''i,;; ';';',::: :',--:";' " ;",c; ,,,,' , wer' questions' and/or provide additional ;infomätion you may, ."
.. .-.
--
Phj,l4' A. Phillips/"
Fire Chief
..
,
)
. '.~';.
- ,
"
,-
~
PAP: cb
11
RECEIVElJ
FEE 2 ¿ í984
"
:-.
DUBLIN PlANN:/ojG
.
~
ee
Summary of letter from Chief Philip Phillips, Dublin San Ramon Services District,
Fire Department
Chief Phillips points out three corrections to the General Plan and Technical Supple-
ment, relating to the size of the fire department staff, number of calls received by
the department, and improvement fees per dwelling unit.
Responses to Comments
-~,
:" CorreCtions to Volume 1. Page 31 is corrected so tha~, the .first sentence of section
8.2.1 reads: .. " '~:' '-'c. '
, '
The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides urban fire protection with a
sworn staff of 38 responding to 1.250 calls per yeBI from two stations. '
. . - ---. . .
Corredions to Volume 2. Page 4-25 is corrected so that the first sentence of section
4,2.12 re?,ds:
The Dublih San Ramon Services District provides nre protection with a sworn
staff of ~ plus 12 volunteers.
On the sam e page, the second paragTa[Jh of section 4.2.12 is corrected to read:
The present city is adequately protected with current staff and equipment, end an
imDrovement fee of $600 per dwelling unit or per 2,000 squBIe feet of commercial
flo~r area is collected and set aside for equipment repl"acernent.
"
'." .
",
.,",. -..
. . ~.
¡ :':':::". ",' ,
. ..".":
I ;~~>':_:':., ",-;':',::, .:;,"
. ".:",: ....(~ ...
¡ ~):--:':,:: .-"
.. - ..-.. ~ - .
".
~- .~
..
,-
.... ....
.'. ".
.' .' . "- ~ .
.
"
::; 7
"Y
" ..' ..... ....... -.
',:' . :"\~,\~/ :·/;~t;!(:'y~~,: \-
)
, ,
. ,"
..
'"'
~
,
lJ.- r
('
. '
.~
(.
(( JEAY:
.
AIRIEA:
CCOUNCCllIL
February 21, 1984
s:. r. c r., \' C'" r.
¡ L i..: ;2 :.; ._
~ ," , .
:::",;y¡;EY·DYEr;
~x. william Tenery
Chair, Planning Commission
City of Dublin
P. O. Box 2340
." ;,'" '" Dublin, California 94568 .'"
:~~~~}!-:·~;~:·~:_~.>:~:i~f.~:·:7·f\:::·.;i.·/:·.:·.,-·j..·'/;:~'.~:':..-:-'../ ,,:. '. '.' .. ~ ~.....'.:-:.~
:::;,' ','." , Dear' Chairman' Tenery and Me!I1bers of the Planning commission:
Thè'-Bay Area 'Council represents 300 major businesses, some ,of which are relocating
. 'to' the .Tri-Valley: ' , The number-one issue facing our'1I\embers is the shortage of .
affordable housing _ We appreciate having this opportunity to corn:nent on t.'le Dublin
Draft General Plan and Draft Environm"-'1tal Impact Report (DEIR). ,In our view, t.'le
draft plan and DEIR represent thoughtful analysis but do not adequately address
the City's need for housing.
.'
':. .
-.."....
f'"
".
. ,
. Ouz organization e..'"1courages local public action to iru:¡-ease the sU"colv of housing
in the region. We are particularly concerned by the situation in t.1:le Tri-Valley
where economic gro\ooo"tÌl is outpacing planned residential development. The ez:ploYI!lent
9=o..........~"1. projected i.~ the Dublin Draft. Ge!1e~aJ. Plan 1oriJ..l e..,,<acerbate the shor-...age of
housing within t..'1e City unless it is accompanied by appropriate resi¿ential
develop¡nent.
Given this situation, Dublin officials have a responsibility to ta-'lte advantage of
all oppor.:unities for housing. Land supply const..-aints within cur:::ent City bound-
aries necessitate looking to'lands which are li.'<.ely to become part of the City in
the future, specifically those in the extended planning area. Our detailed recc¡:¡;-
xné,tid.inons for this area are attached. '
, .
..
'. .4
We urge the Planning con:mission to ,recommend that. the Draft General Plan be re-
vised to reflect the City's commitment to housing by designating lands in .:the
~:':.' ~ :,_,; extend'ed planning area .for, residential 'use. ~-,We further- ;recoimn~è :thå.t' t.1:le . DEIR
.I ... . " . d' . . -.'~' ~
':~:,,::,,"'. be"révlsed ,to 'reflect this'''change. "Thank you for considering- cur':pÒsition_
:::f;t~¿;~0{;;~Et,{~~::;?I~(i:'8-X)~{;:':~:\~\:< - }:,;:,j,~'}Ö'{:~~~f-~~~~:'~t~~~,:'~~?~~~;;ét:)~:
.r,. . '.. ",_""'"'''' ", _ 0'''',' ,...,.,,,. ,.' , ~' 't--"'-, ~- ,'''~''r''-
~~f!Jç~:~~~'~~'~~;~it;:~i;;~;~~~::: .:,,;:. - ') Braaî~;; ~:~:}f.i':~ :',':,,:;~,""
" " Laurence Tong Vice r id"-'1t ," ,
/ ,John Bla e
Thor &y Aru Council.
elab¡¡sh~ In 19~5.
Is. 0 busif'lo@'Sl-'pon~rltd
or'J IInllalÍon !n"'QIYI!:d
In )QJicy an..o/tls and
advoc:K:IJ on rT9ion-~
b,U4!"t such "$ orcortomic
~Iopmc-n" hou:lln'].
'ra~pon.dOft. Inn-II_
ItT'UCtUr~!.InduM.
cn,,",on~nlal qu.nry
.rod~trll n n<J.
'.
ÐŒa.mvE COMt'lnTEE s-_
CHAlRJo<AN PR!5:DC'oT
CQRNEU..C.1oV<IER ÞEID! E. HAAS aORGfl"l.JCO..1.D' R~RD 8. MADOE."I N"IGEJ.DJ_5~
o..Uft'An ~ U\oP brd &. a-O o.._n of!~ Boord o.....,.,....da...e...:-d&ŒO c-.r..n al1Jw &.rd &. ao OC! pp~r;El"T
I<.aowr""..........."'& ~SIr1t"...&~ Sao....wdOi~..,. Ptri-d'lCorporooDOn 8AADl.E"fJ.U't'kA."'I
C"""",,, ""-"""" vi c.><-
JAMES R.. tvI.RVEY FJŒDERIQ(. w. MIELJŒ. JR. \o'1C!~
SAMlj'EL H. ARJotACOsr O"........n. Preodcnl &. CE.O JOHf'II',~ 0..-..-. aI øw ao.rd &. ao COJol.JJt..:1,I(:A1ìC"oS
P,...odrrol&Cro T......-TI.....:.~_ 0--< aD """Goo.... 8RJGI1'T.ESTEl..U'o'G
s.,,"of~NT&SI\ ......,.Ù ""'"' c-,...., PRQ..'fCT ClRLCTOR
UlWRL"'4CE U. HUCSO/"f t"~.3}1TIi Co. o1o-v.£!.S
MYROf'll OU BAJN' P\.o.,tM.~ QiARlLSA. L"'J"NQ1 P.ANtHOMYJUDQfR
Prn.o.m ..CEO Cicrtloer PToducu c-,p....., 0--< aD ~.~ FCU:Y~
Arnl.c.!rc. ..... c..,...- s-........~,....".. Jo\AITH£'.,I,/ STEIt"l.f:
b
:
THE BAY ARE..... CCUNOL INC.
348 'MJRLD TRADE æ....TE.q 'SAN FRAN:1SCO 94111, !4lS) 98r6405
Jobs 4,500b 2,4001>
. ..... . c· c
,''.'. ' ' HOUSJ.I1g ".4,452 .,"_ ,:,:"~,,,....3,700 ,',. ,c',
" '
.. - "..-
. ;.. ~ .... - . .~
.
.
" '
¥i2:\:~'::' :,'"
..'
"." .
.{.~..
.... '. ~
" -
".'-'
"..,"
re
(e BAY
AREA
COUNCIL
February 21, 1984
REC~ATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN EX!DIDED: PLANNING AREA
'..
Bay Area Council recommendations for DublbJ.· s extended planning area
are based on our ~nalysis of projected employment vis-a-vis projected
, housing units as prò:Posedin the Draft 'Genéral Plan:-: :Factors '
~ contrThuting to our conclusions".include: sub-regional trends; tra.ns-
:portation impacts; ]IlDc of housing types (single-family and 1I1ulti~facily);
and housing affordabili ty. ", The following discussion covers technical
analysis of information in'L~e Draft General Plan (D.G.P.), as well
'as practical implications of L~e Draft proposaL ;''hile L"e reccmmenèa-
tions focus on the exte....1.ded planning area, the discussion' necessarily
involves t..'I-¡e prÌlnary planning area in arrivL-¡g at an overall pict'Jre
of the Dublin coaununi ty.
Technical Analvsis of Bav Area Council Prooosal and Draft G¿~eral Pl~
The following table depicts ~~e differences
regarding existing and projected ~~ploym~~t
t.."1.e prìroary and e..",<tenàed planni:1g areas.
in the two propoEals
and housing units L~
BAC
D.G,P.
~Exi$t±nã P~imar;
Jobs
Housing
8,207a
4,428
::6-;OOOa
4,428_
,',
Proiected PrimarY
. .~.
.
'-
-
'.....
Jobs
Housing
36,467
18,708
29,400
'10,028
f
Jobs/Housing
.76
.50
-
,-
\"1 -
"
An-
'c:,A,'
, ,
Lr-:. -
nc;r
...
ce
.
<
. .
Transportation Impacts
.Not only would Dublin's actions under the D.G,P. proposal aggravate
the jobs/housing balance within the city and sub-region, they.",óuld
also produce negative traffic impacts, Although the Draft,Environ-
mental Report does not include residential development on the lands
east of Tassajera Road as an alternative, this land use pattern would
be likely to reduce the negative tra~fic impacts noted in the document.
The pr~ision of housing' near ",;,ployment centers has long been recog-
nized as efficient land use planning. ~ On ,the other hand, ignoring
):::":,, ",....',.'.. this practice ofte;; results'in conside'rable transportation problems,
;;~~:;J<:..,,:'..:: ,>{~,'tinèludingè::ongestiorì ;':long-cOlm1ute times, and air pollution;', The ',' ,
,t;.':,"'", " Silicon Valley is a good example of this situation. These impacts
" will be felt in both the City of Dublin and the.sub-region as a whole.
':~::..),':~'::'
,'.
, ,
. . .'
. . .;. : ~ .
. _ u.
-.' -
". '.
,
.' ..
." .-
". '.
'Land Avail~bility ""
.. ,
If the City of Dublin intends to provide housÍ1>g to meet cur:rent and
future needs of all Dublin residents (D.G.p.,section 6.3), it must
plan for efficient use of land in that ;regard. Only 167 acres of
land suitable for ;residential development remaÍ1> within the city limits.
Thus, the City must look at the opportunity existing beyond its
curr~~t boundaries.
"
r
This opportunity is clearly t.'le lands nor-h of I-SSC, extending east-.;ao:d
to Croak Road; rece.l'1 tly approved by LA.FCO as Dublin I s sphere of ~"1flu~'lce.
~~x of Housing Tyee
The guiding policy n;"ted above (D.G.P. section 6.3) also states ,t.':1at,t.'le
City's goal is to provide housÌ!1g of varied types, sizes, and prices.
Discussion concerning housing type points out that the cur:re...,t JD:ix '
.of housing is 91,\ single-family and 9\ multi-family. .Accounti:ng for
planned housing units, the mix changes 'to 76\ sÍ1>gle-f=ily and 24\
multi-family. ;" , " ". .
. ..": ........,. " ..:".:'" t",,~:..:'--.' _'.. :: ....":' _~.... ~:r_....__.·~~:"~3·~::~~""::~:'·:;::=:::"':;;'~>:".",.r..;~~·:;,,;·i ~,~.:~. ~~:,-,~,::",,>:.~.I._- .~
!::'U::"'>:<?:::"'~ :'::u;'der the'pr·oposed D~G.P.,· the mix :of:houSing t)rpewould bean 'sÍ1>gle-
!,-:-;:'<:": :"~;"::~;. famil:;; '2.::d 19'6 multi-far-..ily. .The 'EAc·propOsaJ. would proàu¿e a JD:ix: ','
VL/,'~"":>' ,,~,,::of '64% single-family'and 36\ multi":fænily. ;¿i'i}'::::"¿,.::.'.:·:·:C}:"C'~~/<'-, . .
f:Ff;ij~~:n?6}:f~~~~~~~~~;t~:~~:~~~~:·~~~~:t~~~î¡j:~~~il-£fg1~'~1~!~~~::;~~l:~0{~':t:~: ':.":.'
!.~}'::,;:':i',~..:",::':". cornmensurate'with family size,' lifestyle/:and ,incöme.:';A ';ariety of',
¡ ',:,-.'ç';';. Ì1ou';'ing types meets the needs of young 'families 'àesiri.r:g·'to purcl:iase
their first home; renters not yet, able or not wanting to purc.'lase
a home; seniors who prefer iess space; working couples 'Wòo like the
low~maintenance of condominium living; and growing and prospe~-ng
families wishing to trade-up,
~ .. :~
; ,'I
, ¡
..'
. .
)
.,
" ~
-¡a
lC;
'.
.
-'. ',--
~(~~~. ~~':~:'
:?-:;. ",
, "
....
~......~. '.
.. ~,
:"', .
.....
w', _'.
....
"
.',
, ,
-." - .
:"-:;:~~';':f.::¡:' ....~.
~~!.:-'.:'.~' .~.
:.:":.. 'f
.:'..'.... "
...,. . .
""': ....
~;...::~
, ,
,.0'"
~~
.~,
.,;.?-~"" "
¿~~
¿!1!$/flt.v-,..,.,
m~;~ '-:'-,~~~.:-:- '.
fi i~~¡:>~·:~_.:·· ~~.- . - "' . . . .
~""""',.:.~,~ ';(~glf: '::
. ....
/ ."
~ .-,- ..
" ,
:f " .
: '/"C
,<
. .
'.
..
'"
II>
L
.",:,,;,~
::;;\>::,~'::: ê
.!'!
c.
:u
. :.~. II,)
"tJ
<:
'"
)(
'1LI
..
';
Jl
~",ë'>", .- ),:~;,:,,;~
., :j;/;;:':::;tê~~" ,l,,:::"}
'-....." ~,<,
r:~...:--> 'T-',' ''á~
',,;
:",."---
:o. ,;- CU
".. <...
(l)
s::::
(l)
~
s::::
.;
...-:':...
:,,:.-...
~
~
If:;,
"-
-
~
::s
o
~ ~ ~
.'~ ;.:; ....
"':'1,;: ..] .~ .""'
,~ '0: ;:;;: "::::
. ~ ~ ~ . ë¡ .~ ~.;
:2 E Q. A. c:
... III .. ... ~
;.:. ~ : :.2
¡; õ ~ .~ ':is
';; '.s èS ,¡¡::.?
ii~mDD~~
~
.
<>
!
!
-,
.
~
:!.
'"
"
.
"-
C
"
....
"
...
'"
"
"
'"
....
OJ
Q
«.
~
...
""
"
E
J
,¡:;.
C>
~
....
'"
....
'"
"
"
'"
....
OJ
"
II:
E
"
....
'"
"
E
I
~
Õ
,.:¡
-,
'..
"
·
·
·
c
i.
·
~
õ
·
c:
~
·
c
·
.Þ
:5
,1
"
~
~
c
"
.
"
,
,/
"
I
.
i
I
I
(e
~
Summary of letter from Bradlcy J. Inman, Vice President, Bay Ares. CoWlcil
Commentor contends that the draft General Plan and DEIR do not adequately address
the City's need for housing, and advocates residential development east of Tassajara
Road to achieve jobs(housing balance and to reduce negative traffic impacts noted in
the DEIR.
Responses to Comments
: _' Analysis of housmg needs. Housing need within the current City limits is discussed in
~~:\'~:.'.' ':-.' ,,:::detail in the Housing Element, Section 3 of yolume 2 of the ,General Plan.' Under the
;,t:..:.,~" __,,",','? Gènëi-al Plan, 'the"amoùnt of housing' produced hi the "city will exceed the total number
;:;'< ' ' "'of units needed as presented by ABAG in its 1983 Housin!!: Needs Determination. '
,,' ':, Volume 2, page 3-30, illustrates that within the city more employed persons would be
;'.::\', , .,::," ':: housed in Dublin than would be working in the city. :However, as the text points out,
" ': :with developm ent of the extended planning area the jobs to employed residents ratio
would be approximately 1.7:1, indicating a net ÌJH:ommute.
Jobs(housing balance is mesningful when analyzed in terms of entire housing and job
market areas. The City of Pleasanton has chosen to approve large scale commercial
",:' and industrial growth without provision of housing commensurate with need. In its
decisions on General'Plan designations for 'its extended planning area, Dublin chose not
to become the housing provider for the Tri-Valley, but rather to utilize ap!?ro!?riate
land for commercial develo!?ment, as has Pleasanton.
Mitigation could be achieved through land use,changes reducing commercially desig-
nated land and increasing the area designated for residential use. Effective mitigation
would require action by Dublin, Pleasanton and possibly other Tri-Valley cities.. One
possible means of providing additional housing would be to make a!?!?rovals of
, ~dditional business park space contingent upon ~dditions to the housing stock.
"
.,......
.......-.'_.
.'- '.: ...... '.~ .
. "" ',: ::~.: ' '". .: '. ,"
..
,
. -
'", .....;..;.
. .'~ -. ..
. .,,'
"
....
~ ,", '. .
" '-'.
~
'" . . .
~,~.~ _,t,.,;J:,~;:.}f,:,:.C-:i:~-_'-?:~:'~~t.;~/~ ¥~ <t:(-?' ,:" ~~:. .~/-:>-~:"
. . ". ....¡. ..;'.... ,'; .:-
, .
'.'
;
.' :'.
" ,"
......
....,..
", . .
o
.. '
-' ~ ..
". ...
..
,':. '.
"; .".
.
..... .
"
.-
_ \1-
-,15-
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVA TION DIST:¡ICT
(e
,
:: í': ' é 'r
,~o~ CONCANNON 80UL=VARO
1
L1V="~.10R=, CALIFORNIA 9"550
\
(~15\ ,,"-,,;,:è
Ma:-ch 21, 1984
:f~.\ ~.~:., :.,~. Mr.' Laurence L: ~ong, _~lanning Director
f~f:.;l,:;;~i~:,\~~ ~~':;~~~~~n ;S~,"':~V;::;", ,:>: ' ' ,;.' ;':: ~~,~::';?;¡~~,~::t:~':~;¿F~tY:~ :,',
i~~.. Dublin, 'CA 94568 ~::.'. " .-'
..
'"
.:~ ,'.;
..... . ..". ,-
~.-l~~i.·>~:·:}~~:~~~~·~;·~~~~~· Ton~~:? . :.::.:~:..:",
ï- .
,,-,
~ . . ,., . '.- .
. ~ :'.... .....: ~~:..: -".
," -
Reference is made to the Februa~ 1984 proposed ~eneral
mental I~Dac~ Repor~ which were referred to our 6ffice
We ""ish t; l!1ake the following comments: ' J
Plan and Dra.:f-:.
for revie..., and
Environ-
cOI:l-":1e!lt.
-
, ,
. '
,
.......
volume 1:
Plan policies:
1. General Plan 2-'..ap, .Secti.on 3.3, 5.4, and 7.1--0t..'1e:=- than fo:=- Alamo
C:=-eek a.bove S?R.'P.., no flood c:Jntrol facilities are ·desig=1a't.e¿ as "'Open Space:
Stream Co:=,ri¿or." If it is t~e City 1 S desire I fleac:! c::m~=ol righ::. of ....-a'1 ca:1
be made available to t~e City to develop for recreation trails a:1è/or bi:<e
paths un¿er a License Agreement .....ith Alameàa COC-:1ty Floo¿ Con~=ol and ~¿t.e=
Con5er~2tion Di5t=ic~, Zone 7.
'. ". ..... 2. Sec"tion 4 ~4--The potential water supply shortage whic~ may occ:"..lr
in .',the ',1990's ,l!1ay be mtigated by improvements.-,to t.'le State Water p::ojec-::
:.faèilities .(water_ supplier to Zone 7) and water-.conservation~ .·The City may
"ish to include another ,guiding policy which, encourages t.'le'development of the
State 'Water P:roject to provide promised water amounts in an envirorunent.ally
..;~ '. " sound manne:: and the .development of good ~ater use. habits to el.i:minate~ waste..
.;,:,,::'¿¡':i::3:/';~'~Ten-.!.cópies ·~o·f ::'ôur'~water '~.conservation :'brochure ~à.r.e :'enclosed ·for :Your d~e and
_.:>"'....,_.._.~,. ..p. "'~.' ;'. - ~.' - no .. "-. ,..... ..... ......- ~....,.....
;:.:~~.::.-.f;j~!->~~distribution· to .:various city. offices for. display ..":lith :~t..~er_readin9 œ,aterial.
;1f,~~ti~~~~:~l~::f¡:¿;;~Ei!~7~~~;;:;~fi$ti!l¡tlf~<;" ...
?,~:.:;-...:.: ~:.':.~:<:~~,:,~: ._;'.~"':".3."P .:;~Section ':~ 2.3.4 /.:.-.·.third ..:.paragraph-:~he ,¡~ reservoir :.:~refer=ed .' to .is
_.. h"· , . ...... ¡ ..' ... ~ . I - . ..\. . -, . . '.. .". - ...'-
;~:;:::. ,_' ..',already under. construction 'as ,a join:t I'~~je,c:t" ~"t"eeIl:,~~.~~,~,.~n~"z.:ne 7.
"
..
4. Section 4 ~ 1.1, Su=f ace Wa ter, second paragraph--No discharges of
waste.....a ter t=ea bent plants to valley streams occurs any longer. Flo....s far
groundvater recharge are provided f=om time to time 1:1 some -watercau=ses f=ol':\
the South Bay ~queduct, hovever..
"
RECEIYEu
113
11':1 2:"1 "qp ,
_ ..:\ " 1.....;£1
DUBLiN PLANNING
. .
~
c·
.
March 21, 1984
Mr. Laurence Tong
ci ty of Dublin
Page 2
5. Section 4.1.1, Flood Hazards and Control, second paragraph--
Although Zone 7 has responsibility for providing ~lood control services, the
Zone has only been authorized to develop and operate the larger streamS and
arroyos. The basic flood control system in Dublin vas provided by developers
and taken over by the Zone for maintenance. Therefore, much of the Dublin area
',;. "" . ..,:, is excluded from the drainage fee collection area.' funding the t:laintenance of
~3\.~.~:_,-¿,,':'J~:;"those a.rroyos ,.is· b~c~rning "a .:"critical _problem. ".:·.Voter approved assessments 1n3.y
~..;.,..",,_. ..l_. ',~' - ,.. _ .'~ .. - ..'. . '. ... '. . ..,.."' .' .. . . .
1.':~~:i,::~';,":::;.be, essential 'soon' for the, Zone .to continue to ""'int~in the :level of flood pro-
;i-::::;+~;'. . . ~_,-:·tection that now exists.. .... . .."
--:"..., '... . ~'. ." . , " . .
~f;F·~;'~;~;;;:~:'.~\V:':; Vol;';"~2:; Draft EIR: ?';" ,'. .,.: ' '::,:.","
.~ .~
..
'6. Section J. 2--Nei ther here nor in the Technical Supplement a:=e
existing flood hazards, their increase due to incre.ased urbanization of t:"e
watershed, or their. means ',of 1niticration adequately discussed. Flood hazara.
a::-eas exist both within the City and .doW11stream of it which could be 'Worsened'
by the' proposed development. Several 'of the flood control channels within ~~e
Ci~y and all of those dawnstrea; of it are operated by the 'Zone, and increased
capacity may be needed in both the Zone's and the City's ã=ainage sys~~. It
is not clear ho~ the implementing policies in Section 8.2.2 of L~e Plan Poli-
cies will prevent these iropacts.
]~', ~:: .'-,
"
7.. Sec'tion 3.2, Hi t.iga tion--íf the ordinances referre¿ to ha.·,re not
already been enac"':ed, their efficacy in mitigating the poten'tiallv SiC71i=:ic3:-:::"
i~pacts of erosion and sedimentation can only be speculated upon. -A w~ek o=¿i-
.nance, or an underfunded one, or an oràinance ~ith inaàequate enforcecen~ coul¿
easily provide .inadequ.ate mitigation. Strong ordinances 'such as the County
>. . ''', '.: .',' Grading Ordinance.. or A3AG' s model Grading and. Erosion . Control ordi..,ance,
'.:"'::"::',...:~:X'st"ictlY ,and competently enforced would provide adequate IlÜtigation. failure
,¿, ".. to adequately m~tigate these' impacts, would have .adverse', effects on water
,,:-:<,,-:;,',:,quality and flood hazards downstream of the City as we,ll a~ within it. ,
;i~~;"~~'i~,:f;i-~\\,:';;;::'i;i-:~~'.:, :';""";;"""",;, ,:.,~ ,',' ;':u,;.'.-,..,.... ,. .,.;, : ,;:', ,":,,: ..:':,~.:, <~;, ,:",: -," , .', -:.
[,:::-:::z-Z;';;/."'¿-:':':;:;:':.~:':-.:':::ÇA~-;::ï;.~ 8 _ '~~:,5ection . 3 _ 8, ".'Mitigation--No.' m.l t.lgat~cn :,for .~~he :'potentìal - adverse
r_"t"-=-":-'·~:'~';": ~~.......,.~- .... ,'.' '.. .. " .... ..., .~. '.'
i;':<;"":;:':'-~:.~~ impact--"'of ~taxing ·:the: capacity, of ..the water ,supply·,system ,is'" mentioned here
I ...,~. ~. '"":" ,...... -'J.' .' .... - .'.. .. . - - .' . ". .
i ~:'~l'~:?rzi;~S:'7 : i~ \~st . ~a~~graph:~::ld,er: U~il_~,tié~~-",1.::~,o~~~" p~:~t~::>~,~i.~,~i~.n. f.~. mentioned
¡~1~Wr~~:~3:~:r.~£:~~t:;~.~;~~,::~,~:,êt:o:J:t ~:~, :';~:f::~::j~,;::l'~:';:~<\~C~I'?~?i~g~lt~v;~?~~~~!;:~:~;' :-,.,:'
;:'!';::::': ~,;:,:Thank'j'ou--for"th,e opportunity to comment on your·'doèUl:\ents.;~If 'you· have any
I:~r--'.'~' " questions, 'please call me or vince Wong at your conv'enience ", '," . ~ :.
..
Very truly you=s,
/; / 'Ú:, ú<-
.(/¿r..-?lM_, .
l"'·un J. ~..a.r'-
General Manager
~
,-
I-'.JM:VW:b!<m
c~' DS III
IAC
'Ene.
',,\
.
.
i
Summary of letter from M= J. Mar, General Manager, Alameda COW1ty Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, Zone 7
"
::- ~ ." .
.~--..' -'. '.-.
l!j;:;~,F?;: ·
":...-...:--'
Two comments from Zone 7 relate to policies included in Volume 1 of the General
Plan, and are comments on the draft General Plan, not the DElR. Three corrections
to facts cited in Volume 2, Sections 2.3.4 and 4,1.1 are made. The Zone notes that the
Technical SUl?l?lement and DEIR do not adequately discuss existing flood hazards, their
increase due to increased urbanization of the watershed, or means of mitigation, and
questions how the iml?lementing policies of Section 8.2.2 of Volume 1 will prevent
adverse impacts, Regarding mitigation measures, the Zone's letter emphasizes the
importance of enacting and enforcing strong ordinances regarding grading and erosion
, control ~d poi~ts ou~ that no mitigationfor taxing the c~pacity of 'the water supply
,,::?'J~~~~~:1¿n~:~?7'1\~j;"?~'~N~~~;{Ú':i:':~;"~: ,:ft;~:[f\~:f':~~;Ft:~:t;:{, .,:.:.
.'- ",
-". . .
" eorrec'tioÌ1s t~ Volume"2. The fourth'sentencè in 'the thW paragraph of section 2.3.4,
. Water SUPl?ly (page 2-17) is corrected to read as follows.":' "'.' ':' . , '
~",'- -,.
:;.;.-.... ,'.,
; ~~. "-:- ;. :..'- .
:
To address this potential' problem, 'the plan recommended construction of a reser-
, voir at the Dougherty Road turnout, now underway. .' '.,
, The word "have" and 'the phrase "wastewater assimilation,' is deleted from 'the third
sentence of the second paragraph under Surface Water, Section 4.1.1, so that it reads:
Functions of the valley's surface waters include groundwater recharge and runoff
, catchment.
The second paragraph under Flood Hazards and Control, page 4-3, is ame.'1deè to
include the following sentence after the third sentence. The sentence beginning
, "Future improvements to Alamo Creek..." now starts a new paragraph.
, Much of the Dublin area is excluded from the drain82:e fee collection area
". .....
- .' .
Flood hazards and means of mitigation.. ,The following paragraph is be added after the
fourth paragraph in Section 3.2, Hydrology, page 7 of the DEIR: '"
..
".
.. , " Development under 'the general plan could result in increased flood hazards within
}~.,::. '/:,..: ' ,'» and downstream of the cit .' Several of 'the flood control channe1s within the citv ,.
", ::. _ " : ',:': and all 0 those downstream 0 it are operated by Zone 7 0 the Alameda County
,t.\:.':,','" «:':', ;,:',Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 'Increased capacity in both the "
. .'._ ,.., '.: ': ,>::) Zone's and the City's drainage systems may be needed. 'ót,~;:;;,':"'~'é:';",'",:,:."_.'.,
:1~"~;::\:~,:j:,::,::,,,':::" :::;;~:-"":; '::,;.ëO:: ':'" -:::";"Ì'¿~r;'-r::;:::':."Y:;;'7J~'i~,;:¿;:.:,~;'t1.,::';';;;;:;:':-:~:h::úit4%z.::~}~tt;+:::::--'::" '
':~;:"',.."': ~,' _ 'The following is added at 'the' end ofthé M!tiga~ion s~c?oÍ1,under 3.2; Hydrology:
f~.:·.~~.·~ ." .. ~-. . . ,: :.:,~.~;.:: . . :. ~: i <::~~.. _.~:..-:'~":i. ¡!':.:;./~~~(>:<~~::':".~~ j ,,:~,;,·g-..':·~·:~l:·.~-/;:':,~~·~~··:·~,;-!; :-:~.:~- :;.." . .
The city shall consider potential for increasin¡; flood hazards in the environmental
review process and shall require mitigation measures for Dood hazards.
, '
Effectiveness of orilinances.. Comment noted
Mitigation foc tAxing of water supply systems. The following is added to the end of
,_ the Mitigation section under 3.8, page 12 of the DElR:
Possible mitigation me.'!.sures relatin¡; to water consumption are imDlementation
of a water conservation program, and efforts to obtain water service from the
East Bav Municioal Utility District.
'.
- '70 - ¿
SUGGEST~JDHHUTE ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ~HE~ DEVELOPMENT
}..5 ^ FUIICTIOII OF ctrnUlATIVE DIPlOnlEIIT
Curoulativ~ Employment
"
L .'
';"..' '.,' 2. Post illfOnt'>3tjon 2. Cns1t~ tid~t salH.. 2. Mnual surv~y of 2.
~7~~:;:;:;':C::::>.~~::'on carpool and ::/.',::;-: for transi~":(~) ';. ,';,,-} emPloye~, ,col!J1 u,te,-:.
l._t';~::'-"-':,~"",:',,-,,>vanpool cost ","'~',:' "'" : '.. ": ':':',, :' ,.:,.::patterns..(1),~_:· -' ,',
';;,f/_::-',':';:' ,',-,;, 'savj IIgs. (R) ," '," (Rk (1<0 ':' '
. ,¡._",j;.~,~__:"".:~,'..,~::.,.~.',"~~.,':..,~:,;,',,:'.._,..".,_':.,.:_,.:_~,~:,","_:"'",~~:",:,...,'~':,':~",:,.,'.:'.,'_::,..",~-::~~._":,'",,., _ ... .' ". . ~. . . . . "t .
.~_ 0 '.. -'.' .. ':':'<~"'Ž';i,:::,~):"/"-
.
. \
.',
,
A
(50-100)
B
(100-200 )
1. Post transit
infonMtion on
fares and sched-
uhs ill central
1 cx:ati one s). (T)
1. PreferentIal park-
ing for carpool s/
vanpools.
,
3. Participat~ in
RIDES camp.igns.
'(R) "
3; Co!mxJte altenat1ves
infonn.tion p.cket
for n~'" employees.
(R). (T)
,
"
"
4. Tr.nsit .menities
(shelters. bus
turnouts, side....lks.
etc.).{T)
4. Particip.te in .
loc.l Tr.nsport.-
t.tion Coordinator
Association. '
,,,
C
1200-500)
1. Carpool/Yanpool
matchipg progra~.
(R)
3. Niñual distribu-
tion of infonn'-
tion to al1
e~ployees on ride-
sharing possibili-
ties and transit
information.
4. Loc.l incenthes
progr.m-a.....rds.
recognition, poss-
ible subsidies
etc. (2) -.;':
. '
..
D
(500+ )
1. ~sl9nate .
Transporta'
tion CoordIna-
tor position
,,1th-1 n c om-
p.n)'.
~velop
'pl.n for
'access to reg-
ion.l tr.nsit
!ervices. (3)
(T). (X)
3. Evaluòte the_
role of subsi-
dIes (tr.nslt.
c''1'ool, van-,'
p<JolJ in
achieving
local ride-
shòring goals
goal s (2).
(T), (R)
4. Eme r;~nc1
bòcIup for
carpool Ivan- ,
pool users
5. Bicycle'storage,
sho....ers and lockers
:~,..-~. . . .
t~:,::~~r:f:}/i,~;\~::';:~}ri.~:\::"::,,::. :.., ::': .:"!:~::' '~ h, .~ ,.' ;.,>,: /:;::\:~~~ k~~~~j¿~~;~~~~~: ,': ':
-. .. . ~, . . '.~.-
,
, n) To be processed by others .nd made available to cities; transit districts, and
ridesh.ring agencies.
(2) Progr.m to be submitted for local r~viC">i prior to project approval; a",cunt of
subsidies. if any, to be deten-nined prior to local approval.
(3) For residenthl developments, shuttles to r~9ionll transit should be ccns1caed.
. .:.
;,
}.ger>eies that on prtJvide lL1.jor assisuoce: (T) . Tnnslt dhtrict, (R)-RID~S or
local ri~sharlng agency,. (~):KTC:
The chart is progressive; Column B inclpdes all items listed in Column A, etc.
,
"
~ '2-\"'
~-
~
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 1985
PREPARED BY
CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT
)
.....
A 1T ÀCHMf¡fr . d
~'<i"""
.~.. T
.
.
< .
CONTENTS
I. List of Persons, Organizations, or Agencies Commenting
II. Summary of Comments and Responses to Comments
III. Copies of Comments Received During Comment Period
-2-
,, .. ¡
.
.
I. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR AGENCIES COMMENTING ON
THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE EIR:
a. Bay Area Council
Letter from Bradley J. Inman, Vice President
Letter from Angelo J. Siracusa, President
b. John DiManto, Inc.
Letter from John DiManto, Dublin Land Company
I
;
-3-
.,
.
.
.
II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Inc., submitted comments
on the Supplement to the EIR during the comment period.
Both the Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Inc., comments
concern the jobs/housing relationship. The Bay Area Council's
comments are summarized in the letter from Bradley J. Inman. The
letter states that the City "has an obligation to designate
sufficient land for residential use in relation to non-
residential use". Similarly, John DiManto's concern is to
"attempt to accomplish the Jobs/Housing balance requirement of
the General Plan."
The jobs/housing relationship is illustrated ln the following
chart:
Scenario
Dwelling
Units
(DU)
Employees
(Emp)
Housing
for Employees
(DU x 1.45)
Jobs/Housing Ratio
(Emp: Housing
for emp.)
New Jobs in
Extended Plan
Area
A.
7,900
8,400
11,455
.73
1.0
B.
11,450
1.00 1.0
3,050
C.
12,600
1.l0 1.0
4,200
D.
14,300
1.25 1.0
5,900
E.
17,200
1.50 1.0
8,800
F.
22,900
2.00 : 1.0
14,500
Scenario A shows that, with build out in the Primary Planning
Area and 1.45 employees per household, the City would have
housing available for 3,055 additional employees.
Scenario B shows that, with 3,050 new jobs in the Extended
Planning Area, the City would be in "perfec¿ balance" in terms of
the jobs/housing ratio.
Scenarios C, D, E, and F show that, as new jobs are created in
the Extended Planning Area, the jobs/housing ratio or
relationship grows further apart unless some provision is made
for additional housing.
To address this concern, the Bay Area Council suggests that the
City consider a phasing policy. Such a policy could read:
"t -ß~-
..... ...
.
.
"Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more
than (number and/or percentage) of the planned 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 total jobs and to demonstrate how needed
municipal services will be provided."
This policy would take effect when jobs approved in the Extended
Planning Area begin to exceed the housing that could be built on
land designated for residential use. At that point, a Specific
Area Plan would be required that would designate land for housing
that would maintain a reasonable relationship to the number of
jobs.
,
/
s -ß-
.. f ~ ~
.
.
IEAY
AIRIEA
CC(Q)1lJNCCllJL
r:CE\ytD
r, ~
. í¡<:r:Ù
'. \.-'"
January 31, 1985
,- -,
C'-:> .-
r -'
, \,\j-,.r¡"I\~\¡;'
oûßi.:.N
The Honorable Peter W. Snyder
Mayor
City of Dublin
City Hall
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Pete:
Based on our conversation and a January 29th meeting between my staff and
Larry Tong, I am submitting for your consideration the following idea for the
extended planning area. As we discussed, the Bay Area Council is concerned
that the implementation of proposed policies in the extended planning area
would result in a serious imbalance between jobs and housing within the City
of Dublin.
We recognize that the City currently provides housing opportunities in
excess of the number of jobs and that the City would like to increase its
employment base by planning for additional jobs in the EPi\. It is certainly
reasonable for the City to attempt to capture a portion of the job growth
occuring in the Tri-Valley by making lands available for business park
development. However, the City also has an obligation to designate suffi-
cient land for residential use in relation to non-residentiil'use:
The City may be justifiably concerned about premature residential develop-
ment in the EPA if land is designated for housing at an early stage. In
order to ensure that housing is not built before jobs come on line, the City
c?uld adopt a phasing policy that identifies criteria for development (e.g.
a certain number of jobs coming on line triggers planning for-housing to
meet the demand). The City of San Jose included such a mechanism for the
Coyote Valley Urban Reserve in its Horizon 2000 General Plan (see attached).
FX":ctJT1\Æ COMMJTTEE
STAfT
The Bay Area Council
established In 1945.
Is a business-sponsored
organization inllOtved
in policy analysis and
advocacy on region-wide
issues such as economic
development, housing,
transportation. infra·
structure, land use,
environmental quality
and job training.
C' IAlRMAN
CORNElLC. MAIER
O1airrmn of the Board & CEO
K,aiset" Aluminum &
Chemica! Corporation
PETER E. HAAS
Chairman of the Board
LeviStrauss&Co.
GEORGE M. KEU.ER
Q¡,'UTman 01 the Board & CEO
Chevron Corporarion
RICHARD B. MADDEN
Chairman of the Board & CEO
PotlalchC011XJration
PRESIDE."fT"
ANGELOJ. SIRACUSA
\-1CE PRESIDENTS
BRADI.£Y J. 1NMAN
BRIGnTE h>BlANC
MEREDffii G. MICHAELS
STEVEN GUCK
COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATE
NORA JUAABE
POUCY ANALYST
PAMElA STONE
SAMUElH.ARMACOST
Presidenl & CEO
Bank oi Amenca. NT & SA
JAMES R. HARVEY
Chairman, President & CEO
Tran51l.mericaCorporalion
JOHN F. KILMARTIN
Q¡airman&CEO
Me1vvr1S
FREDERICK W. MIElKE. JR.
Chairman of the Board & CEO
Pocilic Gðs and
Electric: Û1mpany
P. ANTHONY RIDDER
President·Publisher
San ~ Mercury News
MYRON DU BAlN
Pr<-'5idenl&CEO
Amfoc.!nc.
L E. HOYT
SeniorV,cePresident
Southern Pacific Cumpa"y
CHARlES A. LYNCH
Chainnlln & CEO
Saga ColpOration
1'1 IE Bi\Y i\lŒ,"\ COt !i'\ClL I;\;C
b
34H WOHLD 1'Hi\DE CE;\;TEH Si\;\; FH."..'\;ClSCO 94111
(415) 9HI'b4( G
.,
.
.
The Honorable Peter Snyder
January 31, 1985
Page Two
Such a policy might call for development of a specific plan that acco~mo-
dates sufficient housing when peri!Ütsàre issued for development designed to
accommmodate 35% (or another percentage) of the planned jobs in the EPA.
Additional criteria could then be _included in the specific plan to phase
residential development with jobs and with the availability of publ~c_ ser-
vices and infrastructure.- ,-
Of course, the adoption of this policy requires that the City remain
committed to providing housing to meet the needs of the growing workforce as
it has been in the past. If you would like to explore this option further,
please feel free to call me and arrange a meeting.
ley J. Inman
Vice President
Thank you for considering our position.
BJS : sa
cc: Lar ry Tong /'
7
,,'
J
I
-
: . .~iJJ~ ..
.,:":~.
. .~.::~~\
. .~ ~~~~~
;:;..-":,~.
'-:....
:~:
.....
.~: ~:··t,
o A development ~hasing pl~n ~ay be established to meter expanslo f:
the Urb~n .Serv1ce Area ,,!lthln ,the Urban Reserve .b~s~d upon the n 0_ ','
a va i 1 abll1ty of the reg lona 1 ¡nfrastructure, facll1tles or other :':, ':1
considerations. ' " , ,',;'
. !....'
A71 on-site as we71 as off-site infrastructure needs and other public : :~',~
facil ities in the Almaden Va71ey should be financed by developers in the ..',.:;;j
area. A financing plan should be established to ensure that the needed '.'~'~
infrastruc~ure ~nd facilities ca~ be built at the ap~ropriate time with all._ ~
developers shanng costs proport10na71y. The potent1al need for developer .H ,~
financing ~f public school construction should be considered when the Specific,
Area Pl an 1S prepared. " ~
-,.,; ~
-. - :·:1
b. Coyote Va 17ey Urban Reserve ' ~
1
The Coyote Valley Urban Reserve encompasses the area generallY between the ~ '
Coyote Greenbelt and the North Coyote Campus Industrial area. The Urban 1
Reserve includes the Valley floor on both sides of Monterey Highway and Coyote~
Creek, northwesterly of Palm Avenue and the prolongation of Palm Avenue to the;
South Valley Freeway/Scheller Avenue interchange. Existing land uses consist ;
primarilY of agriculture and rural residential subdivisions.;
,
.
l-h \','t.-ô>\ &-c,.
c.,~~ \).ç. µ'" ~M ~,
,;':
,
The intent of the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve designation is to ultimately .
create a planned community which will consist of an undetermined mix of land "¿:
use to include no more than 9000 dwelling units. The location and quantity of!
acreage by land use type will not be determined until a Specific Area Plan is)
prepared. Only after the Specific Area Plan is effective should the Urban ,,' ¡
Service Area be expanded. Expansion might occur in increments to implement,: },
phasing provisions of the Specific Area Plan. _.~:~
:t
In order to achieve orderly expansion of the Urban Service Area, development0, 1
in the Urban Reserve should not proceed until the North Coyote Campus,~
Industrial area and balancEd City-wide growth are both well established.,;",'
These criteria reflect the recognition that not all potential residents of
Coyote Valley will work there. The construction of the improvements to
Highways 85 and 101 are necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in
areas to the north before Coyote Valley development adds to commute volumes.
Thus, the City Council should direct that the Specific Area Plan be prepared
only after it finds that all of the following prerequisite criteria have been
satisfied:
,/
o The issuance of building permits for development designed to
accommodate 50% of the planned 50,000-employee holding capacity of
the Nortn Coycte Campus Industrial area (25,000 jobs).
o Achievement of 5~ of the City-wide, 1980-tO-2000 emplo~ent growth
projection (89,000 new jobs).
o The issuance of building permits for 60% of the planned,
1980-to-20CO dwelling unit increase within the 1983 Urban S€rvice
Area (~7,8GO dwelling units).
b~
. ,
"
. .
"
.
.
.
o
Highway 101 between San Jose International
Avenue is widened to at least six lanes. '
þ9.\~
Airport and Scnell~
o A preferred alternative for'a Route 85 project (which is at least a
four-lane expressway between Highway 101 near Bernal Road and
Highway 280 near De Anza College) has been identified in a Route 85
Alternatives Analysis EIS prepared by Caltrans and the necessary
funding for this project has been scheduled in the adopted State
Transportation Improvement Program (S.T.I.P.).
The Specific Area Plan does not become effective until the City Council finds
that Route 85 is substantially complete and is expected to be open to traffic
within one year. Until such time as the Specific Area Plan is effective,
allowed land uses in the Urban Reserve are those of the Agriculture land use
designation west of Monterey Highway, those of the Rural Residential land use
designation_between Monterey Highway and the Coyote Creek Park Chain; and
those of the Private Recreation and Non-Urban Hillside designations east of
the Coyote Creek Park Chain.
The Specific Area Plan for the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve should include:
o A development phasing plan within the Urban Reserve if made
necessary by such factors as a shortage of capacity in regional
infrastructure facilities.
o A land use plan, including detailed designations and locations for
residential, commercial, industrial and public uses.
o A circulation plan, including an internal circulation network as
well as the required links to the regional transportation system.
o Special development standards tailored to the unique Coyote Valley
setting and geographic ambience.
All on-site as well as off-site infrastructure needs (streets, freeway
interchanges, bridges, local and downstream sanitary sewers, storm sewers and
flood control facilities) and other public facilities (parks, libraries, fire
stations) will be financed by developers in the area. An equitable financing
plan should be established to ensure that the needed infrastructure and
facilities are built at the appropriate time with all developers sharing costs
proportionallY. The potential need for developer financing of public school
construction in the Urban Reserve should be considered when the Specific Area
Plan is prepared.
)
4. Commercial
New commercial development is planned to take place primarily on lands already
zoned for use. The amount of existing commercially zoned land in San Jose
generallY fulfills this purpose. The commercial land use categories described
below identify the types of uses allowed under each category. The standards
for commercial development are addressed in the Urban Design section (see
Section B. 4) and in the City's Zoning Code.
¿<-.c¡
J
.' . . ' Î
I
¡
!
( I
, \
) l
January 22, 1985
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
RECEIVED
JAN Z (\ \98j
DUS\.\N PLÞ.I'\NING
Dear Mr. Tong:
In our earlier comments on the draft General Plan and DEIR, the Bay Area
Council expressed concern about the inadequate match between jobs and
housing in the City's extended planning area. Our recommendation at that
time was that the City designate lands in the extended planning area for
residential development to offset the demand created by planned job growth
there.
Changes made in the draft General Plan following public hearings resulted in
additional acreage being designated for employment activities, while a guiding
policy only was put forth for residential development. These changes
represent an increase of some 19,800 potential jobs, leaving the number of
housing units to be determined by refinement studies.
In our view, the Supplemental EIR falls short in evaluating the impacts of
these substantial revisions. We are particularly concerned with the SEIR's
implications regarding the local and Tri-Valley jobs/housing balance issue.
Our specific comments on this issue are attached.
Beyond responding to the issues we raise in the attached comments, we
recommend that the City revise the SEIR text to reflect these concerns and
take appropriate action to implement mitigation measures (i.e. designate
lands for residential development to achieve a better match between jobs and
,
,
The Bay Area Council
established in 1945.
is a business--sponsored
organization involved
In policy analysis and
advocacy on region-wide
issues such as economic
development. housing,
transportation. infra-
structure,land use,
env;ronmental quality
and job training.
EXEClTTIVE COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN
CORNEUC.MAIER
Chairman of the Board & CEO
Kaiser Aluminum &
Clw-nicalCorporalion
STAfF
MYRON DU BAlN
Presidem & CEO
Amfae,lnc.
LE.HOYT
Senior Vice Presklenl
Soullwm PðClnc Company
CHARlES A LYNCH
Chairman & CEO
Saga Corporation
P. ANTIiONY RIDDER
President-Publisher
San Jose Men:u/y NO;1WS
PRESIDE."lT
ANGELOJ. SIRACUSA
VICE PR£SJDENfS
BRADLEY J. INMAN
BRIGITTE l£BlANC
MEREOrrn G. MICHAELS
51EVEN GUCK
CQMMUNlC4.T10NS
ASSOCIATE
NORA JUARBE
ffiUCY ANALYST
PAMELA STONE
PETER E. HAAS
Chalnnan of the Board
Levi$trauss&Co
GEORGE M. KEllER
Olailman oj the Board & CEO
Cho1:lll'OOCOT'pOl'ilhOn
RICHARD B. MADDEN
Qainnan oi th'! Board & CEO
PotlatchCOTpOralion
SAMUEL H. ARMACOST
Preslrlenl&CEO
Bank 01 America. NT & SA
JAMES R. HARVEY
Chairman. President & CEO
Traf\5america Corpora~on
JOHN F. KILMARTIN
Olairman & CEO
Mervyn's
FREDERICK W. MlflJŒ, JR.
Chairman of the Board & CEO
PðcificGasand
Electric Company
THE B¡\,( AHE/\ COUNCIL INC
34H WOHLD TR/\DE CE:"TEH SA." FR"-:"CISCO 94111
10
(415) DHI-f)4()S
c'
.
.
Mr. Laurence Tong
January 22, 1985
Page Two
housing, link the approval of non-residential development to residential
land availability; raise densities in the Primary Planning Area, etc.)
While the City of Dublin has demonstrated a commendable commitment to
housing in the past, the revisions to the draft General Plan as regards the
extended planning area are inconsistent with state mandates for local plan-
ning for housing. We urge the City to take action to correct this critical
situation.
Thank you for considering our position.
Sincerely,
AJS:sa
cc: The Honorable Peter W. Snyder
City Council members
Planning Commission members
II
, '
.
.
, .
"
~,
,
BAY AREA axJNCIL ~ ON SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
FOR DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
January 22, 1985
.'\i
Page 10 The Supplemental ErR (SEIR) implies that localities have the option
of disregarding state mandates for balancing residential and non-residential
capacity if studies fail to show that significant adverse environmental
effects would result. The document goes on to question the need for
"relatively small jurisdictions such as Dublin" to include jobs/housing
balance as a public policy "unless specific benefits can be shown". The
State Legislature determined that there were sufficient benefits from main-
taining a jobs/housing balance (and sufficient negative results from not
doing so) to warrant adoption of this objective as state policy. In 1982,
the importance of this mandate was underscored when the Legislature added
provisions for using the courts to enforce compliance (Government Code Sec.
65913.7) .
State law recognizes that the ability of different jurisdictions to attain
the desired jobs/housing balance varies. For example, built-up loca1itiies
or those in which undeveloped land is in agricultural preserve, may not be
able to achieve the state objective. It is impossibile, however, to con-
strue these exceptions as a basis for condoning Dublin's adoption of a plan
that would violate the state mandate in Government Code Sec. 65913.1 to
designate and zone sufficient land for residential use in relation to non-
residential use and in relation to growth projections of the general plan.
The reduction of travel and associated impacts on energy use and air quality
are potential benefits of which the Legislature was no doubt aware when it
mandated that localities must plan to achieve a balance of residential and
non-residential land uses. Of equal, if not greater, importance was the
need to find solutions to the statewide shortage of affordable housing. A
planning decision that would impair Dublin's capacity to accommodate enough
housing to meet the needs of the future employees, must, therefore, be
evaluated in terms of its effect on present and future housing conditions in
the city, the Tri-Va11ey area and the larger region. It is true, as noted
in the SEIR, that without steps to promote housing development or constrain
job production, a valley-wide imbalance might exist despite Dublin's efforts
to provide sufficient residential potential within its own jurisdictions.
This cannot be used to excuse actions that would exacerbate the problem.
Page 11 Mitigating the effects of a potential jobs/housing imbalance by
changing the designated use of some acreage in the Extended Planning Area
from non-residential to residential represents a viable measure which should
be taken seriously. Other measures could include an increase in overall
densities in the Primary Planning Area and planning for higher densities in
the Extended Area. Maintaining a density of 4.9 units per acre in the
Extended Area to correspond with density in the Primary Area at built-out
disregards the different character of the two areas. Communities have
generally found that outlying areas near employment centers and transporta-
tion facilities are excellent locations for higher density development that
is not politically or physically feasible in existing built-up neighbor-
hoods.
/
An additional mitigation measure may be the designation of areas specifi-
cally reserved for residential development in the Extended Area. The
p""
, '
, 1-..\
.
.
," Bay Area Council Comments--Dublin SEIR
January 22, 1985
Page Two
present proposal reserves specific areas for non-residential development,
but offers only guiding policies for housing. The plan could also set forth
policies that link the approval of non-residential development to residen-
tial capacity or availability. This could be achieved by identifying
criteria for phasing development (e.g. a certain number of jobs coming on
line triggers planning for housing to meet the demand). The City of San
Jose included such a mechanism for the Coyote Valley Urban Reserve in its
Horizon 2000 General Plan. The Bay Area Council would be pleased to provide
you with further information On this approach.
Page 11 The SEIR incorrectly characterizes ABAG's employment projections as
"projections of demand" and then concludes that the addition of more busi-
ness park acreage in Dublin would have little effect on the total number of
jobs in the Tri-Valley during the next 20 years. In fact, the ABAG projec-
tions do not represent "demand", but rather "development potential... based
upon current zoning, general plans and other local development policies in
conjunction with regional employment and population forecasts over the
period 1980-2000." (ABAG, Projections '83, p. 5)
The number of jobs projected for the Dublin area was constrained by the
amount of land considered available for employment development, and ABAG did
not assume that development would take place in the Extended Planning Area.
Therefore, although the addition of 660 acres of business park might not
effect total projected employment in the Bay Area, the distribution of
employment could change as a result of the additional capacity in the
Extended Planning Area. ABAG emphasizes that "although projections at the
regional and county area have a high probability of occurring...sub-county
and small-area projections are subject to considerable uncertainty." (ABAG,
p. 6) Adoption of a Dublin plan that does not provide for sufficient
residential land to balance employment could, therefore, not only result in
an imbalance in Dublin, but would perpetuate and possibly worsen the
imbalance in the entire Tri-Valley sub-region.
Page 12 Failure to provide for sufficient residential development can have
impacts beyond an increase in commuting to work. One effect can be a shift
in housing demand and development pressure to outlying areas tha~ have less
public services capacity. The results of such shifts can include increased
housing prices and housing shortages in Dublin and in other areas and the
premature conversion of lands that would otherwise remain in productive
agricultural use. In particular, the current influx of commuters to the
Tri-Valley area from outside the sub-region can be expected to increase
substantially if the housing/jobs imbalance worsens.
Page 12 The SEIR is correct in its observation that the will to achieve a
jobsjhousing balance in the Tri-Valley area will be weak unless local
benefit can be demonstrated. It is unclear what is meant, however, by the
statement that, "Each jur isdiction does not have the same capacity to
accommodate jobsjhousing balance." With their considerable undeveloped
land, the Tri-Valley jurisdictions are similarly situated with respect to
residential development potential. Dublin is not expected to make up for
other jurisdictions' failure to provide sufficient housing, but it is
obligated by state law to "designate and zone sufficient land for
\"::.;
.
~'
~ .... r^'
.
.
,t Bay Area Council comments--Dublin SEIR
January 22, 1985
Page Three
residential use in relation to non-residential use and in relation to growth
projections of the general plan" (Government Code Sec. 65913.1).
Page 13 As mentioned above, a result of adding non-residential capacity in
Dublin without a comparable increase in land for housing could be an in-
crease in the number of Tri-Valley workers who commute from outside the
area. While the air quality impacts of adding 660 acres of business park as
proposed may not be regionally significant, the existence of a jobsjhousing
imbalance would result in a relative increase in vehicle miles travelled.
In fact, a decade ago, proposed valley housing projects were opposed because
there was then little employment in the area and it was thought that valley
residents would have to drive long distances to work. An obvious measure to
mitigate the possibility of an increase in VMT and a resulting adverse
impact on air quality would be to ensure that, at a minimum, Dublin's plan
provides enough capacity to house those who will be working in the city.
)
\4
.'
. .
.
.
RECEiVi::D
J r N l) " "'~8"
M {J;'J i·... J
.
John DiManto, Ine.
Investment Properties
DU3UN PfJII'!N!NG
January 17, 1985
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
We are the owners of approximately 82 acres, located at the
northeast corner of Interstate 580 and Tassajara Road, Alameda
County, California. We also represent the Pao-Yeh Lin family
and Bih-Yu Lin, owners of an additional 300+ acres. The subject
properties are presently within the City of Dublin sphere for
future annexation consideration.
On January 2, 1985, I received a copy of a supplemental EIR for
the Dublin General Plan from Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director,
City of Dublin.
I have carefully reviewed the information contained therein and
have several specific concerns: matters affecting the Eastern
Dublin Sphere area and, in particular, a map entitled "Dublin
General Plan" which indicates a curvilinear change on the north
boundary of the Research and Development acreage between Tassajara
Road and Doolan Road. A fingertip shape has been added to the
Research and Development area that encompasses the Jordan property,
which expands the Research and Development uses to the higher
plateau immediately above the generally flat area which fronts
on the Interstate 580 corridor. We oppose this change with good
reason.
I met with Mr. Larrý Tong on Friday, January 11, 1985, to discuss
our concerns related to the aforementioned map and to portions
of authorship of the supplemental EIR. I expressed to Mr. Tong
my comments relating to the ultimate Specific Plan concepts for
the eastern Extended Planning Area affecting the Dublin Land
Company's 80+ acres and the Lin family's 300+ acres.
1210 Coleman Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 (408)986-8716
\s
,
, ' .
' .
.
.
January 17, 1985
Page Two
I have enclosed a copy of the original Dublin General Plan map
from the Volume I Draft booklet, dated February, 1984. This map
would preserve the plateau immediately above the flat land area
for high density residential areas and, more importantly, attempt
to accomplish the Jobs/Housing balance requirem~~t of the General
Plan and Text. ___m__, ---'--
To summarize, we a~~~hat the City Council preserve this entire
plateau and prev-ent the expansion of Research ànd Development-
on the' Jordan property as indicated on thé enèlQsed map marked
"Exhibit A".
An additional concern of several landowners is the City Council's
Priorities necessary for the implementation and eventual annexation
of the Dublin eastern expansion area.
It is extremely important to us landowners that the City adopt
an aggressive program that will ultimately provide for necessary
road access, utilities of adequate capacities, easements and all
other services necessary for final annexation,
Mayor Peter Snyder and other Council members are aware that we
and several neighboring landowners were encouraged by Mayor Snyder
and staff to appear at several Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) hearings to express our strong desire to become a part
of the City of Dublin.
Our support is a genuine statement of the confidence we entrust
in this City Council.
We kindly request that this Council adopt the supplemental EIR
for the Dublin General Plan together with the changeswehav~
requested and establish Priorities for the development of the
-eastern Extended Planning Äreaat the February, 1985 Gêneral
Plan hearing. -
I\:¡
....'¡k
I 'f-")"'"
.
.
~. þ
è
January 17, 1985
Page Three
If you have any questions, please call me at my office,
408/986-8716, or at my home, 408/377-4236.
Respectfully,
n Di Manto
ubi in Land Company
JD/dlr
cc: The Lin Family
Il
... .,....
, 'i~ .,) -
~,
N
M
;;;
<i>
N
'"
.¡,
::;:
HOUSING
AUTHORITY
of ,he City of
PLEASANTON
'"
'"
'"
...
a>
~
'i:
.E
'"
ü
¿
o
ë
~
00
'"
"
ä:
.
MICHAEL PARSONS
Executive Direcror
'"
M
'"
X
o
'"
cj
..:
in
00
"
-c
'0
-<
0>
co
,ii
::¡
.
f!ltCEIVED
DEC 1 319df
CITY Of DUBLIN
December 10, 1984
Mayor Peter Snyder and Members
of the Dublin City Council
p, 0, Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Site for Development of Lower Income Housing
Dear Mayor Snyder and Members of the City Council:
At the Pleasanton Housing Authority's last Board Meeting
on December 6, 1984 the Board discussed and would like to
make the following recommendation to the City of Dublin's
City Council,
We would like to see the approximately four (4) acre site
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road be developed
through a tax exempt mortgage revenue bond ("residential
bond") with 2D% to 25% of the total units developed to be
used for lower income housing.
Please advise the Housing Authority as soon as possible as
to the Council's position on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
//:
£;~-;74/?"d~~¿C"'¿'¿::'
Donna Graves, Chairperson
DG:jc
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
~
AT1ACHMENJ-- ')