HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 General Plan Review
'\,~
L-{~o-3V
\
'':
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1983
SUBJECT:
General Plan Program - Review of Working
Paper #3: Description of Alternative
Sketch Plans
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Working Paper #3: Description of
Alternative Sketch Plans (under
separate cover)
1) Revised Tables 3 and 4
(corrected 11/29/83)
2) Alternative Sketch Plan
diagrams and legend for Extended
Planning Area
3) Map of City for use with
Diagrams A, B, and C.
4) Planning Commission
recommendations, 11/29/83
RECOMMENDATION:
l:r
Select land use and circulation
components from the Alternative Sketch
Plans for use in the General Plan
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION: As part of the Dublin General Plan
Program, Staff and the General Plan Consultant have prepared
Working Paper #3: Description of Alternative Sketch Plans.
The three Alternative Sketch Plans illustrate the
alternative land use and circulation components that have
resulted from the Citizen's Workshop on the General Plan,
Working Paper #1: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues,
and Working Paper #2: Analysis of PlannIng Options. The
Alternative Sketch-PYans can be generally identified as:
- Minimum Change
- Higher Density: Mixed Densities/Uses
- Higher Density
For each Alternative Sketch Plan, two diagrams have
been prepared: one for the Primary Planning Area and one for
the Extended Planning Area, as indicated in the following
chart:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
~
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
""):,-
DIAGRAM
ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN
Primary
Planning Area
Extended
Planning Area
Minimum Change
A
I
Higher Density
Mixed Densities/Uses
B
2
Higher Density
C
3
On November 29, 1983, the Planning Commission held a
continued meeting to select various components from the
Alternative Sketch Plans to recommend to the City Council.
The Planning Commission recommendations are shown in the
attached exhibit.
Staff recommends that the City Council select the
various land use and circulation components for inclusion ln
the draft of the General Plan.
At the December 6, 1983, City Council meeting, Staff
and John Blayney, the General Plan Consultant, will be
available to discuss the Alternative Sketch Plans with the
Ci ty Council.
Large scale diagrams of the Alternative Sketch Plans
and the Planning Commission recommendations are available
for review at the Planning Department office and will be
brought to the City Council meeting.
.... t,-
\, .
, 1
DUBUN GENERAL PLAN
WORKING PAPER 3: DESCRIP'nON OF ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS
Prepared for
City of Dublin
By
BLA YNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
TJKM, Transportation Consultants
Hallenbeck-McKay & Associates, Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants
November 17, 1983
~ ~ ~
'X:. \
'- ~ C C, I~CO~
~ \'-' ~
",\\i~ ,~,.t:.'~....
Y . r\. .
, ~~X"
....\',~~
..., \'v'.-
.. c.'.
l
~...
1. OVERVIEW
Three non-reproducible alternative sketch plans at 1"=400' illustrate planning
proposals for the City of Dublin and the contiguous developable land adjoining the
west city boundary. Three accompanying alternative sketch plans at 1"=1,000' include
the Wlincorporated portion of the 37 square mile planning area for which Dublin has
requested Local Agencies Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval as the City's
sphere of influence.
Within the city (the primary planning area) the plans' proposals are parcel-specific,
while in the unincorporated area (extended planning area) proposals are schematic.
Limited available data on physical conditions, potential for urban services, and owners'
intentions, as well as the necessarily longer time scale for development in the
extended planning area, are reasons for more general treatment. The alternatives
provide a basis for policy decisions on conservation and development in the extended
planning area. \
It is Wllikely that anyone of the sketch plans will contain all of the components the
Planning Commission and City Council will wish to have in the Proposed General Plan
that will be the subject of public hearings leading to adoption as the City's policy
statement on future development. The plans are intended to illustrate the variety of
policies that can be mapped and that have been discussed since work on the General
Plan began last spring. Many of the components represented on the plans can be
mixed and varied to create yet another alternative which would contain all of the plan
elem ents desired by the City.
Some General Plan issues, particularly implementation proposals, cannot be mapped
and will be treated in the Draft General Plan report to be prepared after decisions on
the sketch plans have been made. The sketch plans are intended to illustrate options
selected by the Planning Commisssion and the City Council as well as some choices
that have not been discussed or resolved.
The sketch plan proposals can be mixed or matched in many different ways, but to
assist reviewers we have attempted to group them under three broad policy "names."
Minimmn Change: Primary Planning Area Plan A, Extended Planning Area Plan 1
Policies established by Alameda COlmty and inherited when the City was incorporated
in 1982 are generally retained.
~ Density/Mixed Densities/Uses: Primary Planning Area Plan B, Extended
Planmng Area Plan 2
Significant residential density increases proposed for Wldeveloped parcels, required
mixtures of dwelling types, and optional mixes of commercial and residential uses
would make Dublin more like a traditional city and less like a suburban "planned
community."
-1-
Higher Density: Primary Planning Area Plan C, Extended Planning Area Plan 3
This sketch plan is to some extent a catch-all for options not illustrated by Plans A
and Band 1 and 2. Densities in the primary area are similar to B, but mixed dwelling
types would be at the option of the developer.
2. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Residential:
Densities are expressed as housing tmits per gross residential area, with up to half of
abutting streets included. Refer to Section 3 for further discussion of multi-family
densities.
Rural Residential. (Less than 0.9 units per acre). This classification is used only in
the extended planning area. Rural residential areas at very low densi ties may be
unsewered, depending on site suitability for septic systems.
Residential: Single Family. (0.9 to 6.0 units per acre). This category includes single
family detached and zero lot line development.
Residential: Medimn Density/Required Mixed Dwelling Types. (6.1 to 14.0 units per
acre). Except where required mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and
densities may be similar or varied at the developer's discretion. Where mixed dwelling
types are required, site-specific policies would designate the location, number, and
maximum density of lower density development and base densities up to 20 units per
acre could be combined to reach the 14.0 average. Recently reviewed projects in the
medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8), Barratt (13.3), and Amador
Lakes (13.5).
Residential: Medimn-High Density. (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre.) Examples of
medium-high density developments include Dublin Green (14.8), the Springs (17.8) and
Greenwood Apartments (19.8).
Com mere5al/1nd1Btrial:
Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices,
motels, service stations and sale of auto parts are included in this classification.
Retail/Office and Automotive. In addition to the retail/office mes, auto dealerships,
body shops, and similar uses are included.
Business Parlc/lndustrial. Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited
manufacturing and distribution activities, administrative offices) which do not involve
heavy trucking, or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise or open uses.
Business Parlc/lndustrial: Low COftl'&ge. Up to 20 percent coverage, allowing a
campus-like environment. Examples: Kaiser Center for Technology,
Pleasant on; southwestern portion of Stanford Industrial Park.
-2-
Btminess Park/lndustrial: High Coverage. Coverage greater than 20 percent,
typically 35 percent. Example: Sierra Court.
Commercial/lndustrial- Unenclosed Uses. Commercial and industrial uses including
activities conducted in the open such as mobile home or construction materials
storage. Example: Scarlett Court.
Public, Semi-Public, and Open:
Public Facility. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient
size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Example: schools.
Semi-Public Facility. As labeled. Principal uses in this classification are churches
and private schools.
Parks/public Recreatiao. Publicallyowned parks and recreatIonal facilities.
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes
greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands.
3. MULTI F A MIL Y RESIDENTIAL DENSrrIES
The adopted General Plan should establish densities that will stabilize expectations for
both residents and developers and that will not become subject for debate during
review of every residential project. State environmental review guidelines (CEQA,
Sec. 15183) exclude density from the set of environmental effects to be considered by
environmental assessments as long as proposed densities are consistent with the
General Plan. Site plan, finish materials, design quality and traffic generation are all
concerns appropriately examined during project review, but density should be
determined by the General Plan and zoning so that site costs per unit can be
determined in advance of project design.
Relating Density to Unit Size. Attached and multi-family housing units may vary in
size from studioS to three bedroom tmits as large as many single family detached
houses. If General Plan density policies treat all sizes identically, regulating density
solely on the basis of tmits per acre, alllUlits on a given site would carry the same land
cost, regardless of size. As a result, developers will tend to build larger uni ts beca15e
the higher land cost of smaller tmits will reduce profit margins. Many zoning
ordinances require more site area per large unit than per small unit in order to avoid
this indirect incentive to build larger tmits, thereby allowing the market to determine
what size units should be built.
Small tmits, defined as having one or no bedroom, are on average equivalent to no
more than 75 percent of a large unit, defined as having two or more bedrooms, as
measured by household size, vehicle trip generation, and floor area. To incorporate
this concept in the sketch plans, base densities are set assuming all units will be large
tmits. Substitution of small tmits would allow the total number of lUlits to increase up
to one-third.
-3-
For example, a 7.1 acre site could be develo~d at medium density (6.1 to 14 units per
acre) with up to 100 large uruts.or 133 small units. Recently proposed or approved
Dublin projects include 945 multi-family units, of which 247, or 26 percent, were small
units. A comparable 7.1 acre medium density project with 25 percent small units
would be permitted a total of 108 units or 15.1 units per acre under this weighting
system, as compared with the 100 units or 14 units per acre that would be the
maximum allowable if all were large units. A maximum allowable share of small units
qualifying for tile higher densit:~ could be set if desired.
Bonus fer Affordable Bousing." General Plan residential. densities must take account of
the State law requiring a 25 percent density bpnus if 25 percent of a project's units are
affordable by h015eholds having incomes not ,exceeding 120 percent of median income
for the Bay Area. This provision has not had much use since it was added in 1979. A
recent analysis performed for San Mateo County by the Bay Area Council indicates
that developers are not likely to find the bon~ attractive unless the acceptable share
of affordable units is on the order of 5 to 10 percent rather than 25 percent.
Examples of possible densi ty bonus effects will be prepared as part of the Housing
Element. MeanWhile, the sketch plans should be reviewed with the assumption that
mandatory densi ty bonuses will not result in significant increases above the densi ties
shown on the plans. However, a density bon15 program other than that mandated by
State law may be the most feasible means of obtaining affordable housing.
4. DESCRIPTION OF SKETCH PLANS - PRIMARY PLANNING AREA .
The alternative sketch plans for the primary planning area are compared in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes the effects of the alternatives in terms of housing units and
population.
_.'1
Several of the options presented in Working Paper #2 are included in all three sketch
plans. These include Parks and Open Space Implementation Option 1, "Acquire a
neighborhood or community park east of the SP tracks." All plans show a five acre
neighborhood park on the east side of the Dougherty Hills. All of the plans also would
implement several of the options in the conservation/development section - Policy
Option 2, "Avoid development in slide-prone areas," Policy Option 3, ''Preserve oak
woodlands and riparian vegetation," and Implementation Option 1, "Designate steep
slopes (generally over 30 percent) as permanent open space."
In the area of circulation, all of the plans show improved freeway access to Dublin
(Circulation Policy Option 1) by provision of a new 1-680 interchange (CirCulation
Implementation Option 1). Additionally, all designate a road connecting Amador Plaza
Road and Regional Street, improving access to the area between Dublin Boulevard and.
1-580.
Sketch Plan A - Minim1Dll Change. Sketch Plan A, "Minimum Change," represents the
continuation of existing policies indicated by current zoning. The major sites
available for development are classified as single family. Surplus school sites conform
with surrotU'lding densities. In general, the lack of opportunities for production of
medium and medium-high density units under Plan A would be a constraint to the
production of tU'lits affordable to households of Dublin's median income and below.
Plan A minimizes park acquisition by developing a portion of the Shannon
-4-
Commmtmity Center as a neighborhood park and by assuming that five acres of the
Murray School site coUld function as a park by formal or informal agreement with the
Murray School District. Kolb Park and the rest of the Fallon School si te would be
subdivided for single family homes.
Sketch Plan B - Higher Density: Mixed Densities/Uses. Many of the options presented
in Working Paper 2 that would result in a more diverse urban character for Dublin than
envisioned in Plan A are included in Plan B. This higher densi ty option presents the
opportWlity for creative site planning and urban design, requiring mixed housing types
on the City's two largest development sites and encouraging mixed office/residential
uses in the San Ramon Specific Plan area. The "medium density/required mixed
dwelling type" classification 15ed in Plan B would allow densi ties of up to 25 units per
acre on portions ofa site. This required mix would produce Wlits ranging in size,
appearance and price. The issues of providing a range in housing types and prices and
allowing for mixed commercial/residential15es discussed in Working Paper 2 as
Housing Policy Options 3 and 4 and Implementation Options 3, 8, and 9.
Parks and Open Space Policy Option 1, "Acquire additional park lands as needed with
housing additions," would be implemented with Plan B, which designates the entire
Fallon School site as a community park, consistent with the need of a larger
population. Plan B also designates a portion of the Dublin School grounds for
development as a neighborhood park (Parks and Open Space Implementation Option 3).
Plan B presents the idea of a Dublin "Downtown Intensification Area" where parking
structures and mid-rise buildings could be constructed, as discussed in Implementation
Options 2 and 3 in the Commercial and Industrial Development section of Working
Paper 2. The eventual relocation of auto dealerships from the area bound by Dublin
Boulevard, Regional Street, 1-580 and 1-680 to an auto center east of Parks RFT A
would also help achieve Policy Option 1, ''Provide land area sufficient to maximize
retail sales in Dublin" and Policy Option 5, relating to increasing office space in and
adjoining downtown.
Plan B includes a BART station on the Golden Gate A venue si te recently proposed by
transit district's extension study. The station would be within walking distance of
much of downtown and would stimulate office development. A new street parallel to
1-580 would allow BART traffic to 15e three Dublin Blvd. intersections.
Sketch Plan C - Higher Density. Table 2 shows that Plan C would result in only
slightly lower total population, housing tmits, and student population than would Plan
B, with almost the same percent multi-family Wlits. Plan C would encourage mixed
commercial/residential uses on two small sites, but would not require mixed dwelling
types on any land available for residential development.
Plan C would not introduce any medium density ho15ing on the Dolan School site, but
does designate 15 acres of the site for a comrnWlity park. The Fallon site is also part
park, part residential in Plan C, with densities up to 17.5 units per acre permitted.
The east side of Dougherty Hills is in the medium density classification.
Like Plan B, Plan C provides parks in proportion to growth. While Plan B designates
the Fallon site as a commWlity park, Plan C designates the Dolan site, at a less
central location. Creation of a five acre neighborhood park on the Fredriksen school
-5-
","
site would serve children living north of Amador Valley Boulevard and east of Village
Parkway without requiring them to cross a major street.
On the eastern edge of the city, Plan C depicts a vegetative buffer on both sides of
Dougherty road, reflecting Public Lands Policy Option 2, "Request tha the Army plant
a buffer strip on Parks RFTA land adjoining Dougherty Road and improve building
maintenance."
BART proposals are the same as for Plan B.
-6-
TABLE 1
COMPABISON OF ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS - PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
Gross
Resi denti al
~
Residential
Dolan School Sile 27
Fallon School 13
Frederiksen School 12
East side of Doughert)' 84
Hills
Starward at San Ramon 2.4
Amador Valley at 4
Dougherty
~est end of Dublin S
Boulevard
West end of Hansen Dr, 9
\Ii est of Silvergate Dr. 4
Norn, of Hansen Dr. 7
Parks
East of Do~herty Hills
DolflIl Site
Fillion Schoolfl\olb Park
F rederikser, School
Murray School
Shannon Park
Dublin School
West of Silvergate Rd.
Commereialllndustrial
Downtown Center
Retail/Office &. Automotive
Mixed Use - Residential/Office
Tratficways and Transit
1-680 Interchange
SP San Ramon Branch Line
BART
Plan A Plan B Plan C
Higher Density
Mini m urn ChAnge MLIed DerStiee/UIle5 Higher Den.si ty
SingJ e family Required milled dwelling Single family on 12 acres
types, medium density'
Single family No residential Medium density on 8 acres
Single Family Medium density Medium density on 7 acres
Single family Required milled dwelling Medium density'
on 79 acres types, medium density on 79 acres
on 79 acres
No residential Medium-high density Mixed use/medium density'
No residential Medium-higt. densi ty Medium density on 2 acres
on 2 acres
No residential Medium-high density Mixed use/medium oensit)'
Single family Medium density MediuTTi density
Medium Density No residential Medium density
Single family Medium density Medium density
S acre S acre S acre
neighborhood park neighborhood park neighborhood park
No park No park CommWlity park
No park Community park S acre
neighborhood park
No park No park S acre
neightxlrhood park
Neighborhood No park No park
park 90 school
grounds
,N eighborhood No change No change
park
No park Neighborhood park on No park
Ichool grounds
No park Neighborhood park No park
No change lntensificfltion oppor- No change
tunity area as
identified on plan
No change Limited to Limited to east
east of 1-680 of 1-680
None West of San Ramon Rd. West end of Dublin Blvd.;
Starward at San Ramon Rd.
New interchange
between Dublin
Blvd. &. Amador
Valley Blvd.
New interchange between
Dublin Blvd. &. Amador
Valley Blvd.
New interchange between
Dublin Blvd. &. Amador
Valley Blvd.
Transi t Corridor
Transit Corridor
Transi t Corridor
No BART in
Primary Planning
Area
BART station at south
end of Golden Gate Dr.;
collector street from
Regional Street to
Amador Plaza Rd.
BART station at south end
of Golden Gate Dr.;
collector street from
Regional Street to
Amador Plaza Rd.
-7-
~
~
~
=
~
~
en
~
~<
~~
~<
~~
C'4<;
~..~
~~<
~~c:
<~
~==
~~
~=
5~
~
o
=
~
o
=
~
:E
~
:a'f
~=o
~
~t:)
'fj l
=,,=
jO'!
~i~
=~
:e
<;~
j.~j
~.... U
:IS
ii
~is
<........c
.c~O
~Q)""
iO
i
li~
~i=
Q)
Cl
o
t--
t--
~
t--
o
t--
0)
~
t--
o
ce
It')
ce~
o
It')
o
~
co
C'l
~
..;
J!l
'S
t:)
bD
c:::
'fi3
::s
o
::I::
~
o
E-o
o 0
o t-
ce. .-4
~ ~
o
o
ce
..;
o
M
0)
..;
o
It'>
-.::l'
..;
C'l
~
o
..;
J!l
'S
t:)
>>
:::I
E
~
~
Q)
'b'o
c:::
.....
VJ.
o
CO
M
M
o
~
ce
,...;
o
o
ce
,...;
ce
CO
M
J!l
'S
o
>>
:::I
E
~
~
...,
c:::
~
c..
Q)
~>>
Q):::I
.:: E
...,~
~~
og:;j
Sog
U:E
.-
....
og
:E
(!(
00
d
-.::l'
c..
o ,
..... ....
o"S
M::S
fB li)
E 0..
::s ~
tIJ 0
~ ~
a~
'0.0
Q)e-1
..c:....
E-o~
'0
'ti~
Q) ~
.5 :l
-t)
~~
'Ot)
~ Q)
"" c..
c::: ~
'fil .
J!l
~'S
..c:::s
Q)>>
~:::I
c.. E
~~
~ I
Q)+::
..c::3
.... E
....
.5=
~<
tIJ
.... .
c:::~
~.S
0.. .
::s ::s
g >.
0:::1
It') E
~~
. .....
MQ)
'O'bb
Q) c:::
~'fil
~ ~
> Q)
~ c::
~ ~
E.....
0C'l
.eM
>''0
~a
:;J!3
Q)'S
'bb::S
c:::>>
'fi3 :::I
tIJ E
'C ~
..... .....
-
.J::JQ)
::S'b'o
Clc::
o~'fil
cobD
o)c:::
.-4+::
.5 .~
~ Q)
o
o
C'l
o
C'l
(!(
-.::l'
e-1
-.::l'
o
o
t-
o
C'l
*-
o
.
It')
C'l
o
It')
..-l
~
00
.-4
'*
~
.
ce
C'l
o
o
-.::l'
~
t--
..-l
*-
o
a)
o
o
t-
M
.-4
~
c:::
o
:;j
~
og
0..
o
~
- 8-
5. DESCRIPTION OF SKETCH PLANS - EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Each of the three alternatives for the extended planning area could be linked with any
of the sketch plans for the primary area, but Plan 1, like Plan A for the primary area,
represents current policies. Measurements of developable acreage in the hill areas are
very rough because the true cutoff point for development on steep lands can be
determined only during site planning and because access to som e otherwise
developable slopes may be difficult.
Sketch plans for the extended planning area are compared in Table 3. Projections of
housing units, population, commercial/industrial acreage and employment are
presented in Table 4.
Plan L This alternative retain; the present 100 acre minimum parcel size in virtually
the entire planning area except for the wide fiat area adjoining the north side of 1-580
east of Tassajara Road which is proposed for campus-like office or research facilities
meeting the highest standards fOWJ.d in the Bay Area. The eastward extension of
Dublin Boulevard would be as a freeway frontage road extending from Scarlett court.
Plan 2. In Plan 2, hill areas with slopes lD1der 30 percent and predominantly 20
percent or less m:e designated for single family density, assumed in this instance to
average two units per acre. Actual development could occur at higher or lower
densitieS based on more detailed studies of land capability, but the average is a
reasonable number for conceptual planning. Residential development would be similar
to that in the hills above Cal State Hayward
East of Tassajara Road land is provided for both the campus-like research park and for
higher density business park development suitable for the types of enterprises now on
Sierra Court that may outgrow their sites. An auto center also could be developed for
dealerships that may be lD1able to expand at their present locations if efforts to
intensify downtown developmentsucceed. Dublin Boulevard is extended parallel to
and 1,500 feet north of 1-580 where it would provide the most efficient traffic service.
Plan 3. This sketch plan designates hill areas of less than 30 percent slope and
predominantly 20 percent or less for rural residential development assumed to average
one unit per four acres. Actual development might occur on larger or smaller parcels,
but at an average of one-eighth of the density of Plan 2, the rural residential
classification represents a contrast between urban and "horse-ranch" development.
Plan 3 designates the entire fiat and gently sloping area east of Tassajara Road for
low coverage business/industrial park. Dublin Boulevard is routed along the toe of the
hills to separate industrial and residential development.
The potential under each alternative for 12,000 to 15,000 jobs east of Parks RFTA
would increase the imbalance between planned job; and planned housing in the
Tri-Valley area.
-9-
-. Qj
Kl .....
~ .....
C). r:c:
Qj ca Qj
O'C .....
ca ~.....@
:-~w
~ Q)'O.....
C ..... .....cQj
~ c.....
0 ~~';;)'o
:>> '00 tIl@ C
c..... .-
..... .- C) 0 Q) ;;;~ C
'!i.l e;g _Q).....C......
..... tIl tIl ::l'~ ~ 'a3
...... Co Qj ~
~ ~M Kl.....<.o,....,.. ~o. E
c~ 0.
Q) ca~ ...... . Q) ~ ~ gs Q)
..... gj Q) Q) ~
C :p.c: .0:5 bO~tIl ......Q) e;g
.....
MQ) C..... ~Qj~:>> tIl C 0
..... Q) tIl ~Oc:Q)..... ...... '!i.l M
Qj ~~ QjCOg9 ~::l ~ Q)
~ ~bO~ g ca.o
Q) Q)C...... Q) C)
'0 Q)...... &~ > Qj
0 r:c: 0 > 0 :>>.c: C 00.
~ ::s 'edtll gQ3 ;~O tIltll
'OC) &C
~~ :<:~Q) ~ Qj Q)
:s O~Q)'O~ o tIl o Q)
r:c:7iJ ~ 0.':: ~ 8. r:c::o ......0.
WO
c:l.c
=
C,,)< Q)
~~ bO
Qj ~ <:
~< ~ .....
tIl ~~ C t:&'O~ C
~O Q) g~ i~ r:c:o@E 'a3
M~~ ..... 0. 0. .~C) ~ ::: ca g. E
...... 0
~ v.l :<:caSC)fi> Q)
o Qj ~ 0'- 'QJ ~
<z Q) C .......C..... ..... ..... > ~
~~:s ..... 0 ,o.....C)OC p.. Q) ~ Q)
C Q)~- 0
~- :>> C~tIl_Qj Kl.8~'O MQ)
~~c:l.c ..... :::l Qj,o.....~..... C)
tIl E~ .c: c: ~ Q)'- tIltllgJQ3 ~ Qj
~~O Q) bO-"" ..... r:c: tIl :: ~'Ei Q)o.
.c: Qjo ..... ';;) Q) c: Qj ~ObO~ > tIl
<~ ..... ......M ..c:tIl..c:Q)..... C)::::\CQ) Oc
~O :r: Q) ~ 'OQ)!:C)@ 'O~:eE tIl Q)
OZ 'bhQ) Q)COO &0.
c'O X '!il C ..... rn Qj 'O'S;: E o 0
~ .- ::l C ::l .....
Z~ iZi9 ::s .0 ..... < Qj ~~:og ......c
w ....
O~
S
<
~ C :>>.s
....
8 - ........... '0.....
tIl '0 .c: c: r:c: Qj ~
gJ..... ~ bO ::l . Q)
Q) Qj ..... 8 Qj OQ):>> Q)
c~......:r: ..... ~..c: c:.> N
c: ..... bO -- @ Q)t:8 8. '!il
tIlcc: .gsc:
Qj ~Q3~ B 0._ E Q) 0 0Cl bOoE tIlQ)......
.c: Qj c..... C ~ ~
0 ...... Q) ~o......c~..... ..... ~
'E ~ ~ Q) &J 0 c:.>...... &J Qj c:oo.Qj &~~
r-IE ...... ~ Qj bO ...... tIl 0..... Q)
Qj 0. tIl Q) ::l 0.'0 008.
::l o bOCil ~ :>>tIl.o @ ~ C E ~
E ..... c: ~cil:;:::""'Q)ca...... ~oo EO E
'0 ...... :p 8...... c: ~ bO'C :>>:P.t bO ::lr-l
'2 Q)t;c: .t:Q)Q)Qj.....~ Qj c:.> C E !e E
.... :::: .>! ~ :: Q) ~.-
:E ~ bO.c: ~ ~,...,. Q)C:0c:
E Q)'r;j :<: '0 t: g; 0. Q) c: () C '>! 'a3 '2
0'0 0 'O~ ~oQ),;:! Qj ..... ...... r-.
..... c: Q) ...:1.S @ c: g.S tIl :E~E M
...:1...... ~ ~c:.>tIlO' 00
--
en
~
--
,...;
-- ,...;
a:! Cil c: Q) '0
:P 'Ei 0 c:.> Q)
cd ...... Qj
C ~.t: ..... 0. .....
Qj C)
Q) E..... ..... w Q)
'0 E ~ ::l c: r-.
'r;j c:.> Q) r-.
Q) 0'0 ~ 0. 0
....
r:c: 0$ 0 0 C)
'-'
-10-
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF HOLDING CAPACITY: ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Housing Unitsa
Populationa
40
2,950
370
130
9,400
1,200
BUSINESS/lNDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
Acres JoI:I; Acres Jots Acres Jots
High Coverage 160 6,300 0 0
Low Coverage 610 15,400 300 7,500 480 12,000
Auto Centera 20 300 20 300
TOTAL 610 15,400 480 14,100 500 12,300
.....
a Excludes existing rural residential development
b Locati on differs in Plans B and C
(corrected 11/29/83)
-11-
5
8
8
CQ
!d
~<
;!
~~
..:lZ
~z
ZZ
~j
..:lClol
~~
~~
!55!
""ClolClol
~~I
..:lZCI.l
~<Z
E-~:3
~~
~u
I:)E-
u~
..CI.l
t;~
=~
i~
~~
8~
B
C'f.l
~
<
=
==
I:)
:IE
,Q
i ul g
a ~
illll g
:e M
'il
:=
1<1 ~
~ C"I
~
I j~
O:eClol~
,Q
... 0
SUI ;;
I ;
cpCQI 0
l:ld ,..;
'il
)<1 ~
~
11~ ~
o~~~
i~ ~ ~
~~
i~"
ecn M
=""" ~
i~
o
CIO
cr
-
c,..,
o
...
Sj
s:
-
't:l
c~ ~
:::l Q:l rI)
,oQ) ~
=' e Q,l
~ z
t-
o
t-
t-
o
t-
M
CIO
It')
It')
o
M
t-
,-l
M
o
Q)
~
o
It')
t-
o
cc
o
,-l"'
o
0')
o
,..;
o
....
o
,..;
M
~
o
,..;
....
M
CIO
"'
C"I
It')
0')
t-
"'
....
o
CIO
cc
I
-
c,..,
o
1;;
Q:l
~
cc
t-
M
cc
t-
M
....
Ol:f'
cc
....
M
M
c
....
c
o
c..
Q
-
cog
oB
:;~
~
-13-
t-
....
Ol:f'
o
o
Ol:f'
c -
Q) It')
CIO
~ bl)Q)
.... c....
c...Fii
Q)oQ)
~C39
c.._~
~
t-
Ol:f'
cc
t-
Ol:f'
cc
o
It')
t-
cc
....
It')
CIO
Ol:f'
It')
>>
Q:l
c..
~
:2:
rI)
:::::l
Q)
s:
o
Q)
It:>
o
,-l
(l:)
o
t-
It:>
o
It:>
t-
o
It:>
t-
o
t-
o
N
o
M
....
N
o
o
o
~"'
o
M
t-
,..;
CIO
CIO
M
"'
Ol:f'
CIO
t-
M
N
~
<
Eo-<
o
Eo-<
c::
o
:0
Q:l a)
toOl
.~ l
c.. >>
o .0
Q)
l:l:: '0
" Q)
Q) ....
~ .s
~ :E
- rI)
~:e
c >>
~ "2
Q:l Q,)
'0 >
:.::l Q)
o Q,)
rIl .0
C 0
o ....
Q
_ '0
o Q,)
o E
.c: ='
C) rIl
CI.l ~
c..
o Q,)
.... ~
Q)
Q,) rI)
.... ....
.... c
'E ~
E B
o rn
o
~ ~
rIl ....
.> 0.
'0 E
< ='
rI) rIl
1: ~
Q) ....
toOl C
:0 Q,)
l5 .5
-
Q,) 0
.c: c..
.... C
.... Q,)
o ....
1:: &l
o 'g
Q) ....
l:l:: rIl
....
o
.;s c
.~ 0
b .fii
rI) rIl
i5 6
rI)
'0 :e
,g ~
C) ....
rn 1<
>> Q,)
f ....
c..
=' ~
:2: rn
Q:l .0
6. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Table 5 summarizes Murray School District Dublin schools' potential enrollment under
the different sketch plans for the primary planning area. Current enrollment in grades
K-8 is .54 students per occupied housing unit, down from a high of 1.0 per unit in the
early 1970's. Became about 80 percent of the city's housing stock was built between
1960 and 1970, families are growing up and further decline in student population from
existing uni ts is expected.
Despite low initial enrollments, new single family homes are likely to have more
school age children within ten years after occupancy than existing homes. Enrollment
ratia; are not expected to reach the peak levels of homes built during the 1960's
became of lower fertility rates and changes in homehold and family structure.
Multi-family housing, which will comprise from 25 to 42 percent of all units in the
primary planning area, pa;es the most difficult projection problem. Traditionally,
apartments have housed few children, but the current and anticipated inability of
many families to afford detached units almost certainly will increase enrollments. An
assumption must be made as to how much. Murray School District reports that new
housing of all types has about 0.2 children per unit.
For the purpose of the sketch plans, we assume that peak K-8 enrollment will be
reached five to ten years after buildout with 0.2 K-8 students per multi-family unit,
0.4 per existing 1983 single family unit, and 0.6 per new single family unit, producing
2,570 to 2,740 K-8 students. Built capacity of the four Murray School District schools
shown on the plans is 2,480. The discrepancy occurs west of 1-680 where Nielsen
School capacity is 707, but projected K-6 enrollment is about 1,000 students. Dublin
School could be re-opened to accomodate additional students, or capacity at other
sites could be increased with the use of portable classrooms as necessary.
-12-
:::.-.
[dT:;1J;
t~~---
. ,~\-\
~",- .. \~~
/ ':~,".:o \~ \.- -61f;
"..._,' ~i
'~" ~'\ ~;:.\~.
. ~~ ":o!'>- .~b .,,"
::~",:::-:.::-../
..\'........
;~:;~
\
\,
.
. i
_._J
.....
..... 0
o 0
o.c
.c()
()tI)
tI) nl
>>.... .....
'-< Cd 0
cO...... 0
....'O.c
~s::nl()
..,nlEtI)
i:ii E 1-0 .c
nlnlbD
~~~i
~gc2
-<4 . --
,.f'
~
.....
..
tI)
~
~
c:l..
,
"r:'
,"
./<
. I,
;
"'T--",
~
z
o
E::
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
o
~
~
~
p::
P-t
~
o
o
=
t)
tf.l
~
<:
p::.
~
Of
t-
o
Z
<:
(0
Sd
~
~
t:3
:E
~
.......
.-I
Z
!:a
~
~
<:
~
<:
~
:S
~
t:I:l
u<
t-<~
~<
~o
~M~~
~ <:z
VJ:3~<
-~.....~
::><pJ~
u1t-<~o
a: <~
~o
o:z
~
:z~
g~
S
<:
~
8
,j
..j,
,
.i
i
f
r
(
,..... a:l
~ "'-'
~ .....
C) ~
a:l a! a:l
o'r: "'-'
a! ~"'-'@
..... -::~tf.l
~ (l)"O
"'-' "'-'~"'-'
~ ~~~~~
0 "00 oo@ ~
~ c:"'-' .....
"'-' ..... 0 0 (l) :::;~ ~
'fii cf( - ~~
"'-' 00 ~ =,'!il ~ 'Cii
..... ~o ID",-,-<,g~ a:l El
~ .gM ~~ 0. ~o. E
(l) a!@ ..... . Q.l ~ ~~ (l)
"'-' ;g~~bDoo S-o
c: '.0 .c: ......(l) cR
..... .o"'-'a:la:l~
M(l) ~"'-' ~g g l ~ 00 ~ 0
...., (l) 00 'al '!il M
a:l "O~ ......~ S-o (l)
S-o 'fii ...... S-o bD S-o g a!.o (l) 0
(l) (l)~"""
"0 (l)...... El~ :> a:l
0 ~o :> 0 ~.c: ~ 00.
~ Ciloo ga!3~0 0.:0 . 00 00
"00 8.c:
~8. ~~(l)"O~ OJ (l)
~ 0 .3El~@El o 00 o (l)
~vJ ~:D ......0.
0....... 0. tf.l0
(l)
bD
a:l (l) -<
S-o ....,
~~ bD t-< 8. c: ~
00 c: ~ "0 C)
gEl""" a:l 'Cii
(l) ~.c: ~oaE
..... 0. 0. . ~ C) ~~a! g- E
..... 0 ~a!S-oC)S-o (l)
00 7il
~ o 0 a:l (l) ~ 0..... '0 S-o
(l) ~ ...... 'C c:; 0 '"C a:s "'-':> cR
"'-' 0 'O"'-'(l)~"'" p...Q.l~C)
c: 0
~- - ~ ~~oo-a:l S'O'C C"':l Q.l
"'-' :::: a:s"o"'-'S-o..... ~ Cf) -ti) .-::: 0
00 Eel< .c: ~ 00 (l)..... ~ 3: (l) .:: S-o a:s
(l) bD..... OJ ..... ~ (l)o.
.c: do ..... Ul (l) c: d o 0 S-o 0 :> 00
..... ......M .c:oo.c:(l)",-, b~ ~t o ~
::r.. (l) . "O(l)"t0c: _."0 ~ ~ E .00 (l)
S-o (l) ~ 0 0 cO 8,0.
'bb(l)
c:"O >('!il c: ..... tf.l ~ 'O'S: E 00
. en 9 ..... ::S c: ~ "'-' ~ @..... 0 ......c
~ .0 ..... -< a:s "0 e.: rf) .....
(l)
c:
cO
.c:
o
....E
~
E
'2
.....
~
c: cO'
..... ~"'-'
--- Pr"1.c ~ .-
00 .....'"" bD c: P:
ID cO @ ..... g cO
c: t:: ...... ::r. C) .....
..... ~n - ~
;OOC:CW.tnc:c::l
':;)oC:S-oUlOrf)
.D ..... 0 (l)
~ 0...... c:~"'-'
(l) S-o 0 0..... ~ cO
~c::lU;(l)~Oj"o
S-oo.~OO.Do.~
(l)ct1:;j.....(l)a!,S
:> .c ~ ~ t:.O.c
g"'-'(l)(l)a:l.....~
~ bD.c: S-o t11 """'
~~"Ot~~O'
o'Oc:00"05
~.S cO c: C).S 00
r-
C"':l
00
--
Cl
~
....
M
"0"'-'
cO ~
O(l)--
~ .c: "..
(l)t~
bDoE
cO ~.....
..... S-o
c:oo.c
o ..... c;
~ E ~
~goC:
~',p ~ t.c
cO 0 c
3: (l) S-o .-
(l) c: 0 c
(l)~t;C:
S-oO(l);:
~OOOc.
(l) C)
o N
8. 'm
t1J(l)......
c~~
&~ ~
008.
EO E
~....
E~E
'x 'Cii '2
cO "'-' .....
~~E
::Sct1~
1:5~
..... ~ OJ
o bD a!
..... c:.....
"0 ..... .....
(l)t;C
::: 'x .g
E (l)'Ui
',:3 .S ~
-
...... a! c (!)
cO . fJ (ij 0 0
..... ..... m
+-'
c: a1.C "'-' 0.
a:s
C) E"'-' "5 Cf)
'0
'fii E ~ 0 C
l-. (l)
(l) 0"0 ..... 0.
~ o,s 0 0
-10-
'd
(!)
...
C)
CD
~
~
o
C)
'-'
..,,-~
, ' ,~
,.I, '
. .,
:-j
\
~
" '::A
. .....
1
(~
\
/_...
(
f\eVlSED
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF HOLDING CAPACITY: ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 3
Plan 1
Plan 2
370
Housing Urrltsa
populationa
40
2,950
130
9,400
1,200
BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
Acres J<b> Acres J<b> Acres J0tJ5
- - -
High Coverage 160 6,300 0 0
LoW Coverage 610 15,400 300 7,500 480 12,000
Auto Centera 20 300 20 300
TOTAL 610 15,400 480 14,100 500 12,300
'--
a Excludes existing rural residential development
b Location differs in Plans Band C
(corrected 11/29/83)
-11-
(
(
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SKETCH PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - PRIMARY
PLANNING AREA from Commission meeting, 12/29
Site
-
~and Use Designation
Required Mix (1 vote for single family)
Dolan School Site
Park
Fallon School
Frederikson School
Medium Density on 7 acres
Park on 5 acres
East Side Dougherty Hills
Required Mix
5 Acre Neighborhood Park
Starward at San Ramon
Medium-High Density (1 vote for no
resi dential)
Amador Valley at Dougherty
Medium-High Density on 2. acres
(1 vote for no residential)
West End of Dublin Blvd
Mixed Use/Medium Density
Medium Density
West end of Hansen
West of Silvergate (4 acres)
Park
North of Hansen
M edi um D ensi ty
Office/commercial
West of San Ramon Rd
Neighborhood Park Development
M urr ay School
No Change
Shannon Park
Downtown Center
..
Neighborhood park Development
Intensification opportunity Area
Auto uses allowed as in Plan A
BART Station and collector Street
Dublin School
.'~ .."
Auto uses as in Plan A
other Downtown
1-680 Interchange
As on all plans
As on all plans
SP Corridor
(--
C.
.,'
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SKETCH PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS-
!,XTENDED PLANNING AREA from Commission meeting, 12/29
Residential _ combination of sketches 2 and 3, allowing for neW single family
development but attempting to protect existing rural residential
Commercial/lndustri~- una.J\imous support of sketch 2, mixed high and loW coverage
business park with auto center.
Circulation _ road as on sketch 3, cutting through industrial area
..
.....4
:;,;,.1
e e
- al
~ ....
~ .-
Oca~
al al
O.t: ....
ca C'l....a
.- "';:!9C1.l
~ (l)'O
c: .... ....c:~
0 !9~~~'O c:
~ '00 [f)a
c:.... .-
.... ._ 0 0 (l) :;;;~ c:
'Iii cf( -(l) c:'-'
.... [f) [f) ~'@ !9 'a
.- C:o ~""<:.D""'" al~
~ ~~ c:~ 0. ~o.. E
(l) ca@ .- . (l) ~ (l)
~ B5 ~~[f) ~~ ~
- .~..c: .....(l) cf(
~(l) c:.... (l)~""~~ [f) c: 0
.... (l) [f) ~gg~@ '(il 'Iii ~
al 'O~ ..-.~ ~(l)
~ . Iii .-. ~bO~ g ca.D (l) 0
(l) (l)c:.....
'0 (l)..... ~~ >al
0 ~o >o~~c: 00.
~ ~ a1~ gca;:eO o..~ [f) [f)
'00 8.c:
3:~(l)'O~ al (l)
S ~ 0 .3 ~~ a ~ o [f) o (l)
~tiJ ~:D .-.0..
CI.lO
~
=
u< (l)
E-<~ bO
al (l) <: ....
~< ~ bO
[f) ~~ C t:8.'O~ c:
~o (l) g~ ~~ ~o~E 'a
.... 0.. E
~M~~ 0 0.. .~O ~~ca g-
.- ~ca~~~ (l)
[f) tiJ
c: ~ 0..... '(il ~
<z (l) c: .-. .t: .... .... al(l)C:> cf(
~~~S .... 0 ,o....00c:
c (l)C'l- p..o(l)(l) 0
C'l...... ~ c:!9[f)-al ~....~'O ~(l)
.... ..-. al,o....~.... 0
~<~~ [f) .- ..c: c [f) (l)'- [f)[f)~ca ~ al
E-<~O (l) Ecf( bO'- a:I.... ~ [f) 3: ~'a (l)o..
..c: alo .... -en (l) c: al o 0 > [f)
a: <~ .- .....~ ..c:[f)..c:(l).... b:::l ~~ o c:
0 :I: (l) . 'O(l)tOa 'O~:eE [f) (l)
~z 'bilaJ (l) c: 0 0 8.0..
c'O x'fil C .... CI.l a:I '0'> E 00
~ 'w 9 .- ~ c: ~ .... ~a:eg .-.c:
st< ~ .D ._ <: al CI.l .....
tf.l~
e
<::
~ c ~S
.....
8 -- ~.~ '0....
tIl....'O~ g~ cO ~ (;
-j g} a:I 8''''' g al O(l)~ (l)
":""-";"i (l) co..-.:I: .... ~..c: CJ t.:l
OJ .... bll - a (l)1:al ~ '!is
! c ;tIlC: .tIle
.1 c::l 8ca! BoC~tIloCl.l blloE [f)(l)"-'
..c: ..... 0 (l) .e e.c e ~ ~
--q U ~ 0...... C ~ ....
.1 'C~~ (l) ~ 0 0.... ~ a:I coo..al 8.~al
~E ._ ~ a:I bO _ tf) 0.... (l)
c::l0..[f)(l)~0..'O ~eE~ 000..
~ o bOca ~ ~[f).o c
E .... c._ (l)ca-....(l)cai:d p:.;oo EO E
'0 .- .... > .... ~ ..... ~.~ ~ bll ~.-I
'c (l)t;c g.t: C bO.t: al 0...... e E~E
.- ::: .s( ~ ....(l)(l)e....!9 3: (l) ~'c
~ ~ bO,c (l) 5Q""" (l) c.... a 'S('a 'c
E (l)'1ii 3: '01:>_0. (l) c: 0
0'0 0 'O~ al .... .- ,.-.,
.-:; c (l) ~.S a c g .S tIl ~O(l)""'" ~~E M
""'""""....... c..... p:.;0[f)0. 00
C'l
C'l
-
.-I
- .-I
a1 ca c: (l) 'tl
'a 0 0
.~ ca .- al (l)
....
c ~.t: .... 0. 0
al
(l) E.... ~ CI.l (l)
'0 c: ...
. Iii E~ 0 (l) ...
(l) 0'0 ~ 0.. 0
....
~ uS u 0 C)
'-"
-10-
';;~;I'"
;~"E
~k~
.,.ll'.'~.
<"<;r."i.i}
e
e
REV\SED
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF HOLDING CAPACITY: ALTBRNATIVESKETCH PLANS
EXl'ENDED PLANNING AREA
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 3
Plan 1
Plan 2
370
Housing Uni tsa
populationa
40
2,950
9,400
1,200
130
BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
A~es JotE A~es JotE A~es JotE
- - -
High Coverage 160 6,300 0 0
Low Coverage 610 15,400 300 7,500 480 12,000
Auto centera 20 300 20 300
TOTAL 610 15,400 480 14,100 500 12,300
.....
a Excludes existing rural residential development
b Location differs in Plans Band C
(corrected 11/29/83)
-11-
,
tGr'
1 >
I
t>
Ii,
i:
I
~
.
/.
to
~>
\
,0,
f
,.<\ '1'
!i ,
t"
,
I, t
(
~
f.' ~,
t
l
k
~'
"
ft, J
;1: 1.
!
i
!;i-
f
~.,
"
,
,
~i.
f.
I
r
5'
>>
r
}
f
4
1
t:
f
I
~-
"
" .-
j '" j;
. .
l ;
~
f. .'
t
i' ,-.
I '(~
"
r ,.
'r:;
f i
~ .
i
,;
f. :,f
I 4
~-
l
i
I
;-
~
-,
v
~
"
t
f.
(
.'"
~.
};
[
,y
l'
~
i, ,
,-
i- .. - \
f'::j,'" ,.. r.~
~ ,.-,b., , i
rt .1 r ' .8 .~.
:\\::"i'J(\tt~ 1: "\ -
'~~{~'l;1f~"/'t/: f.~.'
~,~." ,~,'~~.r~.t~,,~~f. ~::':.-f
~,~~
,.
Al:TE~""r:: ~~ ~~
DUBLIN
EXTENDED PLANNING ~
. ...'
1" .......,
f. .
'"",:~
~ ce.NTE1Z- .
eus.~e;&~""PUS.TJt.'AL.: LoW ~E-
, . , ..' . ~.' I', , " ,', .'
~~~/;N~'~'~~'
;"'l' II ":\1::. ,,:.'J'.,':\
'.J':
>",'
~/COUN'1Y...;.~D.::.'
. I" .
: ",'1 ;."
,I
~"v c,"
....~
~ ~bCe. /i
',1 ", ~
'~ .
':
r-.
(I
l:
~:
~'
I,
~i'
i
~.' .
~'"
f
~.
l
'p.
r
r'.
,
~.
p'
t,
:'''
~.
i.
R
~'.
;;.~
r,
t
i.:. .,'
w' "'. I
~,';
~.
~l
Ii".:" . .
;".' I"
'?'.' j "
'It ,',',.'
~,~.>l;/ ' . 'I'
~l: " ," "
\ i .~~:, .' . 1.,~' -:_
i~1~,:;~i:f::.;, '
l:....~;-i '~~~ '"
&~,~.~ "f,;,}'-;, . .
, ,~ I .' "., .
, ~ f . · I I
~ . ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ f ~ ~ H I ~... ~
~~~ d H ~. l. n d d. ~
~ID~ n Ii j H H I H ~
!B~ in! D [jJ~ UJlIJ
~
I
~
~
:<(.
,l'"
,~ .,
.tI
~ ~
.~~~
,'i::>i
, ~O~
H "",
~j" "
if. 1
If" '
i"
, '
,
"
,
"
t'!.
1';::
,"
"
-'1.'
. t.~.
; ',. .
:'J
, '
,,'
'J
.,'
4: .'.,'
J"
f :~-
/:
,-.. ,',
, ';,.' ,
. .,1
',t . 'I Ii'
;','..li '....i.
"j",.:1 "
;. ',.'
r ~
\ '
, ,
i
f ~ II
d ~ H j
I ~ ~ : ~ I I. ~
I i Iii I I i ~ I ~ I I
i I i j i I I ; ; I i I I
1III I I [IJ[\]
!'
, ,
i
l
~
~
~
,.'. ,',
\~~. : i
.,'
i',.'
.' :;,y"
f'. ';F " .".,! .t~
,',. , l ~~'.~~~;
,-", t
. .:' : ;,';i t.,,~,...'.; 't"~'i;.f;'
\, '. . '~
I, .,...
#
.r....."..... -.....'-.,...h.,.:...,.,.-:..:,~~~~
~;, ,,' ','
f'
~;;
~
): '
{>>
f'
l'
I,
i
r"
,
, -
". ~."
,~,/.. ".'I
Ii
~ ~d ~d
~ ~p~HI 0
i5~ d IJ i, II, i d d f
· dO ~; j " ~ m I ~ .. i g
lal ~iiiHI' n i~:rn~
I,.........,',.
i . ~
l' ','
.,' I ,
..
e
e
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SKETCH PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS - PRIMARY
PLANNING AREA from Commission meeting, 12/29
Site
-
Land Use Designation
Required Mix (1 vote for single family)
Dolan School Site
Park
Fallon School
Frederikson School
Medium Density on 7 acres
Park on 5 acres
East Side Dougherty Hills
Required Mix
5 Aere Neighborhood Park
Starward at San Ramon
Medium-High Density (1 vote for no
residential)
Amador Valley at Dougherty
Medium-High Density on 2 acres
(1 vote f or no residential)
West End of Dublin Blvd
Mixed Use/Medium Density
Medium Density
West end of Hansen
West of Silvergate (4 acres)
Park
West of San Ramon Rd
M edi um D ensi ty
Office/commercial
North of Hansen
Neighborhood Park Development
M urr ay School
No Change
Shannon Park
Downtown Center
..
Neighborhood park Development
Intensification Opportunity Area
Auto uses allowed as in Plan A
BART Station and collector Street
Dublin School
Auto\iSes as in Plan A
. .~.. ".~J
Other Downtown
As on all plans
1-680 Interchange
As on all plans
SP Corridor
.J
"
..
e
e
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SKETCH PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS-
~XTENDED PLANNING AREA from Commission meeting, 12/29
Residential- combination of sketches 2 and 3, allowing for new single famil~
development but attempting to protect existing rural residential
commercial/lndustrial- unanimous support of sketch 2, mixed high and low coverage
business park with auto center.
Circulation _ road as on sketch 3, cutting through industrial area
,;