The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutI Dublin General Plan. ~ F r. i N CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT SUBJECT EXHIBITS ATTACHED RECOMMENDATI ee Below ~ FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined ~ DESCRIPTION . Staff recommends that the City Council take the • following actions: 1) For each element: a) discuss options with Staff b) open public hearing . c) hear public testimony d) close public hearing e) deliberate and make policy decisions 2) After making policy decisions for all elements, determine if the EIR is complete and adequate. If so, adopt Resolution certifying.EIR. If not, direct Staff to make any necessary revisions and continue the public hearing. 3) After certifying the EIR, adopt Resolution adopting the General Plan. `~~_~~~~___~~~_~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.~..~~.~~.~.~~~i~'~~., ~'~~ '~i~~. _ COPIES T0: ' ~~ .. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 5, 1984 . Dublin General Plan : ~1) Resolution certifying EIR /2) Resolution adopting General Plan /3) Memo re: Parks & Housing from City Manager /4) Resolution of Planning Commission /5) Annotated pages of Draft General Plan /5) Planning Commission Agenda Statement with potential options "`1) Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing ) Responses to EIR comments ) Comments received on General Plan and EIR ITEM N0. ~ ' . ~ RESOLUTION NO. - 84 ( A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ' -------------------------------------- A RESOLUTIOIV OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE:CITY OF DUBLIN CERTIFYING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ENVIRORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality~Act guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and ~ WHEREAS, an environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the.ElR indicates four significant _ environmental impacts related to the following subjects: 1. Increased traffic 2. Degradation of air quality ~ 3. Loss of agricultural and grazing land 4. Loss of_ open space, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the specific reasons to support the adoption of the City of Dublin General Plan are the guiding policies and supporting text in the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the final EIR was reviewed and considered by . the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on. April 5, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City .Council certifies that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk ayor • ~~ ~ ~° RESOLUTION N0. 84-12 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to prepare a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the City, to be knocan as the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Law provides that the Planning Commission may approve and recommend adoption of the General Plan by the City Council; and, ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Citizen Workshop on the General Plan on July 12, 1984, and held public meetings on Working Paper #l: Planning Issues; Working Paper #2: Planning Options; and.Working Paper #3: Alternative Sketch Plans, on July 18, September 15, and November 29, 1984; and, WHEREAS, duly noticed public.hearings were held to consider approval of tlie City of Dubiin General Plan on March 5, March 13., and March 19, 1984; and, _ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the City of Dublin General Plan is comprehensive, long-term, and internally consistent; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the City's best interest, and the public's health, safety, and welfare, to approve and recommend adoption of the City of Dublin General Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby approve the City of Dublin General Plan, with Planning-Commission-recommended amendments and does. recommend adoption of said General Plan by the City Council. 1984. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March,. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Planning Commission Chairman ATTE T: Planning Director . -~ y . • . : • - M E M 0 R A N D U M - T0: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: April 4, 1984 SUBJECT: General P1ari 0ptions for Parks and Housing As you are well aware, parks and open space and housing issues were the two most discussed issues during the General Plan Hearings held by the Planning Commission. " In order to facilitate the decision making process during the City Council's General Plan Hearing with respect to these two elements, Staff has prepared a detailed set of options for parks and housing on a site by site basis in the primary planning area. These options do not address the extended planning . area, Staff will have available at the meeting, a set of large charts which are represented in the.attached exhibits for easy viewing by the members of - the public. Parks In response to the concern expressed for additional park and recreation facilities during the Planning Commission General Plan Hearings, Staff has prepared a revised list of options for the enhancement of park and recreational facilities (see Exhibit A). In addition, Staff has developed an inventory for the existing recreational facilities at the various Dublin San Ramon Services District, School District and Federal Government facilities (see Exhibit B). As indicated in Exhibit A, for each potential park site, Staff has developed alternatives both in terms of the type and size of potential parks; preliminary cost estimates for park site acquisition; preliminary cost estimates for park site deveTopment; and preliminary cost estimates for annual maintenance costs. ~~ Sites Those sites included in Exhibit A are the only properties which Staff has been able to identify that have park potential. Staff has not included active school sites or school sites which are likely to be reactiva~ed, i.e. Dublin School. It is anticipated that any enhancement of these facilities would be worked out under a joint use facility agreement with the School District, as indicated in the second policy option identified in Exhibit A. . Park Options Staff has identified the following general park types with the following characteristics: Neiahborhood Parks - Pedestrian oriented - 1/2 mile service radius - Generally associated with elementary schools - 3 to 5 acres typical - Active and passive recreation opportunities Community Parks - Pedestrian or vehicle oriented ~ - Serves entire City - Usually associated with Library, recreation~center, or other civic facility` - 10 to 20 acres typical ~ ~ - Range of recreation opportunities not possible in neighborhood parks .: ' _ . . - . I, . , . ~~ , . .. Sport Parks - Pedestrian or vehicle oriented - Serves entire City - Provides specialized.and intensified recreation opportunities - - 10 to 20 acres typical ~ Preliminarv Cost Estimates Acquisition Costs Costs of park acquisition are preliminary estimates developed by using comparable recent land sale costs when available, and are based on full market value. Since land sale costs are impacted by the underlying zoning on the property, Staff has developed a cost range for acquisition of potential park sites. In addition, this cost range also reflects the size of the park. For example, on the DoTan School Site, if the land were zoned for single family housing only., and the City wanted to purchase three acres for a neighborhood park, the acquisition cost would be approximately $195,000.. However, if the site was zoned for medium density housing, and the City wanted t.o purchase a five acre neighborhood park, the acquisition cost would be approximately $635,000. It should be noted that tliere are other scenarios that would fall somewhere in between the $195,000 and $635,000 cost range. It is also important.to emphasize that these costs could be reduced by acquisition of surplus school property to the extent that the provisions.of - the Naylor Bill could be utilized or other arrangements negotiated witti the School District. Development Costs Costs for park development are estimated at $50,000 per acre in 1984 dollars. This figure is based on new park development costs used by the Cities of Pleasanton and Danville. Total Acquisition & Development Cost. These costs represent the total cost of acquiring and developing parks for the various park scenarios. - Annual Maintenance Costs The Cities of Pleasanton and Danville have indicated that the average cost of maintenance is $4,000 to $5,000 per acre. The annual maintenance costs shown on the attached chart provides for this range of cost as it relates.to park size. For example, the minimum annual maintenance cost for_a~3 acre park would be $12,000 per year. ~ Review of Park Options •. ' ~ There are a number of options available to the City Council to provide additional Park and Recreational facilities. However,'as shown in Exhibit A, some of those options may require significant expenditures on the part of the City. Even with the utilization of park dedication land and/or fees the City reserves could be exhausted if the City were to fund the acquisition and development of one of.the more expensive park site options. In addition, the City in exhausting its reserve would lose several hundred thousand dollars a year in operating income. This could impact the City's ability to fund program and maintenance for a developed park site in the future. There is no question that there are a number of less expensive alternatives available to the City in which new facilities could.be acquired or existing facilities could be enhanced. In order to facilitate the discussion of the.various recreation enhancement alternatives, the staff recommendation is that the City Council review the options identified in Exhibit A on a site specific basis,'prior to addressing the various housing options on those same sites.. -.. ! , ~~ Housing As shown in Exhibit C, Staff has identified those sites which remain available for housing. On each site Staff has identified several de~elopment scenarios with respect to housing density. In additiori, Staff has provided information on the amount of park dedication or park dedication in-lieu fees which each of the various options on that site would generate. The park dedication information is only presented in order to assist the Council in recognizing the impact on generating additional park land by selecting any one of the housing options. Please be careful not to attempt to add all of the park dedication acreage figures or all of the park dedication in-lieu figures,to arrive at a total amount of remaining park dedication or in-lieu fees within the City. A total figure for either park dedication or in-lieu fees would be meaningless, because of the number of various options that might be selected with respect to both parks and housing. It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council, in considering the housing element, proceed through the sites identified in Exhibit A and consider those options identified with respect to density. .Staff will have the'exhibits attached in this report available in enlarged. - form for public viewing at the General Plan Hearing.~;~;;:-- ~ RECREATION FACILITY ENHANCEME[~FP ALTERNATIVES , , EXHIBIT A ~'• .1.. OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKS , ' ~ ~~ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ANNpAL ~. - ~ ~ TdPAL ACQUISITION MAIN`I'ENANCE ~ '..~''SITE PARK OPTIONS ACQUISITION COST DEVELOPMENT COST & DEVELOPMENT COST COST ~~~~ A):DOLAN SCHOOL SITE 1} Neighborhood Park (3-5 acres) $195,000 - 635,000 $150,000 - 250,000. $345,000-885,000 $12,000-25,000 2) Community Park (10-27 acres) 650,000-3,43 Million 500,000-1,35 Million 1.15 Million-4.88 Million 40,000-135,000 .. : ~i 3) Sports Park (10 - 27 acres) 650,000-3.43 Million 500,000-1,35 Million 1.15. Million-4.88 Million 40,000-135,000 . ,..~~ B1`:~EAST OF DOUGHERTY 1) Neighborhood Park (3-5 acres) 195,000-545,000 150,000-250,000 345,000-795,000 12,000-25,000 - HILLS 2) Community Park (10-20+ acres) 650,000-2,18 Million 500,000-1.00 Million 1,15 Million-3,18 Million 40,000-100,000 I 3) Sports Park (10-20+ acres) 650,000-2.18 Million 500,000-1,00 Million 1.15 Million-3.18 Million 40,000-100,000 FALI~ON SCHOOL/ ~:~; C1, 1) Neighborhood Park (3-5 acres) 195,000-545,000 150,000-250,000 345,000-795,000 12,000-25,000 • i"• ~..KOLB PARK 2) Community Park (10-13 acres) 650,000-1.42 Million 500,000-650,000 1.15 Million-2,07 Million 40,000-65,000 r , ' D) FREDERIKSEN SCHOOL 1) Neighborhood Park (3-5 acres) 195,000-545,000 150,000-250,000 345,000-795,000 12,000-25,000 2) Community Park (10-12 acres) 650,000-1,42 Million 500,000-600,000 1.15 Million-2.02 Million 48,000-60,000 "~ E) SOUTHERN PACIFIC 1) Community Park (10 acres) . 2.15 Million 500,000 2.65 Million 40,000-50,000 . ~~;RAILWAY AREA 2) Sports Park (10 acres) 2,15 Million 500,000 2.65 Million 40,000-50,000 ~ ~::F)'WEST OF SILVERGATE 1) Neighborhood Park (4 acres~ 26D,000-508,000 200,000 460,000-708,000 16,000-20,000 ~ ' ~ DRIVE ; . . ~ .. ~ 2. ,~ ENHANCF2IEI~P OF EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES '; '1A) Adopt a policy to work '„ r with the Dublin San`Ramon Services District to enhance existing DSRSD : a °~~,;i :~,park facilities ,z - Shannon Park & Co-~nunity Center d a~ ~~~,~~ ~ ~ f, , ~~ }~~' r, ~ r < u ' - Dublin Sports Grounds~ f ~ ~ ~~^ , ; ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ , i4,, ~, ;~,<, ~ _ , < . N1ape park ' ~" .~' ~,i ' ~ ' . . , _ ;,., ,, . x, ~ - , . S~iim Center Valley Community . , ; -< ~ <~,~.,: B) Adopt a policy to work . ,~,.. .,. ~ ., M- ~ ~, . ,; ., with the Murray School District and Amador Valley Joint _ ~ ~~ , Union School Disfrict , ~~ ~:~+,~~` to enhance~existing recreational facilities at school siEes, . . , .. - Dublin High SchooT .. ,r', ~ ~ ~ „ - Murray School ~, . , . - Dublin School , ~;~ ~~ ' . ' t , . - Nielsen School ;,;; j . ' ~ - Cronin School - Wells Intermediate School • RESOLUTION NO. 84-12 ~: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to prepare a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the City, to be known as the General Plan; and, ~ WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Law provides that the Planning Commission may approve and recommend adoption of the General Plan by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Citizen Workshop on the General Plan on July 12, 1984, and held public meetings on Working Paper #1: Planning Issues; Working Paper #2: Planning Options; and.Working Paper #3: Alternative Sketch Plans, on July 18, September lS,.and November 29, 1984; and, WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held to consider approval of the City of Dublin General Plan on March 5, March 13., and March 19, 1984; and, _ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the City of Dublin General Plan is comprehensive, long-term, and internally consistent; and, ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the City's best interest, and the public's health, safety, and welfare, to approve and recommend adoption of the City of Dublin General Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission does hereby approve the City of Dublin General Plan, with Planning-Commission-recommended amendments and does recommend adoption of said General Plan by the City Council. 1984. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Planning Commission Chairman ATTE T: Planning Director -~y i- . ~ ~- , . C1TY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN VOLUME 1: PLAN POLICIES D R A F T February 8, 1984 ~N N csCA"~ED W ~T~ PI~NNcr~C~ ~MD ~REr~Mr~~NPA~7l~-JS CoNIM~S ~ OF ~t~f~ ~`~ i ~~ ~ • Prepared f or the City of Dublin by Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners ' TJKM, Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek . Hallenbeck bc Associates, Consulting Geotechnicai Engineers, Emeryville Charles M. Salter & Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, San Francisco ~~ ~ • ~~~s 70 ~~~G"T ~t-l B LG ~- S~~ ~ o F j N F~f1E~1 CE R~k-Ct~R- T~~i T~-~"~ ~?~T~I~~~ ~~~ (~1t~1CT' ~2E~t ~ • ~ ~ HOUSING UNTIS AND POPULATION - PRIMARY PLANNIIIG AREA r Total Units Mu1ti-Family Units PoP~ationa - i ~ Existing, May 1983 4,428 386 13,700 ~ Approved, as of 1 80D 1,100 4,400 ~ 4 November, 1983 ~- ~ ~900 1,500 ".-. ~ 4,400 _ . Potential Additional ~ ~ Development ;;; 8,100 3,000 . 22,400 TOTAL . ~ . ~ _ ~-_} a Assumes 3.2 persons per single-family unit; 2.0 persons per multi-family unit. ~- a Totals rounded. ~. ~ I. POTENTIAL HOUSING UNTI'S, EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION ,, ~ ~ `~~"~~ EXTENDED PLANNIIIG AREA _ ~ . . , ll~~O~~'~lan1 S _; ~~ ~ ~~n~~ .: ~ jV~.1 l IJ Cs' ~R E Acres Jobsa Hou 'su~_Unitsb Population~ _ ~[ . ? , 1900 _ .. 3,g00 12,200 Residential .. ~ . i.. :, , . Business/Industrial . _ 00 - t . (_~y Park (all categories) • 700 21,0 ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ a Assumes 30 employees per acre ~ ~. b Assumes two units per acre i hold (all units are expected to be single family) h o ° ~ ouse ns per Assumes 3.2 pers E .-; 8_ - , i ~ ; ~ - ~-.,- ~. -.,---= - - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~-~-;.,, w ~-.~ ,~ ~ +' ~ ~' ,~,, O 'v cti o ~ a E., .~ ~ I cd .~ p O ~ O O ~ ~ O O '~ O A [ ~ O ~-' ~ v ~ ~ '~ ~ w a~, v~ a~ ~n c ~~ c va z c ~:~., ~ ~n w ~, A ra > A E-~ `~. ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ 2.1.3 Residentisl Compatibility Guiding Policy A. Avoid abrupt transitions between single family development and higher density development on adjoining sites. Implementing Policies B. Require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of residential f~ . development nearby. '--- C. Require a buffer of single family homes along the edges of the 27 acre ~ s ite. E~ ~. ~~:.~ ~~~ ~~ ~ve~P~~ DV~R 6. o ~w~w~~~ v,~ r~s ~ . .p.cRE o 60 - t-ftzo vC~ ,4 P(-~+~N~~ D~VEt-c~M~i~S~" R~~~ ~ 2.1.4 ended Plannirg Area ~~p~ss ~ ~ ~ C~~ Guidin Polic • , . ~ESIEsh~~T~Dt~ j ~ . ~ . . Favorably consider residential development proposals at single family ~ p~ ~LL residential density on moderate slopes. . i ~~ N`~ pMost potential sites are under Williamson Act contract requiring open space use for at ~ P least 10 years. The map on the following page illustrates development potential for /~(Z~A Ta the extended planning area. - ; «~Ecca ~-- ~ . I ~V DY Implementing Policies _ ZbNE ~~ B. Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will f require determination that: . ~- - Utilities and public safety services will be proyided at urban stan- - ~:-- "~ dards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses. ~ , - Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the _ ridgelands. ~ • - . `~ - Timing of development will.not result in premature termination of ~ ~ viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. -'~ ~~: 2.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE . r- ~:~~ Dublin's central location has made it the Tri-Valley's commercial center, with more ~- than 600 retail businesses and a wide variety of distributors, business service provi- _ ders, builders and building subcontractors, manufacturers, and region-serving offices. ~ The City's ability to provide municipal services depends on the income generated by _ business. Sales tax alone accounts for 71 percent of City general fund revenue. -10- L. -11- ~ , ~. , ~ ~ ~ i 4 Implementing Policy B. Limit retail development at Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty f Road to two acres with a convenience food store as the anchor tenant. ~ _ ~_ 2.3.4 Business Parks , Guidin Polic ~pp : ~pNS I~E~ . i- p~~~~ ! ; A. Provide space for new businesses and for expansion of existing Dublin ~ irms. . - ~~ Im lementin Polic ' : r ~ B. Provide sites for business parks east of Parks RFTA. ` ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ Over 700 level acres fronting the freeway can offer space for headquarters offices and high tech manufacturers that want visibility as well as smaller businesses that outgrow ~- their space in Dublin's nearly built-out business parks. ~ ~.. , - I. - ~. , . ,. ~ ~ ~ - ~ . , ~ : - . ~-- ... . . _..... .. . ` : _._. _. ... I.._ l ... .. _ . .. . ., : .. 9 . . . - . _ ~ - i ' t~ {~~g, ~ L~ :~ I~ ; , ,~,apD : ~~a-~E ,A ~.soK CeN~r~tv ~ rr'Y ~A~2t~c, c N Exc~ss ~F ~ A~ Of~ ~ UOl-P~t~1 SG~ooL. SIT~ ~~R ~~ST ~F Tt~~ ~~~~~Y NI ~~S . 3.3 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Dublin currently has three main outdoor recreational sites, the Sports Grounds (23 acres), Shannon Park and Community Center (10 acres), and Valley Community Swim Center (3 acres). Additionally, three small neighborhood parks adjoin schools (Mape, Cronin, and Kolb). The need for recreation facilities will increase as popula- tion grows and surplus school sites are sold, potentially leaving no public play space near the homes of many children. Guidin~ Policies ~`~~ ~ ~ F A. Expand park area to serve new development. ~ ~ ~ B. Maintain and improve outdoor recreation facilities at sur lus school sites being converted to new uses. f~E,V ~SE ~ MAI NT1l~ N D(1T ~R Implementing Policy ~ ~~R~"~~oN ~ S(~S ~F' ~DOL S('tES ~ DE,~r~I~D S~f~ P~u s . C. Acquire three five-acre neighborhood parks: - East of Dougherty Hills as land is subdivided. - On Fallon School site (enlarging Kolb Park) when the site is sold by Murray School District. - On Frederiksen School site if and when the site is sold by Murray School District. Guiding Policy D. Do not permit structures that appear to project above major ridgelines. The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills. Implementing Policy .. _ " ' E. Use subdivision design and site design review process to deny approval of structures that would be seen above ridges that form the skyline as ~ viewed from freeways or major arterial streets. '~ ' ~ R~~ l5 E. To R~A D: MQxt f'~ lZE ~FNT I Act. FOQ ~Gf~~~k`C l Ol~ ~ ~ S~ O~ ~ ~~-o r~ A~N D~R~ D~ ~S Er~1 ~C~oo l. S Ci~ s A~1 ~ ~~~~ ~O(~1't' v5E 0F SG~4DOt- ~PG1uT1~ ~/.1p R~~~-t c a rJ ~'Ro fs~~s . f"' ~ {-- t_ s R. L -14- . • ~. 4.0 LAND USE AND CIItCULATION SECTION: SCHOOLS PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILTTIES ELEMENT This non-mandatory element is included in the General Plan as a means of expressing ~ the policies of the City of Dublin concerning lands and services critical to the growth and development of Dublin that are operated by independent units of government. ~ 4.1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ~ - t~ Enrollment in the Murray School District (grades K-8) has been declining since 1973. Currently, three K-6 schools (Nielsen, Murray and Cronin) and two 7-8 schools (Wells and Frederiksen) accommodate Dublin students. Frederiksen School is to be closed in 1985. The General Plan envisions that Dublin School, now leased to a private school, will need to be re-opened as a public school as new homes west of San R.amon Road are occupied. ' Dublin High School (Amador Valley Joint Union Hi h School District will continue serve Dublin. ~+~D :.~N Gp U~E S~OL ~(SY~G~- .~~ ~EP~.rt' V f,iiir~inv Pnlinv S~~L cJL~S ID~ 1~~~(~. Q~'~.S Vl~ Sc-CTL~0~..5 . L. ' A. Cooperate with Murray School District to ensure re-use of surplus sites compatible with surroundin land uses and Housin Element ob'e ' . I ~DD :~N Co U~~ O~v RK~Y SC~oo~ DCSTRtCt "~0 Implementing Policy -~-~~ N ~~~ ~ jJ~ ~;C~{ppL. ~~[ ( Lf'r (~S B. Initiate joint preparation of site plans or specific plans jointly with School f District prior to sale. . This type of cooperation will achieve har.mon.ibus relationships between new develop- ~ ment and existing residential areas and new park sites (See Open Space Element). I 4.& PUBLIC LANDS - . i~ The Federal and County governments and the East Bay Regional Parks District have +~'~ ~ large holdings in the extended planning area ttiat are vital to Dublin's image and its ~.. eastward expansion. Guiding Policies ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ..., A. Maintain communication with military administrators and congressional representatives to urge that Parks RFTA be developed and operated as a ( good neighbor to Dublin. L B. Support retention and development of Tassajara Creek Regional Park, or if it is re-acquired by the Army, replacement by East Bay Regional Park ~_ District lands in or ad}oining the extended planning area. 'I C. Request the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and County Planning Commission to formally recognize Dublin's direct interest in uses and development standards for portions of Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center that are to be sold or leased for private development. L _, ~_ }-tAlN- e ~ ~~ 5.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: CIRCULATION AND SCEIIIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENTS 5.1 TRAFFICWAYS ~ The I-680 freeway is to be widened to eight lanes within the next five years and the freeway to"freeway interchange'will be rebuilt as both freeways and the arterial street system experience heavy new'demands from development in adjoining commu- ~.~ nities. . _ , Guidin Polic , ~~~~ . M~~ '['0 SE{plnl CONG~PT `-~ A. Improve freeway access. D ~-(7 C~~ ~~~~~~~ W~~ F r~ Implementing Policies D~7W~T0~-~ QU g~-~ ~ _ J I_ B. ~ Add an I-680 interchange between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin ~ Boulevard - . . ~ - . . Access to downtown from the north is needed at a point closer than Alcosta Boulevard ~ and the entire central portion of the City needs an alternative to congested Dublin . ( Boulevard intersections at San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. L C. Modify Alcosta Boulevard interchange to increase capacity by relocating ~ southbound I-680 ramps to intersect San Ramon Road north of ~Alcosta. ~ Guiding Policy ~ D. Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the least friction." " ~ `__~ The Daily Projected Traffic Volumes map shows existing and ~projected flows and lane. requirements: ,The General Plan does not include more detailed street improvement ~ ~ proposals. . ' ~ .• Implementing Policies ' . - kt' E. Reserve right of way for six lane divided extension of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary. . ~ This route will be the only non-freeway connection between the present city and new ~` residential and business park development east of Parks ftFTA. ~~ F. Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART station south of 1. Dublin Boulevard. The proposed new street parallel to Dublin Boulevard is needed to serve intensive development of a 100 acre commercial area and to distribute BART station traffic to -- three Dublin Boulevard intersections. ~ I -17- • ' • . , ' This strategy has been used in several Alameda County cities to produce up to 20 . percent below-market rate units on sites similar to Dublin's surplus school sites. H. Work with Pleasanton toward establishing a joint housing authority. Dublin's only public housing project, Arroyo Vista, is owned and operated by the Plea- santon Housing Authority. Participation in a joint authority would give Dublin an . official voice in Housing Authority decisions affecting Dublin. I. Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in Dublin . Several acres of undeveloped land remaining on the Pleasanton Housing Authority Arroyo Vista site would be appropriate for senior or other subsidized housing. J. Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assis- tance for the purpose of including below market rate units in proposed projects; assist developers in obtaining information on available prog- rams. This would ensure that available subsidy programs are being used where appropriate. K. Grant 25 percent density bonuses for provision of 25 percent affordable units in a project as required by state law. Developers have rarely found this provision to provide adequate incentive for volun- tary action. . ~ L. Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others : seeking housing in Dublin Existing governmental and private agencies assist victims of housing discrimination; the City will refer complaints to those agencies. M. Continue code.enforcement program. Aid low income households in obtaining financial assistance for housing rehabilitation. The City's building inspection program will be continued and will be expanded to include provision of information on rehabilitation assistance for low income house- holds. (~ t r- l. ~ ~DD ~ouc~ (~~(~Prr~Cr Co~Doµcr~IV~^ ~-YV~~ oc~i~ oF vo~.c :. ~~~oSE ~ I N ~o ~•~- ~U"~ G N~tl~~' F~ I.? 0~11TD~. ~~,lLA~81UTY 0~ R~~CA~L ~~Stt~-. t~ ~ED M s ~1~C.~sSACZY, ~Dr~stD~~ ~~~E~` ~~. ~~DaMcNc~M l_ ~~~t t~~s l v rJ Of~~c N~~c-~ . ~ -24- . . • , • i j i E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by ttie State of California for ~ Special Study Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the ,, Geologic Hazards and Constrt+ints map. The fault rupture evaluation i should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multi-family dwellings or for ; public or recreational facilities. , ' F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would signifi- cantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re- analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously des- cribed geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. . 8.1.3 Existirg Structures . . - A. Post-earthquake or damage .reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated. ' 8,1.4 Data Review and Collection ~~ . A. A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be established with the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist ~ shall be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the ~ review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project. ~ ~ ~ ~ - A ~ B. A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be main- tained as reference material.for future planning and design on each site ~- ~ as well as on adjacent sites. . ,, .~ . . ., . ,.t. ~ 8.1.5 Earthquake Response Plan . . . ' A. . In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan (updated March 1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract cities. Dublin will adopt the County directive or will formulate its own plan. _ ,: 8.2 SAFETY Policies relating to land slides, a significant geologic hazard, are included in the . ~ seismic safety element although not all slides are likely to be induced by earth- quakes. Fire, flood, and hazardous materials are the remaining safety concerns j address~d in the General Plan. ; APD ~ w~ w r~~+ ~-Nt~ P~ ~s Tb D~s t 6N a-r~ ~N~ s~7~. ~.5 'PP~t~-T aF ~ ~M~~6Fr~-Y Pf~~-PARE~ ~ £~ ~' - ~ -30- . . ' ~ ~ ~ , 1 0. Y~ ~(1 ~ ~(1, 0+'hY~*ti S S~ O-~ ~ ~ e~) ~ ~~'a_Te, r~e~r~.~' : ~ ~ 1 ~~ \ Po~e,nTt o`\ ~ P~~ o n S _ ~~~~,~, l~ Iq~ `{ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ AGENDA STATEMENT . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 19, 1984 SUBJECT: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: City of Dublin General Plan (Continued from March 5, and March 13, 1984, meetings) - 1) Resolution 2) Previous Meetings Information 3) Table l: Comparison of Alternative Sketch Plans 4) Planning Commission Recommendations (from 11/29/83 meeting) 5) City Council Recommendations (from 12/6/83 meeting) . 1) Hear additional public testimony 2) Close public hearing ~ 3) Discuss 4) Adopt Resolution approving General Plan, or continue to March 29, 1984 - FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None ~ DESCRIPTION: During the Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft General Plan (held March 5, and March 13, 1984), the comments and concerns have primarily focused on the policies identified below. With the.exception of the policy regarding 2.3.4 Business Parks, the policies have been previously addressed in Working Paper #1: Planning Issues, Working Paper tt2: Planning Options, and Working Paper tt3: Alternative Sketch Plans. In addition to identifying the policies, Staff has also identified , potential options for some of the policies. It is appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear additional public testimony. After the close of the public ... __ -, hearing, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ~ 1. -Determine which policies are of concern.~ 2:: Review and discuss the policies and potential options. 3. Recommend amendments to the General Plan as needed. 4. Adopt the Resolution approving the General Plan or continue to March 29, 1984. At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff and General Plan Consultants will be prepared to discuss the policies and potential options. . ~~ DRAFT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES 2.1.1 Housing Availability A. Provide housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet current and future needs of all Dublin residents. (Same as Hausing Element goal #1.) 2.1.2 Neighborhood Diversity A. Avoid economic segregation by city sector B. Allocate.medium and medium-. ,. .-:-high residential densities to ~ .- development si.tes in all ' sectors of the primary planning -- area. Require 20 percent of ~ ~ units approved east of the ~. Dougherty Hills to be single - family detached. (See ~ Development Policies Table.) Require a mixture of dwelling ~ ~ types in large projects. (See Development Policies table.) 2.1.3 Residential Compatibility C. Require a buffer of single family homes along the edges of the 27 acre Dolan site. 2.2.1 Downtown Dublin B. Provide a downtown BART station . that will.serve customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments wi.thin walking distance--and eventually over BART.parking. ~.2.2.2 Automobile Dealerships .~: B. Allow for 'the creation of " an auto center east of Parks . RFTA. - 2.3.4 Business Parks B. Provide sites for business parks east of Parks RFTA ~ - POTENTIAL OPTIONS - Dolan School Site (see Table 1 of Alternative Sketch Plans a. Single family b. Single family on 12 ac.; Park on 15 ac. a. No BART in Primary Planning Area (see Table 1 of Alter- native.Sketch Plans) a. Adjust Business Park/ Industrial: Low Coverage designation approximately 2000 ft. northward, generally between Tassajara Road and Croak._Road. b. Add 450+ acres adjacent to Santa Rita Jail site as Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage designation. c. Change land use designation to Medium-High Density Residential. ~ 3.3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation C. Acquire three f ive-acre neighborhood parks ~ a. Amend to Acquire S-l0 ac. _ park east of Dougherty ~ Hills. b. Add acquisition of 15+ ac. park on Dolan Site. 5.1 Trafficways a. Amend to add a potential I-680 Interchange at Amador B. Add an~I-680 interchange Va11ey.Blvd. between Amador Valley Blvd. and Dublin Blvd. 5.2 Transit a. No BART in Primary Planning Area A. Support BART station location proposals and press for Metro- politan Transportation Commission . (MTC) support and BART commitment to ~ extend rail service.. ~ , 6.3 City Housing,Goals a. (Same as Policy 2.1.1-A) - A.~ Provide housing of varied -: . ~ types, sizes, and prices to meet current and future housing . needs of all Dublin residents. ~ 7_2 Erosion and Siltation Contzol a. Amend to strictly limit = _ development on slopes of F. Prohibit development on slopes over 25 percent. ~ of.over 30 percent. ~ :. ~ ~ . DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN MINUTES MARCH 5, 1984 MARCH 13, 1984 MARCH 19, 1984 -~~ ~ ~ * * * * CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN Mr. Tong introduced Mr. John Blayney, General Plan Consultant, and gave a brief history regarding development of the General Plan, which was, at this time, being presented in Draft form. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission hear presentations from Staff, Mr. Blayney, and the public, and then continue the Public Hearing to a later date for further discussion. Mr. Blayney explained the General Plan Vol. l: Plan Policies. He - displayed maps illustrating land within the City Limits, as well as that within the Dublin Sphere of Influence, reminding the Commission that the General Plan is still in draft form, and that the structure of the General Plan, as well as the type and cost of housing available, is largely mandated by the State. Cm. Tenery extended appreciation to Mr. Blayney and his staff for work completed to this date. Mr. Pete Smietana, 11672 Harlan Rd., commented on his perception of the "devastation of Dublin", and expressing disappointment in "cheap housing" development in specific areas of the City, and stated there is a great need for parkland within the City. He felt that providing children with a good education is more important than providing them with 'starter homes'. Cm. Alexander commented that the Planning Commission had recommended that a park be established on the Dolon School site. It was his contention that a good education would not necessarily guarantee young people a good place to live. Cm. Vonheeder agreed that, by State mandate, the City needs to provide avenues for people, young and old, and of all economic levels, to obtain.and maintain adequate housing. Dennis Ransdell, a Silvergate resident, felt that a.radical change in density was the issue being resisted. He felt that the General Plan does not offer a proper balance of housing. He continued by questioning whether or not public comments would, in fact, be heeded in the development of.the General Plan. Harry Demmel, a Silvergate resident, felt that there is a.great need in Dublin for open space, parks, and recreation land. He noted that one thing that does help higher-density areas survive is the availability of parks and recreation areas. He stated that the Planning Commissioners should be allowed, and encouraged, to speak at City Council meetings. Cm. Vonheeder emphasized her agreement with Mr. Demmel's ~ statements reqardinq the need for parks. She reiterated the Planning Commission's desire to create more parkland within the City with the City Council's reversal of their recommendations. e ~. ~,~~ Tanya Clark, Gardella Drive resident, stated that she felt that the City Council is also in favor of additional parks. Mr. Blayney reminded the audience that, while the City Council may be in favor of more parkland, they also have the , responsibility of maintaining a balanced budget, as well as maintaining their obligations to future residents. Mr. Paul Dillon, a Castillian Way resident, voiced opposition to multifamily or high density housing. Ms~. Dorothy Wisecoff, a Ladera Court resident, commented that she - had contacted the County Planning Department regarding the - Kaufman and Broad project, and felt that the units planned for _ that project~were expensive and would not provide low-cost housing for Dublin residents. Mr. George Williams voiced an opinion that the already existing parks appear to be under-utilized. He further opposed site- specific information contained within the General Plan. Mr. Glenn Walter, a Wallom Place resident, was pleased to see medium- and low-cost housing planned, but feared that approval of the Draft General Plan would be hurried and might not allow community input. Ms. Jane Meyer, 11711 Betlen Dr., agreed that there should be more time for public input. Mr. Dan Rodriguez, 6851 Ione Way, commented on the density issue, and Mr. Blayney noted that it was typical for more mature cities. Fernanda Uribe, a Padre Way resident, felt that Dublin should not shoulder responsibility of starter-housing for the Tri-Valley area. Mr. Virgil Howard, 7.575 Amador Valley Blvd., voiced a strong ' opinion regarding the apparently low opinion, of Dublin residents', toward renters and multifamily-unit dwellers. ~ There were several general comments regarding an awareness that ~ multifamily does not necessarily equal low-cost or cheap. Stan Harrop, 7536 Calle Verde, discouraged a quick approval of the General Plan because he felt that the citizens of Dublin have not yet been heard. Vivian Kahn, representing the Bay Area Council, addressed the. Commission, explaining the Council.'s membership and expressing concerns over Dublin's capacity to produce jobs exceeding its • capacity to produce housing. ~, (. . ~ ~ ~ Mr. Dennis Ransdell ~ or not the Planning~Commissionewouldemakenrecommen on input from the Public Meetings. ' questioned whether dations based Cm. Vonheeder responded that the ~ definitely be considered Public s comments would Plannin . and Cm. Mack commented that the inviteSgpCommis.sion is an advisory board to the City Council and articipation by residents. ;,;• Mike Hussle, a Castillian Rd. resident ~,;,,.-... and implored the the Commissioners to listenuto ed ~"" ~~' residents' are g loWer density '~~~r~ saying. There was a What Dublin ~_.~:: audience that the higher densit general agreement amon %'"~~ General Plan were Y classifications g the w'`~`£ unsatisfactory. Proposed in the ;~~~.:° ~~~:r.: Mr. Don Regwick, owner of 160 acres. in the eastern `-`"f"` extended p • lanning area, noted the great o portion of the ~ addressed by the Draft General Plan Pp°Sition to offered. ,. with no issues He went on to speak about environmentalrissuesssuch as growth, air qualit requestin y' and affordable housing, and concluded by Famil g that the extended area be reclassified as Single y Residential. - After a short break, the meeting reconvened at 9:15 all Commissioners present. p.m., with Mr. Tong began by summarizin Use Section. Mr. Bla ne g the Commercial and Industrial Land Mr. Tong with ra y y expanded on the information 9 phics and illustrations. 5iven by Mr. Rich Robbins, owner of objected to proposed locationsmof cnew~rd auto dealership, which appeared to affect his °n/off ramps for I-680 negotiations are currentl Property. He noted that ~ franchises as well y underc~~ay to obtain additional auto Road. as to relocate i?,is dealership on Crow Canyon Mr. Dave Burton, 11396 Dillon Wa ` downtown BART station location y' addx-~ssed the issue of the Commission recommend to the Cit and sugg~sted that the Planning near Tassajara Rd. and I-58p, y Council ti~at 200 to 300 acres, strongly recommended protectinbe set aside ic~r C-1 zonin g Dublin s commerc g~ and he Mr. ial area. Don Babbitt, representative of Citizen's Better Community, encouraged more housin ~oalition for a development. g instead of commer cial Mr. John DiManto, owner of representin San Jose Construction Co. hi h- g acreage near Tassajara Rd. ~ and g tech and residential development on hiplained a proposal for Cm. Vonheeder q ProPerty. uestioned why the General Plan specific on certain areas of the extended areaCannot be more site F ~ ~ Continued Meeting - March 13, 1984 A continued meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 13, 1984, in the Multipurpose.Room,. Fredericksen School, 7243 Tamarack Drive, Dublin. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * * nnr r rnr T PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Vonheeder, Petty, Mack,. and - Tenery, Thomas P. DeLuca,. Associate Planner, and~Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and John.Blayney, General Plan - Consultant._ ~ = * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN Mr. Tong briefly explained the procedure for development and implementation of a General Plan, and then began a brief overview . of the Land Use and Circulation Section, which addressed Housing, Neighborhood Diversity, and Residential Compatibility. Mr. Dennis Anderson, 11611 Castillian Ct. asked about the ' increase in multifamily housing, and wondered what percentage of multifamily units neighboring cities have. He wished.to"know why Dublin would have such a high percentage of multifamily housing. ~ ~ Ms. Candy Larson, 11696 Corto Ct., queried the Commission . regarding closure of existing schools and expressed concern about the future of those facilities. ~. Ms. Karen Boyles, 7938 Alto Way, questioned the need for more affordable housing, and encouraged retaining a small-town tradition. Mr. Mike Hallen, 7841 Castillian Rd., discouraged the development of more housing on the Dolon School site. His comments stimulated a lively discussion regarding this site with relation to density, traffic, parklands, and open space, which resulted in the suggestion that the issue of the Dolon Site be addressed specifically at a later meeting. E ~ ~ ~ Ted Fairfield, Civil Engineer, representing 760 acres within the City, and 807+ acres outside the City Limits but within Dublin's planning area, distributed a map, a geological study, and a letter to the Commissioners. He requested that.the open space in the Tassajara area be designated as temporary or a."holding area". He suggested that geological concerns mentioned in the Draft General Plan are over-Stated. At this time, the public hearing regarding the Draft General Plan was continued to a meeting on March 13, 1984. Cm. Tenery encouraged Dublin residents to submit written communication regarding the issues contained in the Draft General.Plan. ~ * * * ~ NEW BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS . None ADJOURNMENT * * * * * * * * There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairman Laurence L. Tong, ~ . Planning Director * * * * ~ ~~ ~ ~ 7 0 ~~ `7 d ~ ~._ ~ - ~ ~ Mr. Ted Fa'irfield, Civil Engineer, objected to the label of "open space" designated for acreage which he owns, and encouraged development on 30o slopes. He introduced Mr. Mark Seeley, Geological Engineer, who illustrated geological and slope. conditions in the area:of the eastern sphere of influence. After all comments were heard by the Commission, Cm. Vonheeder suggested that Staff present options in writing for the next Planning Commission meeting. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further,discussion, the mee~ing was continue,d, at 1Os40 p.m., to the Regular Meeting of March 19, 1984. Respectfully submitted, lanning Commission Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * • ~ Continued Regular Meeting - March 19, 1984 A continued regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was.held on March 19, 1984, in the Little Theater, Dublin High School. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * * pnr.r r-nr_r. PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Vonheeder, Petty, Mack,-and _ Tenery, John Blayney, Planning Consultant, Thomas P..DeLuca, Associate Planner, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. * * * * . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm.:Tenery led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of March 5, were approved with the following notation: . Re: PA 84-003 Yen (Little Kid's Learning Center) A discussion ensued regarding the need.for landscaping along the entire northern and eastern perimeter line of the property. It was determined that additional landscaping would be subject to Planning Commission review concurrently with development of the adjacent parcels. It was also agreed that trees would be required only.along the residential property bordering;the , westerly property line of the site. These requirements.were added as additional conditions of approval. •- ~ * * * * _. _ ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Mark Faye, representing the Payless Store, queried the Commission regarding a requirement for the store to remove plant materials for sale from the front of the store. He asked if he could obtain a temporary permit to allow a display of plants to be located outdoors, in front of the store. Mr. Tong responded that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits storage of plant materials outdoors. The City responded to a complaint regarding the plant display and required the display to be ~ . removed. He went on to outline the procedure for obtaining a Conditional Use Permit to facilitate outdoor displays of living plant materials. Mr. Mike Hustle, a Castillian Road resident, asked about the status of the sidewalk and pavement repairs being done throughout the City. Mr. Tong noted that Street Maintenance crews are out each day repairing designated areas as soon as possible, in an on-going process. ~ , . * * * * _ WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong distributed two letters from Mr. Charles Minshall, 11577 - Ladera Ct:; a letter from McKay & Somps; and an additional schedule to be inserted into the General Plan text; all received subsequent to delivery of the Commissioner's informational packets. The correspondence was reviewed without comment. .. UNFINISHED BUSINESS * * * * None _ * * * * PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN Cm. Tenery outlined the procedure for receiving comments,'and : explained that after the continued public hearing was closed, . deliberation would be among Commissioners only. He invited all ~ comments, at this time, from the audience. ~ - Ms. Karen Boyles, an Alta Way resident, guestioned future City Council hearings regarding the General Plan; and Mr._Tong noted the April 5, 1984, special meeting and indicated that notices ~ would be published and mailed. He added that it would be up to the City Council's discretion to finalize the Draft General Plan at that meeting or continue it to a later meeting. Mr. Tong then recapped all public hearings held by the Planning Commission and City Council during the past year. Mr. Harry Demmel, ascertained that many of the land use designations currently in existence are basically carry-overs from the Alameda County designations. • ~ Mr. Charles Minshall, a resident of Ladera Court, asked how many signatures would be required for an initiative, should the citizens disagree with any portion of the General Plan. He was informed that the best source of information of this nature would be the Registrar of Voters. Mr. Tong proceeded with an overview of Land.Use and Circulation, noting that Staff has identified policies which have been of greatest concern, and recommended that the Planning Commission review and make recommendations to the City Council, or continue the meeting. At this time he, again, introduced Mr. John.. Blayney, General P1an Consultant, Mr. Chris Kinzel,~Traffic .. ~ Consultant, and Mr. David Hoexter, Geologic Consultant. ' Ms. Liz,Schmitt, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, encouraged maintenance of recereation facilities at outdoor school sites, noting that the City would be better off, in her opinion, owning parkland. ' Mr. Bruce Patchin, 7433 Newcastle Ln., urged the Commission to recommend areas for picnic grounds larger than 5 acres. Mr. John Ferreri, 7950 Dublin Blvd., noted that changes in designations are discouraging to people coming to.the City. He encouraged very low density housing (i.e. 1 to 2 dwelling units/acre) rather than open space in the eastern portion of the extended planning area. ~ Cm. Alexander.queried Staff as to whether or not densities exceeding 6.0 D.U./ac would routinely come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong responded that it would depend upon whether the proposal was within the zoning for the site. If a zoning change~were required, it would be brought before the Commission, however, if the project were determined to be a permitted use, it would not be considered by the.Planning Commission. ~ ..~:~fi~:;;;;:-:#;~~~-::.:' .>~- Mr. Martin Locus 11781 Betlen Dr., asked for a clarification~ regarding which projects must come before the Planning~~,:..;'~ ". • . ~ ;.. ._.: .;, . . , Commission. . Mr. Tong explained that a rezoning would be~heard by.,the:..~ Commission, but a permitted use could be approved without `a` Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Faye Harding, a Brookdale Ct. resident, questioned whether or not rezoning of a school facility would affec.t adjacent single family properties. Mr. Tong indicated that the General Plan would take into consideration compatible land uses on adjacent properties. • ~ Mr. Harry Nelson, a Silvergate resident, strongly objected to useage of parks and school sites for medium- and high-density residential development. He encouraged keeping and acquiring more parkland. Ms. Valerie Williamson, of Castillian Rd., encouraged creation of a parkland-area-to-dwelling-unit ratio in the City. Mr. Stan Harrop, 7526 Calle Verde, urged the Planning Commission to recommend all unsold school sites be zoned R-1 and open space, and let developers apply for a rezoning, in order to give t.he Planning Commission more control over new projects. Mr. Patchin requested clarification of the land use categories for residential development. Mr. Tong explained: Single Family Residential = 1 to 6 D.U./ac Medium Density = 6 to 14 D.U./ac High Density = 14 to 25 D.U./ac He further noted that at this time, the City of Dublin was comprised approximately 91o Single Family Residences (SFR's) and 9o Multi-family dwellings. He added that within the primary planning area of Dublin, at build-out, the ratio was estimated to be 63g SFR: 37°s multi-family. Mr. Minshall was concerned over potential traffic impacts multi- family dwellings might create on such areas as the Dolan School site. Mr. Kinzel responded that traffic generated by multi-family developments would be different from that generated by schools, and that the Dublin streets have the physical capacity for multi-family-generated traffic. Mr. Hussle expressed concern that capacity does not address acceptability of traffic densities within a given area. .- • After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.,with all Commissioners present. Mr. Kinzel addressed the Commission regarding the Circulation and Scenic Highway portion of the Draft General Plan, noting that the on/off ramp illustrated on the map must be considered as simply conceptual in nature, since it is still subject to study. He went on to field a variety of questions regarding the amount of control the City has over the location, funding, timing, and agreement to develop such freeway improvements. Regarding BART, Mr. Kinzel noted that an equivalent station would be located on the Pleasanton side of Highway I-580,--in addition to an additional station to be located in the eastern planning area of Dublin, at a later date. • • There were several questions from the audience and Commissioners regarding the placement of the stations, as.well as the impacts of traffic and parking on Dublin's streets and commercial areas. It was suggested that parking might be located over the freeway instead of utilizing prime land in a commercial area. Ms. Boyles asked if the City has the same.option of refusal with BART as it apparently does with Cal-Trans (referring to the fact that the City can refuse to allow a freeway on/off ramp within its city limits.) _. . - ---- ------. .. . ---- ----- - -- -- --- ---- -------- --- ,. . Mr. Tong noted that the City Council has already adopted policy approving two BART stations (with an additional station slated for Livermore, at.a later time.) Mr. Patchin asked how much it would cost the residents of Dublin for the BART extension. Mr. Kinzel responded that BART would be funded totally by Grants, and that Dublin residents have been contributing tax dollars for many years to fund the.project. The subject of inadequate east/west thoroughfares in the City was raised and acknowledged by Mr. Kinzel as poor planning and design. There were mixed feelings regarding the feasibility of extending Davona Drive. Mr. David Hoexner,of Hollenbeck and Associates, the General Plan Geologic Consultant, was introduced and was asked to respond to several.questions regarding development of areas containing varying degrees of slopes. He agreed that slope stability should be of primary concern in an area such as Dublin. Mr. Tong continued his presentation by briefly addressing such elements as Seismic Safety, Fire Hazards and Precautions, ~Flooding, Hazardous Materials Use and Transportation. Referring back to the Housing Element Issues, Mr_ Blayney noted that the State has very exacting standards imposed on.cities with regard to housing. • -, ~~ - Mr. Tong informed the audience of HCD Block Grants, which are available to Dublin residents for use in bringing dwellings up to minimum building codes. ~ .- Mr. Don Regwick suggested that space be set aside for affordable housing in the extended planning areas. There being no further comments from the audience, Cm. Alexander made the motion to close the public hearing, with Cm. Vonheeders second. The motion passed by unanimous vote. After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at~11:10 p.m. with all Commissioners present. . • . • The Commissioners proceeded to formulate the following recommendations to forward to the City Council: Section 2.1.3 - Residential Compatibility - Implementing Policies: Require all development over 6.0 Dwelling Units per Acre (D.U./ac) to go through a Planned Development rezoning process. Cm. Vonheeder requested that maps be included reflecting~Dublin - - ~ - --- -- -- - - --... _. . --- ---- --- --- -- --- - Sphere of Influence rather than including the extended.planning ~~. area. ' ~ - Cm. Vonheeder made the motion, with Cm. Mack's second to. = - recommend to the City Council to change the designation~of all extended planning area to "Special Study Zone". The roll~call - vote on this motion was as follows: Cm. Alexander - No Cm. Mack - Aye Cm. Tenery - Aye Cm. Vonheeder - Aye Cm. Petty - No Section 2 - Page 8 Delete Schedule of "Housing Units and Population - Primary ~~ Planning Area", in view of changes in extended planning area designation, noted above. Section 2.2.1 - Downtown Dublin - Implementing Policies , Create joint use of retail commercial development and parking to maintain the vitality of the downtown area (i.e. stacked - parking). Additionally, explore all avenues to minimize the loss of commercial space,. and explore use of "air space"-~parking.' '.':' -.... Section 2.2.2B _ Automobile Dealerships = Implementing;Policy~ ~ Revise to read: ~ Allow for creation of additional;~automobiTe:`:`~-- center. . ~ ~ . ; ,, . • . ~ . ,._, ., . Section 2.3.4B _ Business Parks = Guiding Policy "` -~~ "_ Delete the word "Provide", and substitute "Consider". Section 3.3 - Open Space for Outdoor Recreation Paragraph l: Revise as follows: ~ - ~ ". ..as population grows and if surplus school sites are sold. . . ." ;'• ~ Section 3.3B - Guiding Policy Revise to read:- "Maintain outdoor recreation sites if school sites are deemed surplus." Section 3.3C - Implementing Policy Revise to read: Maximize potential for recreation use on Fallon and Fredericksen school sites and explore joint use of school facilities and recreation programs. " _.._~_.._..__-_-.Section 3.3 ~-- Guiding Policies . °~ ° ~ _ - Add: Greate a major community park, in excess of 20 acres, on the _ Dolan School Site, or east of the Dougherty Hills. Section 4.1 - Public Schools - Guiding Policies ~ Add: Encourage school district to keep developed school sites for ~ potential parks or schools. Add: Encourage Murray School District to maintain existing school facilities. Section 5.1B - Trafficways - Implementing Policies Adjust maps per policy regarding I-680 on/off ramp. Section 6.4E - Summary af Housing Program Strategies - Implementing Policies Add: Include policy regarding condominium conversions as proposed in Vol. 2, but inadvertently left out of Vol l. . ~ Section 8.2 = Safety _ ~ Add: Work with Camp Parks to designate the site as-part..of an ~-~ emergency preparedness plan. ' - ~ After deliberation and formulation of the above recommendations,: Cm. Mack made a motion to adopt the resolution :recommeriding -_,'{:. `. - adoption of the Draft General Plan, as amended. '~Cm:.~Alexander~;~ ~ offered a second, and the motion passed by unanimous`<:vote:~-=_-'~ RESOLUTION N0. 84-12 ' APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN. * * * * ~ • ~ NEW BUSINESS None * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None ~ * * * * - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned-at._ - 1:15 a.m. ~ ,-. , Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * , _ . :. .. _ .. _ • ;, . ~ . ~~ . ' . ~. ~~ Mr. Pete Snyder -3- March 30, 1984 - ~. 5. The Table titled "Development Policies for Residential ~ Sites" in Section 2.1.2 designates Site Number 8,.located :.. ~. west of Dougherty Road and south of LAmador Valley Boulevard -" •.. ~ for two acres of inedium high density totalling 50.units.. ~ The balance of this site, which consists of approximately 2 ~_,~ acres, has been designated for commercial. We believe that_ . ; it would be appropriate to_designate the entire,4 acres as a~ _ planned development parcel which would allow either medium :, high density on a11 4 acres or commerci~,l on.all 4 acres, or ~ 4:.:~`.: . ~ a..combination of the two uses. By designating the west half ~= ~ ~ of'this property as residential and the east half as ~ commercial, the viability of either use may be seriously - compromised. _ . . Sincer ly, . - ,:.;-,- : ; ' __ ' , .. . ~_ . , . f• ~G~ . f V. Mark Rafa li ..._ ~ VMR/mmm cc: Mr. Fred Drena Mr. Pete Hegarty . - Ms. Linda Jeffery . ~ : Mr. Paul Moffatt ~ -. Mr. Larry Tong - _ _ _ . _. . ~ • ~ ~ . Prepared for City of Dublin March 30, 1984 , ; ~~ > ~ " ~ Comments Received on Dublin DEIR Memorandum from Mara Melandry, District CEQA Coordinator, Stete Department of 'I~ansportation, 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 ~Yanspor- ~ ~ tation Commission ~~~ Letter from Chief Philip Phillips, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Fire Depart- . m ent Letter from Bradley J. Inman, Vice President, Bay Area Counc~l . Letter from Mun J. Mar, General Manager, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Additions and corrections to the General Plan and EIR text are underlined in this docum ent. -1- . Statey ' :=alifornia _ _ . • 'Me~morandum To . Terry Roberts, Manager State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth St. Sacramento, CA 95814 From . DEPAR7MENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 4 Environmental Analysis Br. Y:: ~;,.,: ., ti .. ,: ~ ~..,: :-; ~ :..'. . ~ ~ • . ;s ;. :..: , .::....,.,; .~ . ;~ ~"~ Sub'ecf:'~~;:~~DEIR - Dublin General Plan ( 2 Volumes} ~.~, ~ _ ._ ~, ; .:; _ _ . _,..-..._ ~ , .. ::.. .. .: ....=.,. "' ~" ~~ ` ~~' Vol. 1 - Plan Policies ~ . Vol. 2- Technical Supplement DEIR ~ 6usiness and Transportation AgencY paeo: March 2, 1984 F~ic : Ala-680-21 .0 Ala-580-20.7/21.4 SCH ~8401 1002 AL680011 Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced aocuments and forwards the following comments: 1. Regarding Volume 1, page 17, Item 5.7 Introduction: Incremental traffic demands on I-580 and I-680 and several of their interchanges will be caused by develop- ments in conmunities adjoining Dublin and develooments in Dublin itself. Except for a reference to the re- financing of certain improvements to Dougherty Road (under ~.1.H., page 18), no mention of cost sharina for other potentially needed traffic mitigation measures was found. ~ This introductory paragzaph also states that 'tbe free- Way to freeway interchange will be rebuilt_' A project, to rebuild the I-SSO/I-680 interchange is not in Caltrans' January 1984 Status of Projects, nor in the 1983 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STZP}. _ "~:2_:::.Regazding VoZume .7,,:."1983 and 2005.Daily_Projected -' - ..Traffic Volumes,".following page 1: . ~ _._ ._. : - - :~.The map~in this section~shows traffic .volume_,increments ~ ~, ~ "~~~on'_the local `arterial :network, the, lane .requirements .• ~;, needed_to mitigate their impacts, and proposed new or , .~ changed ramp configurations .(e.g. on I-b80 at Alcosta- Boulevard interchange, north of Dublin Boulevard, and at the Z-580 interchange). It does not show the projected - traffic demand volumes that these oroposed facilit.~.es Would mitigate. Also, no discussion of the financi-ng-;'.,-- •. _. .__ mechanisms for such improvements is included. ~~~ ' -': ~ I ~ -. ~~ • :_, ~" ' ~"' ~~ • !`. 7 . . ~ ~• '•C+'~_. . _ ~ f. _ ... ' -` •L- ~ ,\ ~ ~ . ~• ~ Ms. Roberts Page 2 , Mar. 2, 1984 • 3. Regarding Volume 2, paragraph 2.4.3. ("Freeway Capacity"): This volume refers to traffic projections made by TJRM - in the "Tri-Valley Transportation Study.".. Although We -' : have reviewed the traffic data in that .document to a~~':. ..~. :. `~~~-'~~~~~`.~' . ~,limited .'extent,~~~Caltrans relies . on the Lead Agency "to : ~.' have prepared and to utilize a professionally-responsible .~ study...We have generally assumed that this data is: - -reasonably correct, but this assumption should"not be . ,.~ construed as our'approval of the data.' ~.-., ` 4. Caltrans will not be financially responsible for . project-related mitigation measures. ~ 5. Work in the State highway right-of-way wi21 require an encroachment permit and Caltrans Will be a respon- sible agency. . ' Additional comment= cn traffic-related and drainage- related issues will be forthcoming. We look forward to reviewing the FEIR_ Please send it to _ - ~ - . TCS:ysp cc: F.D_ Husum(DOTP), RHJ,• C-LS, FCT, MM, RKD, TCS, Chron, File. 1 .~ ~ i~ . Summary of comments from Mara Nielandry, District CEQA Coordinator, State Department of TYan.sportation, Environmental Analysis Branch The Department 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 Qlans to rebuild the I-580/I-680 interchange, this is not in fact the case. The Department makes clear that it does not apQrove traffic projections made by TJKM, though it generally assumes them to be "reasonably correct," and notes that Caltrans will not be financially responsible for project-related mitigation measures. .. . . .. _ _ ' r . .. ~_ .~ . . . . . . ... - ... . - .._~ :. - • . ..-,.~. . ,_; ... .. ._. . . . . . „ .. . ,; ~ ... ., . . . . . .. .. ... ~.'~ .-. .- . . - .. . . $~1SeS t0 COII]IIlEI1t.S • . - . -. Cost sharing for traffic mitigation measures- The following is added at the conclusion _,__. -~ . of the Traffic Mitigation section on page 11 of the DEIR: ._'.; ::='-;~:.,~.='~::'; ~~ The Dortion of traffic mitigation measure costs that must he locally financed be shared by Dublin and projects that will have Dublin traffic. These include Hacienda Business Park icant impacts on isho Ranch Business Rebu~dirzg of freeway-t~freeway interch,ange- Text of the final General Plan is changed to read: the freeway to freeway interchange will need to be rebu~t ~ Freewap traffic demand volumes_ The General Plan is not required to project freeway traffic volumes or to discuss freeway financing mechanisms. - _4_ l ' i~ t~ ~ i \ , • , ._ ~ ~: F BAY AREA A1R QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRlCT- March 1, 19fi4 AIAMEDA COUNTY JoseDh P. Borl Fred F. CooOe~ . L N."Judge" Landis (Chairperson) '. FrankH,Ogawa LaU1'~E'.(1Ce L. Tong GONTRACOSTACOUNTY Planning Director -• Thomas J. Corcoran ~ ' C 1 ty Of D ub 1 i n . ' (Secretary) .'>~; Sunne Wriq~t McPeak ?-: '. . P, Q. BOX 2340 .`:_ _ ~ ,~;~'~;''MO,RiN courirr ~ ` - - ": Dub 1 i n, = CA ~:: 94568 -.. AI Aramburu ' .. ' .. ::. '~~•` NAPACOUNTY . `--''. .'_ ~' ~ . ' D2di" .MT". Tong: ; _ ' Harold f. Moskowite '.`:' ~. ~ ~s~;NFa~NC~scocouNrr ' =`' = '` We have received cop~ . ' . Har G. Brltt -' ~ ` ~ ca~o~~~~hs~~~e~ the Technical Supplement an~ SAN MATEO COUNTY ~' - c~S~.N~~o~oc~1O5 _~ We believe that the City of Dublin and its consultants should be :' K~a`q"e~„'es~~e` congratulated for including air quality in the. Conservation sANTACUaACOUNrr . ElementiEnvironmental Resources Management Section. The action seerrs , Pod Diridon • ~. . ~v;~ecna~~ve~5om . p3rtlCUldt-ly appropriate for a newly incorPorated .city in an area that Ralon P. Doetsc~, Sr. . Ro~ertaH.Hughan is sensitive to exceedance of air quality standards. - Susanne Wilson so~a.NOCOUN-nr The Technical supplement and the DEIR rightly point out that it Jo~nF.Cunningham is difficult for any one city to control air pollution problems, SoNOMACOUNTY especially when they~emanate principaTly from mator ve~icle trafiic_ Helen B. Fudee Stl ~ ~ 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 regiona7 transportation improvements, would seem critical to ~~ ~ Dublin, given its location at the crossroads of major corridors in a . ~ - ~::; rapidly deveioping subregion. -- . _ _ - ~ In fact,•the threat of exceeding carbon monoxide standards is not :: ~ adequately handled in the documents.~;::0ur projections, based on Caltrans ... :- _: .. _ - ~. .~- ,>monitoring data,- indicate that carbon,monoxide.background.leveTs are, - and wi11 remain, relatively high near`the_intersection of;:I-580 and ~ - ~ .. . - :::.:I-680_'~:=,;Eight-hour.average background;levels:have:been~.recorde'd as high +~~- ~'as 8 ppm ;in, 1981.at.Rampart _Dr~ve,-:and_are':projected.,to, be 6.6 ppm in i ~ ~ •1987.~~;-Thus moderate ~7evels:of..7oca71y:added carbon monoxide could .. .~.~.-_ _ ~; ... : : ., . ~~ ~ ~~ elevate the~~tota7 concentrations ~above the 9..ppm standard - ,.. . `... . .:. :. . :. . . . . , . ., . - ~... . ~ . ._.. - ... -. _ _. ~ :- ..., .. . . . ._ . . . ....... . ,. ,= .~ . ~ _. It might be beneficial to Dub7~n if a thorough~search were made of the various transportation projection studies and resultant air quality estimates for the 1"ri-Valley area. If the threat of carbon monoxide exceedances is not adequately mitigated by the measures already in the Dublin Plan, we recommend that additional measures be formulated. These should.be aimed at reducing the number of motor vehicle trips and maintaining smooth traffic flows. As yo~~are probably aware, trarric congestio~ causes excess emissions which contribute to carbon monoxide and ozone problems. ~ R E C E f Y E D. ~~f ~,R ~ I~'c't . DUBLIN PIANNJNG ~..,.,. ~. . .,. ,.T„~~T _ cnti ~Rnrv~~sr_O_ CALIFORNIA 94109 • . i415) 771•6000 ~ ~ ., ~ ~ `~ Mr. Tong -2- - March l, 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. cc: A. Geraghty, ARB S. 0'Nare, MTC ~ ~ ~mmary of Comments from M~ton Feldstein, A.ir Pollution Control Officer, Bap A.rea A.ir Quality Manegement District The Air Quality Monitoring District's letter states that the threat of exceeding carbon monoxide standards is not adequately handled in the EIR and draft plan, citing rela- tively high background levels near the intersection of I-580 and I-680. Additionally, the District advocates lbcally initiated transportation system manaoement measures to minimize the local contribution to air pollution. ~ gesponses to Comments ~ _..~..... _ . _ . : .,- . ... . .., ~ ~ ..- . . .. , - .. . ~. ~~ :: ., .. .., ~.. ~ :: ~. = ._. ,. _ ... . . .. .. _._ .. _ , . . ..._.. . _ .. _. , , _ ~.: . .,_1..:. .~:.~ .: _ ..~ . ... ... ~~ ~ ~~ Potentisl for eaceedance of carbon mono~de standai~ds. ~Possible future exceedance `~-~ ~"-'~ ~. ~- . of CO standards within Dublin is discussed on page 6 of the DEIB. ~~ The BAAQMD : specifically mentions high background levels near the I-580/I-684 intersection. CO - ~~ leveLs near the intersection are not a function of development in Dublin alone; but reflect regional traffic demand resulting from jobs and housing growth in the entire sub-region. - 'I~affic levels in Dublin might be reduced if "remaining ava~lable lsnd were not desig- ~ nated for medium density housing as indicated in the draft plan. However, there are ~ two reasons why redesignating avail9ble 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 demend will absorb all ava~able trafficway capacity. - Secondly, while infill 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 eva~able 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 blitigation 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 DEIR notes that reduction of residential density in the primary plan- -_ -- .=, ning area is rejected because reb onal travel would be increased without_assurailce . `~ that traffic congestion would be mitigated ~~ r ~~ -. ~ l . . .. ; .. . : . .. ; _:... ... _. ... .. • - - _ ... .... .. . _ ...._-- - - .. ~ . . : ... :~'-:. . _ ~- .. ,. .: •:...~' :-.:.:~:t~....' . ^~:' . ~ ~ ~ . -r~~.~:..r . _. .. . . " ~: Need for locaily initiated transportation system management measzaes.~~:The General .'~~=` Plan depicts a BART station in downtown Dublin,~and includes policies to~~allow mixed 'T`~~.='~ n~~.-~ ~~`.-~.use mid-rise development, including housing, in the "downtown intensification area." ~-~ The Plan also envisions a transit corridor along the SP right-flf-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- . . . (~ fl J ~; - cc . t, --~---~ _F~~e=Cr , - ~ ~'~'l~tropolitan Transporfation Commission Commlaaionero JJamsds COUnIy March 8, 1°84 W.I.: 90Z-90-O1 ~~SEa~~6oRT Mr. Laurence Tong -~ ~;~a,~cF c~« :;:.- ::: .- Ci ty of Dubl i n -~ _ . . . - -. " Y ~ ~ Planning Department ~ ~ ~ Contra Costi Count --' _ , .: ~~' ' "'^ _ _ •- ~ - - - 7 A'. ~ _.. :.:' =r-~...' ~~'~.+: _~...i.==: ~ ' ' .. ~ . .. aceeat i scHACOea =v<.-c~~• :- P • ~ . ~ Box 2340 . - . ... ;. , ... -°~ - ~Dublin; CA 94568 _ - - - _: S7EVE wEia ._. . . .. , . . ~ _ _ ~ . M~rin~o;,~~Y: ~. ~ ..~ ~~ ~-~~ Subject ~~~~,~•~ Draft EIR for~ Dublin General Pla~ ~~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ' ROBe?T 6. S70CKwElI : `• - -. ..::•.•." . ,',N~pa ~o~~~„ ~ - -.- ~ ~ ~ ~ Dear Mr. ~~ Tong~: - ~ ~ : . .. . ..- . _. - ~ ~ -- . . . . .. - -.. w~~Uar,- ~ ChE'x _ _ :' s.~„~;;,.~o„~,;,`::: This letter transmits MTC staff comments on the Oraft EIR and General ~ ~ ~ Fo~ o~F~~o, : -- . P l a n . . _ . _ : - ..' POY E lAVe r:".~:_-'..=_:~:. ;... ~ - . . . .. -; ` - " : ~ . -' ; ~ . ~ :~ 1) The assumptions used for the traffit forecasts (see paae 2-22) ~ 5a"`""``„°- '- ~ are different from the assum tions in the discussion of the cicy ~~e ca~„~y .. P ~oc~~s•f~~~.,w'...~ - ~obs/housing balance (see page 3-30), as indicated below: - c~ar,nr: ~ Kc== - c-.~ - Housina Units Jobs Jobs ~er housina Unit ' San M~leo Cvunly - ~ . ; . =^~~g-~== : Traffic, _Scenario 2A 97,000 145,000 1.4° ~~_=_,,c=;~e=~ Traffi~, Scenario 2B 119,000 242,000 2.03 So,,~,~,~~,,,..: .- ABAG Projections '83 90,000 132,200 1.47 ~Y,~Lti,M~~N.~~N~ --.: . Planned Jobs ~ 90,000 . 201,000 2.23 .:., .-.. S°~'m'`°"°`Y .. ,~~ `- " ~ c ~ . . ~. The implications of more jobs and less housing than was assumed in ~ ' '' '°'"Q "' "'= -'_ :' ~ the traffic section in TJKM's:Scenario 2A should .be discussed in ~ .~ '. •ssociaUOnof .~•~a~-- `. - e A ` t~e traffic section, in terms of congestion on freeways and arteri- : 'Y "' °"`°m.°" . a l s. Ma i nta i n i n a g jobs/housing balance should be listed as a . p `P"` ~OLi ~ i ~ . .~ ~ :': Ta.:,v ~ ~ ` ~ -~^' . . means of mitigating:traffic~~congestion ~r . . . .. .r - - - ~ ' . , "' : S. F. Bay Conarrwllon and p ~. _ ~ .. . .._ .. .. . . ._ . ~. , ._"c.`.'.' '. - ~ . . ., , . .. . . ': . ` . _ . q , . , . . . . . , t : - - ~ ' ~ ~- ~ ` ~ c ~ 11 - . Dewlopmrnl Commlasron .. ,. :~.~qtPN~ : _ . ,._ . . - . . . . _: . _:. : ... : ~ . .: . _ . -- . 2) :The discussion of the~ proposed BART Extension to Dublin, on paoe ~LS ~ ~~.: ,,<_ ::_ -~ ' :2-23,"_does:nat.'indicate;a .:time frame~:for:implementing BART service; ~ ~- ~~ ,s'•~•B~•'^~•• ..Y Tnns ort 2' l o d ~ _ :but; :the.analysis .of,:traffic:`con gestion~assumes~~that by 2005 5A p ,~ a ~ nsn ,,~ ~ ~~ Ma~,~~9~9~~ry ~~, _ , ~of peak period trips will "use~ BAR7 =:=In:`view of competition within "~;,,~N~;.~ ~ c -.~'the Bay Area.for rail:funds, and the shortage ~of rai7 funds at the " ~~~~ ~U.S. Dept. of Tr~n~~portation ~.. - Stdte a nd nati onal 1 evel s,~ ~ the assumption that BaRT wi 11 be provi d- ~- ing rail service to Dubiin by 2005 may be optimistic. In order to . FC5cRiE u-~~= . ~ present a"worst case analysis," the EIR should indicate the efTect E„`""~`5"" . of not having a BART extension on local and regional roads. E+acutive O~rectoi ~ ' ~-~~•~•~~ =~ ~==~~•~ 3) The Draft EIR 1 i sts SART, local bus, and the SP Transportation Cor- • Oev~~YE.~cu~~.e~;««o~. ridor as mitigation measures, but indicates ttiat those measures are •,,,,~,:~,:_~..; ' not "within the independent discretion of the City of Dublin': (see page 1 of the DEIR). This discussion of mitigations on pages 1 and . 10 should be expanded to .include the following: R E C E I Y E D ~: " ~ . ,::...~, . . . ~ . _ ~. :: , I~ =.R :.~ i9$~ J~.~s~.. . -. ._. .- u,.-,.1 rt.._e...,..,~ _ Ro.Lel,.., r'.,13~.,..,7., o.t~nc _ iw ~ c~. o~a 7~-~~. . ~ Ptage 2: Letter from Ge~~vich to Tong,.Draft EIR for ~~in... o include Commute Alternatives, whiati are largely controlled by local cities. 7he 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 ineasures 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.Jeve1 of funding. Dublin should evalu- - rs ~°~ .. ~ate~~:.the use`;of;benefit assessment districts around.BART and LRT stations, develop- ~_~,,:: . . _ _ . . _. ,'~:. ..ment fees earmarked for transit, 'and ofher,local'revenue~generating mechanisms as _ -:~~means of providing local funds for transit projects. Provision of such funding ,. ~is within the ."independent discretion"...of the City, and would significantly im- : ~`prove the likelihood of.transit being prov~ded.~ _ , . . . ~ . .. - ... .. _ ..._ .. ._ . ~ ~ PiTC appreciates the opportunity to review the Oraft EIR,_and looks forward to receiv- - . ing a copy of the Final EIR. _ -. . ~ . Very truly.yours, ~ . - -. i -. - . - - - ~ ~ ~~i~~ f . ~ . . Jeff Georgevich,~ Environmental Review Ofricer JG:r -.~~ cc: ABAG Clearinghouse ~ ;. Att. _..:: _ . _. :;,:.:; :., : . ~; ,~ ~ • . ~ S~mmary of Comments from Jeff Georgevich, Environmental Review Officer, Metro- politan Transportation Commission MTC questions inconsistencies in the assumptions used for traffic forecasts and for discussion of jobs/housing balance, 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 also requests a"worst case analysisTM relative to transit which would discuss the , Z~affic forec~st R~~mptions_ Page 2-22 of the Technica.l Supplement notes that .- TJKM's Scenario 2B would result in LOS F along most segments of both I-580 and I- ~: ~ ~ ~.~ 680. >The conclusion drawn in the text, that the freeway system will accommodate :-'<;~ demand only if some current develoment proposals are not reslized, if massive free- ' :. ` way improvements are built, or if major changes in traveThabits occur, applies to the potential for a greater jobs/housing imbalance than that envisioned by TJKM as well as to Scenario 2B. The DEIR states on pege 9 that.planned development will result in minimally acceptable or unacceptable service levels on I-580 and I-680. - Jobs/housng balance as a mitigation me~sure_ The final paragraph of the T~affic Mitigation section of the EIR, page 11, is amended to read as follows (new text under- lined): . ~ The effective mitigation measures would be major expansion and reconstruction ~ - -: of transportation facilities, including freeways, or substantial reduction in glan- . :~; -. >- ~ ned business park and residential development in the 'I~i-Valley resulting in . - _ t jobs/housing balance. The first mitigation is infeasible and the second is bepond _ :. . h ~~ . t e control of the City of Dublin although Dublin's development policies w~.l :;_. , :. _. . . ~ - ... :... .. ...__ _ : ;>:;.,.. . _ _ `.--.. _ - .._., . ' affect the amount of imbalance. .~ r Y47-. .~r. c~. " ti _~'i D~ 'l _ ..J~a'C'..- ._ ~. .,:. r~:~~__ '. . _ _ . . . . . .. . :. .. ._ , . . . . . . . . .. _.. . . ~ ~.FSfect'of not having a BA.RT extensior~ The traffic_analyses cited in the Technical. ` ~=Supplement and DEIR assume that by 2005, 5% of peak period_trips w~71 be on BA.RT. ..::.. ~"~ If BART is not constructed, improved BART feeder bus ser~nce'is likely to result in a~~ z..,,-.•-:. ,.....:•.~:.:;:-. ' i~.*:,:,-.: ~•~ =;:. ~._~:;_. : comparable diversion to~ transit.. No "worst ~case~analysistt, is considered necessary. -. _ _ ..--. ._ ,.._ _._.,... : . .,...... . . . . ::. .. . . . ...... . ....: - , .. . ... . . w. _.... . .. .., ... ... .. ...:. . . ~ 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 DEIR: At its discretion, the City may require Dublin empIoyers to provide commute alternatives as a mitigation measure. ~ ~ . Provision of local funds for transit The scope of the General Plan does not include evaluation of the relative merits of competing demands for city funds. -11- • (~ ~ ~~ ~ DUBLIN SAr~ RAMON SERVICES .~ISTRlGT HEADQUARTERS STATION 9399 Fircre~t Lane San Ramon, Calilornie FIRE DEPARTMENT 7051 Dublin Bo~levard Dublin, California 94566 7el~phone: 829-2333 Dear Mr. Tong: February 21, 1984 _ . ~ The Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department has ~~ - reviewed Volumes 1 and 2 of the City of Uublin General Plan as requested in your letter of February 10, 1984. We have found these two documents to be quite complete and we feel they will be of great value in assisting us in the develop- ment of overall fire protection plans and programs for the ~ City of Ilublin. ~ ~ - We have found a few minor corrections which should be included in the final doc~ents: on page 31, Voltmme 1, tne second line under Section 8,2.1, should be conected to "a sworn staff of . 38 and responding to 1250 calls per year";:in Vol~ne 2, page ~- ~~ 4-25', Section 4.2.12, Fire Protection, the second line should . " ' s}iow 38; the second paragTaph, line 2, the..improvement fee is ~ - $600 per dwelling unit as of February 7, 1984. ~~_;.~._-. :: ,.~ . _- _ . ` r ' ~~-: _We would like `..to .be kept abreast: of .progress'toward the adoption _ . ; : , - _ •'°._' - ~ - ~'~~ of the `.General Plan ~.and .will;' at ~any time; ;be :avallable ~to ans- - ~ wer;questions and/or provide additional information you may. ,- ~ ,. _ „ _ . _ .~ . ~:~ _ ri eKe . ._ .. ._desire .°-. '" ~~ , _ . r .. ~~*~ : ~.,~! ~. ~ ~.y ; . . , .:. .., ._: - . ~ . . ;. , _. .. . ~ _ . ~ ~. s-~ ~ , . • " . : . ~ ' :. . ~ . . t.. ., ~ ~" , ~'- -.- 7- .. , } ~ t ' . . . . .. . ~,_.. , . i~ ' . . .. . . .. ~ Very truly, yours, , .. .. ~ . ~ . . ~:..~. : , .: ... _ , . . .. . ... . . .. .. . ~ . ~ , . . _ ~. . ~ _ ~ _ ~-` ~ ' .~ .. ;~ / .~~,. . . ~: ~ ,~' .. ~ ~~ ~ ` Fh~,lip A. Phillips~ Fire Chief 1~ l~J Summary of letter from Chief Ph7ip Ptu7lips, Dublin San R.amon 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. gespoc-ses to Comments _ .. _• . . . .. Corrections to Yolume 1. Page 31 is corrected so that the first sentence of section . - . - - 8.2.1 reads: :. . ~ ~ : . - The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides urban fire protection with a ~ - <: . sworn staff of 38 responding to 1,250 calls per year from two stations. ~ Corrections to Yolume 2. Page 4-25 is corrected so that the first sentence of section _ 4.2.12 reads: The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides fire protection with a sworn steff of 38 plus 12 volunteers. On the same page, the second paragraph of section 4.2.12 is corrected to read: - The present city is adequately protected with current staff and equipment, and an improvement fee of $60~ per dwelling unit or per 2,OU~ square feet of commercial floor area is collected and set aside for equiQment replacement -13- i . t. I • , ~r~ , ~\ ~ D ~ ~ ~ D ~ r ~ r: I Y~'.! ~ D ~ . ' : ~~ ~.', •= '_ '~-. _~,;Y: ;~Y•DY~T'i ' February 21, 1984 Mr_ William Tenery ~ . . Chair, Plaruling Commi.ssion City of Dublin p_ O_ Box 2390 . . ~ - ' Dublin, California 94568 ~-: ~ - . ` ~ ,_ • s . - . . ._ ; . .. .. ,. ~.' Dear Chairman Tenery and Members of the Planning Commission: ~~ ~ ~ The Bay Area Council represents 300 major businesses, some of which are relocating ~ -~ ~_. to the :Tri-Valley. ~._ The number-one issue facing our members is the shortaae of affordable housing_ We appreciate having this ooportunity to co~unent on the Ilublin - Draft General Plan and Draft ~vironmental Impact Reoort (DEIR). In our view, the draft plan and DEIR represent thoughtful analysis but do not adequately address ~ the City's need for housing.: _ . ~ .Our oraanization encourages local public action to inc~ease the supply of housing - in the regiorz_ We are particularly concerned by the situation in the Tri-Valley where economic growth is outpacing planned residential development_ The er~ployment~. growth projected in the Dublin Draft General Plan will exacerbate the shortage of housing within the City unless it is accompanied by appropriate residential ~ develorment. ~~ ~ Given this situation, Dublin officials have a responsibility to take advantage of all opportunities for housing. Land sunply const.raints within current City bound- aries necessitate looking to'lands which are likeZy to become part of the City in .•..the future, specifically those in the extended planning area_ Our detailed xeco~ - meridations for this area are attached_ _ _. --. .~ We urge the Planning Co~nission to .recommend that the Draft General Plan be re- ~. vised to reflect the City's commitment to housing by designating Iands in #he -,: :. ~; . . ~_. . _ . ;;.:-;-;.. ~.,'.: extended planning area .for:residential use. ='~We .further .recommenZ .that the~DEZR -` be revised.to reflect this.change_ Thank you for considering our'.position_ . : - , . :. _ _ . _ .. . - . .: Sincerel i ~ , . ... • Y . - ~ - - - - .~ _ . , ~ - - - ~' .~ - . ro ' - - . '" _ ~f , ~i . • _ `i ~ . - . ~ ' ' - , . "t_. ' - ' , ~~j .'}._- . .. , ~. ._. , • - • . ' ~ '_ ' . - ' cc: :~: Dublin City Council __ < Bradle J Inman - - . - . ~.Laurence Tong Vice r ident . ~ John Blayney The 6ny Area Councll, established in 1945, Is a business-sponsored organiiatio~ Involved !n policy analysis and ad~acacy on regian-uiide issues such as economic developmene. housing. tronsportation, In(ra- stnxture, land use, envFro~mental quallry and job tralning. DtECUTNE COMM(17EE CHAlHhtAN CORNFII C. M?,IEFt Chai+rnan d dx Board & Cf0 Kaner illurtunum & Chancal C«po~a~.on SAMUELFLARMACOST Resdm~ & CEO Bank d M+~rra. M' & SA MYRON DU BAIN President & CEO /4nla~ 4~c, PETER E HAAS CTairman of tl~e Board LM Saauss & Co. JAMES R HARVEY Chaiman. Pmidm~ & CEO Trensamerka C,~xporaoon po IAWRENCE U. HU0.50N Rant Manager Geiba Produm CanpenY GEORGE M.1CFI I FR Usimien d che Boerd & CEO sm~ a c«~~„ • d GHom~. JOHiv F KILNARTiry Q~im~an & CFD lk+vyn's C~WRLFS h LYNQi C1ur+nan & CEO 5+9~ Corporxwn RIQfARD B. MADDFI~1 Ueaman d the Boa~d & CFA Pbbtd, CavQaoa, FRIDF3t!(7( Ut M IF1K~ JR. Q~eirtron d d+e 8oe~d & (~O PedAc G+s and ~ P_ ANiNONY RIDD£R Pre~de.R'F+bmfvt .. , S+n Joc~ 1~1e+auyr N~ pRFSIDF,`? ANGElO J. SIRAQISA VICE PRFSlDEM BRMi~Y J. IlYW1,Y V1CE PRESlDf7YT, ca~rtav+c.ana~s BRIGR7E STE11LVG PROUECT DIREC7DR tt. :°.~'...D[T}i G_ HlC}V~t15 FG~~S'M(rSLY.i~ D1A77HEW SZE~I.E 'T'~aF RAY A R~ A M! TT~Y'll 11~Y' ~dR Wr)R 1 fl TR A T~F ~R ' SAN FRA1~~'.C~ Ad.111 . L41b QRF-f'ulfl~ r • ~, r ~ - FeJ~ruary 21, 1984 RFxOMI~lENDATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTENDED ~ p~,~7NING AREA Say Area Council recoa~endations for Dublin's extended~planning area _ .:..... . . . : .. .. ..: . . ~. -. are based on our analysis 'of proj ected employment vis-a-vis proj ected " ~ '. housing units as groposed in the Draft'General Plan:'`' Factors ~ ~ -'` contributing to our conclusions~_include: sub-regional trends; trans- portation impacts; mix of housing types (single-family and mu2ti-fami2y); _ and housing affordability_~ The following discussion covera technical --' - .'. analysis of information . in the Draft General Plan (D. G.P. ), as well as practical implications of the Draft proposal. While the recommenda- ~ tions focus on the extended planning area, the discussion~necessarily involves the primary planning area in arriving at an werall picture . of the Dublin community_ . , . ~ • ~- Technical Analysis of Bay Area Council Pronosal and Draft General Plan The following table depicts the differences in the two proposais regarding existing.and projected employment and housing units in _ the primary and extended planning areas_ =~cisting Primary BAC D.G.P. Jabs 8,207a _ ~b~;000a ~.• . . Housing - 4 428 ' 4,428 - ~~ .. . Projected Prima~ . - _ . : . ~ Jobs • . 4 , 500b 2 400b ~ ~.... Aousing ~ ` ' 4,452~ ' , ~ _:3,700~- --. s:_ ~;; _ t. . - - :;. , <S _ _ _ . .. ,V ~ aroj ec ~ed i xtendea _ . . . t E ~ ~ ~ ~ Jobs • : - Housin9 ' 23 , 760a ' - 9 828 ' . 21,000 ~ e - .. ,_: ~ _ , .- :.1, 900 _ . . .. . . ... , . _, : - TO'I'AL . : _ . . .. • . . _ ' ~' Jc~bs 36,467 ~ - 29,400 ' Housing ~ 18,708 _ '10,028 Jobs/Housing f ?NE BAYAREA COUNCI(_„ 1NG _76 " i 348 WORLD TR A I~F .CF~rTER 'cA n~ ~z o. ~x'icrn ~~,„ . ~..~ .,~. ,- :„- I ' • • ~• ~~ Transportation Impacts Not only would Ihiblin's actions under the D_G.P_ proQosal aggravate the jobs/housing balance within the city and sub-region, they wbuld also produce negative traffic impacts. Although the Draft.F~viron- 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 traffic impacts noted in the document. The provision of housing' near esnployme~t centers has long been recog- __ nized as efficient land use planning. On the other hand, ignoring _ - :_this practice often results~in considerable transportation prablems, ~:-i:''i=~'~; '~.;~: -::~~- .` : including congestion', ` long-corranute times, and air pollution. ~ -= The ' ~ : ; -- 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_ . _ ~_ ..: ._ :: . .... .. . . .... _ . . _.~.. . . --.- - .Land Availability - ~ . If the City of Dublin intends to provide housing to.meet current 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 Z67 acres of land suitable for residential develogment remain within the city limits_ Thus, th e City must look at the opportunity existing beyond its current boundaries_ f• - '~ This opportunity is clearly the lands north of I-580, extending eastward to Croak Road; recently approved by LAFCO as Dublin's s~here of influence. , , ~ Mix of Housing Type ~ ~ - , ~ ' :.~ The guiding policy noted above (D_G_P. section 6.3) also states .that_ the ~". City's goal is to provide housing o£ varied types, sizes, and prices_ ~ ~'.~.~ .- Discussion concerning housing type points out that the current mix ~...'__.=.of housing is 91$ single-family and 9$ multi-family. Accounting for. '. planned housing units, the mix changes'to 76$ single-faaily and 24$ . ~'-, '. multi-family_ •" - . : . _. ~ - ~ ' - - - _ . . ~ ._ : . . _...,::.,.:~.=- ;.: =...,_ : : . _ ,.~ . ~ -... t _ . _.. ... ... : ~~ _ - - --- .. ....... . .,.: ._ ..... .__. _ - _. _ _ . - _ . . . , : -..,;_.. ; : -_ ~.... _ . ~ _ .. _ . .._ .. , ... . - ~.Under the proposed D.G.P_,'the mix.of~housing type would beJ81~ single- ' ~ -- - - ';~_ famil~~ ~and .19~ atulti-fz.r.iily_ , The BAC ~2.roposal .would praiuce a mix ;,--. __- ", ~ of 64~ single-family and 36$ multi-family _ __ _-_ ;:a: _' ° ::~' =` , F '~ - . .:•. : - ...:. .....~' . .. .. , _ ... , . . ....... ; ..Having a mix of housing types enables residents•to~choose a home ' ~ - - ... ' co~nensurate with family size, lifestyle,` and~ ,income:~:>:.A variety of ~. ~ . ~ ,••• ~ •. housing types meets the needs of young families desiring to purchase ~ - their first home; renters not yet. able or not wanting to purchase ' _ • a home; seniors who prefer less space; working couples who like the low'~maintenance of condominium living; and growing and prospering families wishing to trade-up_ - 3 - ~ , . . ' t~} j l t , 4 •. ~ ~ ~ ~ , „ ~ . . ~ ' :t f , ~ . ^ ~: . . . , ~ . !.t. ' .. . . ' ' .. . . • • ~ , ., ~ .~.~. ~` ~ . . . ~ Dublin G ~~ , . :,:,, . eneral:=Plari~: . :::t ~;••~ ~ ~ , , . , i ~ • ',:`;.; '. • ' L , . . ,. . . . ~ ' a ' . , , .°~;;; : ~`'. i ~? 's ~ . . • r ~ ~~ 1 s ~ ~ • ~ ' ~ ",I' y ' . .;.' ~t.+': ':~,-,: . • . Y , .. ; ~;y-. : ~~'I. . ~ . . N'r' ~~~~~~. 7 . '~ ~ , ~ , . ~ ~ ~ ,ii~{~IL~' ~:5~. ,r 4,(~A _~o~ ~ ~~'~j' ;~! ~`~~. ~ ~' ~`'r~ti.}~~ 'j. 1 .'C... , ~ . ~~ c~.~ . ;.: ` ..,,ic?;2;;:y.•..,. ::Ct:.,::~ic;.. • ~. \ •.;T```' • ~ih, ~`;<.;.n~ t ~ ~ )~ • `c, ' ~ . ~f y f ~+ ~ ~~,~~ .~SV i t W ~~ . . , . (~ ~ a„ ~ ~~ . ~:, ~ 1G, '~ ~: ~ t . ~ ~.A t _'~f • '},}; • . . ,t:.-e. F~ }~ ,~.~ ~~r . ~ . ~, . . f 1 1.: '~..~ ~ ~. ~ y~~ ~~ \ ^ • ,, , !l145~`I;~ 3 ~' `~ T ~ ~1* • , ;`~ . ' ' ~ 1 •r 7 ~'~ ~ ~1~ y i },.~~ • . ~i:~Y ~.4i ~~~ .~:' /~ti~~l~ . At~~ ~' '' ~o • . b ~ r~ ;, ~~ , . '~ ;, ~ ~ ' '~i;; ~•;, . • O r i • _ , ~ ~, T ' `t ,~ ~ '~,'~ ,;1,~~, r , ,,,`;. . ),.".k f ,, : ~;:~1 ; . :,- ;•'.I ~r• :; r,';.. e ~•. ..! :,.~:. ; ~ s! . ~ . 1 . • .. ` ~ ' ~ . 4 ;. .i ;. . wnr a.w~, • • . ~ 1 . 13 ~~. l'~ ~ : . _. fr"'.~ ~"~ ~~ \ I i ~ S ' ;~•;t ~~ '(. ~~'• ` .. :'. C` ~`,~ ~,; ~ I,' ~~''~ A:..{::rlb;;( /~.ii«~i ' 1 ..~. '..' ~` ~ .1 . ~. S M~ Il~wrr~ -~~ , g T~.~.iy M~ ' T;~ ~ . 4 ,. 4:~~~ \y~+ ~.~ , R . ~. • . . . ; ~. •.. Q i ~ r ~ Y :. _ ` V~~ C~dRS 1MI MI ~~Il~rl ~M1r 7 ~%t~Sx t~' ~ W .~ 1.' ' . , .. ~~1~;~~ ',• ~I~~~i tY ~ 1:iyi:ilK j/j//~j~ . ~ / •~~. ' 1E~C~~1tt~i1;11' i ~ ' \~ - ,''I ' ' t . . ~ " Exten ~ ded planning Area • , . ~ i. Rurnl Rasidanpel • ~ :.~1 ,% ~ Slnple Famtly Realdentlal ~. ~, ,.. ~~f ~: ., ,. B~ulnose Pork/Induslrial: Low Covo-ege ~~i &ielnon~ Park/Induelrle! , ~ ~ Publlc ~l.ende ~. ~.~::.~`; , ~ . ~ ~ ONen 3paos . ~ tl~.gh-medium Ra9idential ~ Losa-medium Reaidential OloynoyDyo!I,Urbnn end Roplonnl Pl~nna~ • t C~ ~ Summary of letter frosn Bradley 1. Inman, Yice President, Bay Area Counc~l Commentor confends 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. gesponses to Comments . ~ • Analpsis of housin~g nee~ds. 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 , ; General Plan, the amount of housing produced in the city wi11 exceed the total number _ ~ ~ of units needed as presented by ABAG in its 1983 Housing 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 development of the extended planning area the jobs to employed residents ratio would be approximately 1.7:1, indicating a net in-commute_ ~ ~.~ Jobs/housing balance is meaningful 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 T~i-Yalley, but rather to utilize apQcoQriate land for commercial development, as has Pleasanton. . - . Mitigation could be achieved through land use.changes reducing commercielly desig- ' nated land and increasing the area designated for residential use_ Effective mitigation ~. would re~uire action by Dublin, Pleasanton and possibly other 'I~i-Yalley cities. One • possible means of providing additional housing would be to make approvaIs of . ' additional business park space contingent upon additions to the housing stock. ~ ~L .... ._-_.. -. . _ . . .. -_ .. ~- . ._... .__ _,._ _._ _ _. ~~ -18- ~,_ _ , ~ - . . Q~ ~~ - ~ -= ~ ~ ~~- ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVaTfON DIS i=~(CT 1~0~ CONCANNON 80ULEVARO l LIVEn~.1pFE. C.aIIFORNI,~ ~~5~0 ~ (~15) •• ...-: March 21, 1984 1. General Plan Map, Section 3.3, 5.4, and 7_1--other than for Alamo Creek above SPRR, no flood control facilities are designated as "Open Space: Stream Corridor." If it is the City's desire, flood cont=ol rignt of way can be made available to the City to deve'_op for rec=eation t:ai?s an~/or bike paths under a License Agreement .with Alameda County Flood Control and 4iater Conservation District, Zone 7_ _ .. .- 2_._Section 4.4--The potential water. supply.shortage which may occur ::`in~.the .l°90's .may.be mitigated by improvements .to .the.State Water Project "'facilities .(water_supplier to Zone 7) and water:conservation. The City may '.wish to include another guiding policy which encouzages the'development of the - State .Water Project to provide promised water amounts in~an environmentally ~ sound manner and the development of good water use habits to eliminate, waste_ :Ten:::copies of :.our:water.~,conservation ~brochuie=,,are~enclosed~for your.use and T distribution to .various 'city ,offices .for display .with~`other ~reading iaaterial. _ _ ~... _ : ~• ; . ,~. . .7 ~ - ~Volume - 2 Technical Supplement: ' `' _ ` ~+ ~*~c`. } ` ~ . .. . . ~ .. . . . .. . ' . , . : .~ • . . . .~~ , . *"~ ;' ~ : Tf~ __ ~ " ~ c r ~v ~"i'3+~ . . . ... a~y - ,,,L~ . ~ .. : r : ~ a..- 4"~ .` ,~` o. .r -. ~ ~~.,... i. :, ....~ . .,,i.:.~-•., ._ :~~. .,~.`4'_ • ?. , .. . . . . . ~•3 . ..-Section ~, 2 3 .4 , ~~third .. paragraph -The rese'rvoir '_ referred ~ to .is , : ,-:~...;r.. ~.-. .:;:•_ - -.-: . -• . =~ -~already.under._construction"as~'a .joint.project:betWeen`.DSRSD and Zone 7. ~~' . ,~: _ _.. ,. _ - . - , .. 4. Section 4.1_l, Surface Water, second paragraph--No discharges of _ ~ waste~.rater treatment plants to valley streams occurs .any ,longer. Flor+s for groundwater recharge are provided from time to time in some vatercourses from the South Bay Agueduct, however. . _. . R E C E I Y E ~ .. ~ I.1.".; 2 ~ ~i98~ ~ ~ DUBl1N PLANNING . (~ ~ ~~ March 21, 1984 Mr. Laurence Tong . ., City of Dublin Page 2 S. Section 4.1.1, Flood Hazards and Control, second paragraph-- Although Zone 7 has responsibility for providing flood control services, the Zone has only been authorized to develop and operate the larger streams and ~ arroyos. The basic flood control system in Dublin was 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 maintenance of ' ;those arroyas.is~_becoming a~.critical-•problem.~.'.Voter approved assessments may -~ , ,be ~'esseritial : soon ~ for ~ the Zone _to continue to maintain .the ~level of flood pro- - - - tection that now exists : . •~ " ' ~ , ~ ; ; '... ~ '•.. ' .. - . . . Volume 2 _ - Draft EIR: - ~ - ~ 6. Section~ 3.,2--Neither here nor in the Technical Supplement are existing~flood hazards, their increase due to increased urbanization of the - watershed,, or their means of mitigation adequately discussed.. Flood hazard ~ --•~. areas exist both within the City and downstream of it which could be Worsened - _.=~by the proposed denelooment. Several of the flood control channels within the City and all of those downstream of it are operated by the Zone, and increased ~ capacity may be needed in both the Zone's and the City's drainaae systems. It ; is not clear how the-imolementing policies in Section 8.2.2 of the Plan Poli- cies will prevent these imoacts. 7. Section 3.2, Mitiaation--ii the ordinances re~erred to have not already been enacted, their efficacy in mitigating the poten~ially signi=icant impacts of erosion and sedimentation can only be speculated uoon_ A weak ordi- nance, or an underfunded one, or an ordinance with inadequate en=orce~ent could . easily.provide :inadequate mitigation. Strong ordinances:such as the County - -~= Grading.Ordinance..or ABAG's model Grading .,and ..Erosion Control Ordinance, - f~.strictly and competently enforced would provide adequate mitigation_ Failure ..... .,. ~-- . to adequately mitigate these ~impacts, would have adverse -effects on ~rater ...:.. . . ~ . ~._ quality and flood hazards downstream of the City as well as Within it_ , ... .~.. . _::. ..._ . • - - . ..kl .. • . ~...~.'- •. ~-...i+.-.. ... :.~ :~, - s..._,:,'.._.. .- .. ~ ., "'.. ..-~ ..'-. ... .~~.... . ~ .. . .. . . . . '. ~: ~~ - y '~>~.~'8 Section .3_S, Mitigation--No mitigation for the potential~adverse ~ ~ ` ~impact of :: taxing , the :~ capacity . of , the '~ water ;. supply = system :,is :~mentioned _ here , . .. . .. _ .. i; „(re ~=y:last paragraph .under,.:Utilities ) although possible augitation is mentioned f ~, _ ~ .: s~t _ F .1 ~, . sn Plan Policies_Section:4 4 - _ ~ `i, _ .-/ . T _ _ Z ' , 1 y !. . . .. . ' .~ i-. ' . . ... .. . . . ~ . . .. .~.' . ~ ': . : ~ . . ~ ~ *~~ ~ •,-"...._ ... .~.'•.. _. .. :. . ~. . . ' .. _ . .. .^', :k ~~:.:;..: . '~ Thank "'you for ~the~ opportunity ,~to comment on your. documents If you .have any . . ` questions, please call me or Vince Wong at your convenience._ :='.~.~ :_.: ~° . Very truly yours, .~ ','.~'~ Ca-~ ~~. ~CGL~~:- l4un J . M.~z General Managez . ' ~ ~. MJM:VW:bkm ~•~ cc: DS IIZ ZAC Enc. . ~. ~ Summary of letter from Mu~- J. Mar, General Mar-ager, Alameda County P1ood Control and Water Co~servation District, Zone 7 ~.Two comments from Zone 7 relate to policies included in Yolume I of the General Plan, and are comments on the draft General Plan, not the DEIR. Three corrections to facts cited in Volume 2, Sections 2.3.4 and 4.1.1 are made. The Zone notes thet the Technical Supplement 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 implementing policies of Section 8.2.2 of Yolume 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 and points out that no mitigation for taxing the capacity of the water supply : - -. system is mentioned in the DEIR ;~ , ; - . . . . .. - ` - - - - .. ~' ~.' Responses to comments .. .. 3 ' ~ . , .~.. . .. . . . . . . , - - . .Corrections to Yolume~2. The fourth sentence in the third paragraQh~of section 2.3.4, ; s..:~:~ ~.Water Supply (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, nov+r underway. ... . ~ ~ . The word "have" and the phrase "wastewater assim~ation," 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 amended 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 drain e fee collection area ~ ,- . Flood hazards and mearis of mitigation. ~.The foIlowing paragra~h is be added after the ~ fourth paragraph in Section 3.2, Hydrology, page 7 of the DEIR: .'..._ _• ' - - Develo ment under the eneral lan could result in increased flood hazards within - ~~ and downstream of the cit . Several of the flood control channels within the cit - ~~~ and all o those downstream o it are operated by Zone 7 o the Alameda County :~,. ~. :s~-Flood Control and Water Conservation D~strict. -.Increased capacrty in both the . ;.;;; ' Zone's and the City's ~ainage systems may be needed. F.,,. ~ ~ _ ~ r A ~ . . "` ~ , ...; - .~:V ~ .,:rrt: :..-j•::.~. ~ .. .J ~ }. .y~;[ _l ~ .c.''~:..~:{'~~'.':ta. Yr . t "_ ..•YJ. .[ '~ !'a ' "i ' ' The following is added at the end of the Mitigation sect~on under 3 2, Hydrology. _ _ ~,: ~ , :,,,.. _ _ :: .- , : ~.: ;.,: . .. _ The city shall consider potential for increasing flood hazards in the environmentel review process and shall require miti~ation measures for IIood hazards. Effectiveness of ocdinanc~s. Comment noted Mitigation for tagng of water su~ply systems. The following is added to the end of :- the Mitigation section under 3.8, page 12 of the DEIR: Possible mitigation measures relating to water consumption are implementation of a water conservation program, and efforts to obtain water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District. -. ~- -21- _ .. ~ , .. ~ ' ~~' .:~:°;. , ~ SUG~ESTl.~UTE;.1lLTERNIITIQYES ;PROGRAt{ I~~EX DEYELOPMEN7 • AS A FUNC~TION;^Q,F GUNULAT~IYE EHP~01'NENT . Cumula±tive Employment -~ ~ ,-"g ~ D (SO-100) (j00-200) (200-500) (500+) l. Post transit 1. Preferential park- l. Carpool/Yanpool l. Desi9nate a information on ing for carpools/ matchtng program. Transpor2a- fnres and sched- vanpools. (R} tion Coordina- ules in central ~ tor posfition location(s).~7~ kitt~-in com- pany. °~'~: ` Post inforraation - 2 2. Onsite ticket sales - 2. Mnual survey of 2. Dere)op - r~>:~ . 'on car-~ool and.~~ : , for transit ~(T) __employee corrmute ) ' pian for to re - ~ .~ ~ -:vanpool .cost ~~ ~ ~. ~~. . _ . ~ :; patterns. (i .~ ~R~;~~xl = . g access ional transit - - . savings: ~R) ~ . , services.(3). ~ . y , ;. .. .... ,. ~. .. :. _ ,. ~ . ~ - _ - --. ~ t ) ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . . .. ... Participate in , 3 . . 3.' Coa*nute altenatives -. . _ 3. Jlnnual 'distribu- 3. Evaluate the: ~ ~ . ~ ~ RIDES campaigns.. . information packet tion of infor~a- . ll role of subsi- dies (transit -. -(R) . for nex employe~s. tion to a ,_ - ~_.... . - (R). (T) ~. employees on rtde- carpool, van- . . ~ . ' sharin9 possiDiii- pool) in ~' ~ . ties and tranSit achievin9, ~ . ~ ~ inforsnation. locai ride- . - - ' . sharing goa]s _ . . ~ ~ ... goals (2). - ~ _ (T1, (R) Participate in a 4 4. 7ransit amenities 4. Local irscentires 4. Emer;ency . local 7ransporta- (shelters, bus program-awards, Dackup for• ~ ~ tation Coordinato r turnouts, sidewalks, recagnition, poss- carpool/ran- . ~155octation.::: ~tc.~.(T1 ~~ , ible subsidies ~ pool users . .. .. _ _ . ~ . ':. etc. (2) .:::= :. . . .,.. , . . 5. Bicycle..storag~. ~ . . , . _ . .. sho-+ers anC lockers . ,_ . : . . . . . .., , for Dicyclists.and ., ; . . : > , .: , ..... . :. . . . ., :; .,. .: _ _ . . , :=: ira er rs s °g9e -- _ . _. . ,.; . ;: . . . , ... , , .. ... . . .. • .`:: ,, , ,,. .: . : :: . - : _; :: ; . - - _ ~ - . ~ '_ ~ -6.:Evaluate. - _ ' t ~ . - : _ ~ ~, - ' ,~; ~feasiDility of _ _ . ~' - - . - 'fl ex-ti~ae progra~a . . - _ ,~ , _ ... ~ : .. - ~ ; ..- .x - . _... : ' _ . .~:. F007?10TE5: ~._:: ~ . ~ {1) 7o be processed . . . ~ . - - ..:`: `:~. -. .~- , :- ;~ : : - _ . ~. :- . =,_- :. :. . :~ . by~others and made available to cities~ transit districts, anC r~desharing agencies. ~ ~ (2) Program to De suba-itted for local revie~r prior to project approval; anount of . subsidies, if any, to De determined prior to local apprortl. (3) For r~sidential develop~ents. shuttles to regional transit shoulQ be consiaered, ~ger~cies tfiat can provide ~1or assistance: (T) - Transit dfstrict, (R~=RIDES or . local ridesharSrtg a9ency, (M)'~C. _ 7he chart is progressive; Column B incli~des a11 items listed in Column A, etc. . ~ . -24- ~ ~ , -,. , ~~ ~,. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON GENERAL PLAN AND EIR ~ ~ • • 1275 "A" Street Hayward, California 94541 August 3, 1983 Mr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, California 94568 Dear Larry: I enjoyed our lunch last week, and I would like to compliment the City of Dublin on its approach to establishing a General Plan. The balance of our Dublin property, which is not subject to Tract Map 4719, represents a unique opportunity to create a master planned residential couanunity utilizing the open space of the hills and the Alameda Creek as focal points. Due to the unique physical features of the site, we do not believe that we can establish specific uses for specific portions of the 150-acre site prior to a comprehensive planning effort. We envision a variety of housing types, from single- family to multi-family. We would expect densities to range from 4 units per acre to 20 units per acre. We believe that the site can accomodate between 1,000 and 1,200 units. There are some significant uncertainities regarding the availability and cost of the applicable infrastructures for this.property which should be addressed in reference to a specific master plan. Some of these uncertanities involve the development of offsite utilities, such as water and sewer, and the improvement of Dougherty Road along the property frontage. There are also sifnificant questions regarding the development of onsite u~ilities, creek crossings, erosion control along the creek, etc. We would like to propose a planning effort for the property, which we . will undertake in cooperation with the City of Dublin. Hoping that during the next six months we will have our consultants develop a master plan for the property which addresses the concerns of~the City and the feasibility of developing the required infrastructures. We believe that a properly integrated design.which utilizes the unique assets of the site would present a tremendous opportunity for both the co~unity and us. Sincere~y, ~ n ~ `, 7 ~~ t/ Larry ~~e ~~ LL:bs cc: V, Mark Rafanelli Ronald C. Nahas R E~ E I V E D f~UG 12 i983 DUBLSI~I P~.ANNING • • o 0 . D o D o February 3, 1984 The Honorable Peter:W. Snyder . Mayor, City of Dublin ~ P. O. Box 2340 . F~~~::~:~. ~ Dublin, California 94568 . ~ - , . :.• . , t. . _ . . . Dear Mayor Snyder and Members of the City Council: . The Bay Area Council, a regionaZ business-sponsored public affairs organization, ~~supports Iocai public action to increase the supply of housing in the region. In our view, there is a need to complement the economic growth in the Livermore-Amador Valley with appropriate residential development. As a city in the progress of devel- oping its first general plan, Dublin has a unique opportunity to demonstrate leader= ship on this highly important issue. We urge Dublin officials to give full consideration to the need for affordable housing as alternative land use designations in the city's extended planning area are discussed. The development of inedium and high density housing on parcels bordering I-580 east of Tassajara Road would represent a significant contribution to the city's housing stock, _ accomi*iodating the shelter needs of the growing workforce. Moreover, residential development in this area is highly desireable in order to provide a close-in labor pool, thus mitigating the negative traffic impacts arising from in- and out-commuting. We urge you to reaffirm your commitment to affordable housing by designating sufficient lands in the extended planning area for medium and high density residential use. Thank you for considering our position. - ~ ~ AJS:clm ~ . ~ . . _ cc: Dublin Planning Commission • ~Laureiice'' Tong~w John Blayney ~incerely, i An el J. i acusa P den . - ..RECEIVEU ~ ~FEB . ~: i~ i984 DUBLIN PLANNING 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, environmental qualiry and job training. EXECUfNE COMMfI"f EE CHAfRMAN CORNEIl C. MAIER Chairman o( the Board & CEO KaiserAluminum & Chemical Corpomtion SAMUELH.ARMACOST President & CEO Bank of America, NT & SA MYRON DU BAIN President & CEO Amfac, lnc. ~ PEiER E. HAAS Chairtnan of the Board Levi Shauss & Co. JAMES R. HARVEV Chairtnan, President & CEO Transamenca Corporetlon IAWRENCE U. HUDSON Plant hlanager Gerber Products Company GEORGE M. KEI.IER Chairman o( the Board & CEO S~nndard Oil Company of Califomia JOHN F. KIIMARfIN,_ Chairtnan & CEO Mervyn's CHARLFS A. LYNCH Chairman & GEO Saga Corpomtion srn~ PRESfDENT ANGELO J. S-RACUSA V(CE PRESIDF~Yf' BRADLEY J. INMAN VtCE PRESlDEM. COMMUN1CA770NS . 8R1G~fIE STEl1~VG PRGUECT DlRECfOR MFREDfitl G. MICHAFIS aoucvavni.vsr Mr~TiHEW 5IFINLE RICHARO B. MADDQV Chairman oF the B«:rd & CEO Potlatch Coryoranon fRfDERICK W. MIE11tE, JR. Chairman of the Board & CEO Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. ANiHONY RIDDQt ~.~~a~,rww~ San Jose hkzcury Ne~a+ THE BAYAREA COUNCIL, INC. 348 WORLD TRADE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO 94111 ' (415) 981-6405 ~ .., ~ . ~ . . STA~TE OF CA~LIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor . DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ~ :; °~~ "~••: DiVISION OF IAND RESOURCE PROTECTION ` t°~ a° DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY D~VISION OF OIL AND GAS 1416 Ninth Street SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 322-5873 FEB 0 8 1984 Mr. Laurence Tong City.of Dublin- 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D _ Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong: Notice ot Preparation for Dublin General Plan, Alameda County. SCH #84011002. The Department of Conservation has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Dublin General Plan. We have comments on both geologic and agricultural impacts~of the plan. The Department's Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has special ~expertise in evaluating geologic and seismic hazards, as well as mineral resource issues. CDMG Note 46, enclosed, is used as a guide by CDMG staff when reviewing Draft EIRs. It contains a checklist of potential environmental impacts related to geology, seismology and mineral resource conservation, which you should consider in.prep.aring the EIR. Of particular concern for this project is the generation of the Safety/Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan. We also recommend the following CDMG publications be used, among others,. in the preparation of the EIR: 1) Bulletin 198, 1973,, Urban Geology Master Plan for California; 2~ Special Publication 42, revised 1980, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California; 3) State of California Special Studies Zones Official Maps, Dublin Quadrangle, revised 1-1-82; 4) Special Publication 62,.1982, Proceedings - Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Erancisco Bay Area. RECE~vFn , FEB 5 1984 ~ Au~u~ ~~ts~u~~ -- , ~ : Mr. Tong Page Two ~ • The Division of Landrsionuofeagr~cultu~alllandsstatewidefand monitoring the conve for administering the Williamson Act. Because the Dublin General Plan may have an impact on agricultural land use, the Division has the following recommendations. . The DEIR should assess the Plan.'s adequacyricultural resources appraisal of the Dublin area's existing ag and opportunities. Further, the DEIR should assess and discuss the impacts of the peopoWedrecommendpthat ontan overallsbasis, agricultural resourc the DEIR identify the quantity and quality of argicultura lands that would be converted upon.attainment of General Plan goals and objectives. Finally, the DEIR should proposormeliminate theSPlan'snfarmland alternatives that would reduce conversion impacts. ~''~hatecouldnbetincorporated intoaanres be couched as proposals t agricultural protection element of the City's.General Plan. We have enclosed a copy of the Alameda County Draft Important Farmland's map. It is-a product of the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, which is a•cooperative effort with the USDA - Soil Conservation Service. We hope the map will be a helpful resource in preparing tYie Draft EIR. ' If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call me at (916) 322-5873.. Sincerely. , _ { . . 0~~ ~~ ~ . Dennis J..:O',Bryant ~~ ..~`. Environmental Program`Coordinator Enclosure cc: Robert Streitz, Division of Mines and Geology Lynn Jones, Division of Mines and Geology Price Walker, Office of Planning and Research Art Mills, Chief, Division of Land Resource Protection Ken Trott, Division of Land Resource Protection '*~..` VH' .: r°~..' . ~'^'4 ~W~ qF ... "i~ `7TV .. S' ~ Y.7 Iwl ~.. )3 'Fs Vv - "~ '.~" 7f •- ' -. - r ' { a i n ~ re ~ S 'i"Y ~~lr~ . ~' ~ ~, r 3-~ :+~ } ~ -M ~ + K ~. ~G v^ . 'ti .. ~ ~ g .. ~~' r . ~ .. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ & ~' , "s k ~ ~ '. i;J .. x ; . ~ Y, ~ ~ . ~ . ~ r.r t ~° ~ } iisc'~i ~ S ~F ~ ~~ Y Y ° ~ f z } ~'~ ~ x'.' k/x ~'. ~ 5 .~'~{ h ~~ „-_. r F. l ~. ` y :Y-< *3 s. ,..- '.~ r -" ' .. . . ~~ f ~,~~. r , a ~. ~-. . % ~ ~ 2 k ; ,~-s ~ -s~`~! .. . .t~ .n, ~.~. - tr .~ ~+ ~ Y -r+r ~ rn~ ,,~ ~ . ~ r ~ '~ ,,;. F " }, ~ C g~ y M/ ~ ~:r~~ ~ ~ ~ :. °tl' "~ }~ ~':~ ~ b.s~ ~ ~ T.~w ~ ~ ~~ t ~ 4 ~ ~~+ ~' ~ I ~i~*~ ~ . L ~~,t ~t,~ . 7 i~ ~{` ~(~/}(~? ~/l~~ ~'.. '~ e . ` ~~~~ ~ ~C11~~11 .~~1 V ~6-11 ~~~~,~~~~~1 V „~ll~.+.waa w' -~e+.?.. 1 ...r z `..tw»Mr.~^S .c.~4+~. ~'M- at.{c+a ,;car+a. L~~.u_.`vedv ~. ~ `V- ~ll\/U1~3 ; ~ \J ~j . o , ,. _ y ~,q p}~T7(~ a~'~^? ~( ,~'!~y ' 1 i t "i ''~''T~~~li~ ol.~"~ PS3i1~~~~~'~~T~ IIU~U~ '~ h~, .'- y'• ~~1~1~~ L''il1VJLJ~ ~..7~~~1L~~LD ll~:ri ~~^k'.~v:~~.~-,~u~-w.R.q*...S~ryti:7.--~wx ~n~,+.w,-•r .~,i~,.4;.~a _ . • _ ~ ~~ . 4 `a a o °o ' ~ ." ~. ~ .y~M •~„t ~ : i' ..s~~ T ` ~t '' ~~,.. Y ~ ~ ' t f~'~t ~~ '4f a a ~q~2~~' ~ ~ {~ . . . ~ 7 ~j,~ • ~"~ " ~ ..~.~ „_i .; '•t~"~~"1 ~`_ 3~`~i.F '{ .V..~.S,_~w.a;+az...ti.~-~.. . r - ; ~ ' ; ,~' ~"~ ~ ~~"" F _ . - t i,~ `Nt~ ~ {~'. f#~~~ ~Y ra~ ~~"'~ ~' ~ ~ ` I s r` i ~+~' ,p~r ..t 1 -r~~..' .:^ ~~ ~;~ ~ ~ .F: ,~p 4$ ~' ~ .~"~"s"fi~..c"' .1 ii~}}-S'-V~ r ~iC ~ c `~'c{,:'~ ~I"aks. ~„r~.,~~•~~k2+~r. ~".."1 d's ,y ~ ~ - ~ . .~ s' y ~: i t ~. iT 5 ~ H ~~ i ~t .. x ,' ~ ~-~t'`"'' . T-s '"x,-+:wT .~zv"+.n . +~••.. Y.,w w ~u ~te"*.r+~;~, nw.+ v.^«ww..~-,.. -y+-..,.t+, ~-w.w• ,!! . ~- .ti.°'.,n, l., ~;•~' .,r,>= .,,:..~'I .-i ~.yz .~ .y~._ ~ :~~` s...'~~ t•~' ~~x ~r ~~ ° ii"3:'~~'"~' i~-., ''t'. .:g~y .-~'-_ .. ~`.... ...' .,.~... Y t::~ C~,MO~,~(~D,~1C~.~aG~OOG°~;C~ C 00$O^I~~~~¢~~C~ .~~C~O.~G~v~il OC~iC~,~f~~~,DC~G~Q~'0~~1~ . ~ ~, .~ ~ r r ,t , ~ ~ '~ ~~1 ~~~1Mt~G~0(~G~Cf~ ll~af~y ~(~.~1~G°~1~~`~~G°~C~f~~,~f~~~ ~ -~ .+ ~/F~ 5 z- jJ~. .~`kT ~7~° ~ ~z S t ~, ~. ; 1'~"~3L'7.3,.'~i '^~ a'3J fs`~~ ~ ~4ri,..`~' i~'~".~..~'a~l ~.. ~ ~} ~~.~~ ' , k... ..~ .. c r ~., i ~'~..- ~ w a .l ~~.y~,~"t ~ .~;?'i1 „~ r w ~ fCr sr2~~.. ~ +~ ~ f~i ~ ~J3?'f's~. ~iT~yt ~ `~.+~"~e.~ y' ; ~1•'~,~5~~;~`t +.~' . .',~s 4~ ..~ ~. a ' .i' ~ . 3-... . CFy„ ~ , u., ~1,•~: ~ .. 1 ,.. , . t . . . .,. + ,:- : Th.e folto~ivmg gu~delin,es inrere prepared by 4he. Division'of NNines`and~Geology#tivith 4he ~coopera4ion of 4he ;`~ i- .~ . .. - 1 i"4"* i i+ .. r,. c~+ ~.r:;a g"~.~ .r 4 r~' S 9 '~ +'1 i 4a .. .: 1St'ate Wafer Resources Control Board 4o'assist 4hose dvho prepare and rebtevu envi~onmental impac4 reports .-~~ - x 6F .-. ~ ~ .. . ,i.. e ,, f r~'3. < - ,.,* 3~ .. ,~~ ~r~~'^f s i~ ~ „1 '. M 13 ,2. ~ _ j ~ a ~~ t - {n~ ~a.n ~ ~ y- `~"^~,..-+-,X-k~.-~ R +rjw h~ x 4~ t^-msr h 3 `ut»- ~ ~.:~J.-,-°.t '~' r'.. ~` ~ ~ t . - ~ . p : . - ., ,...<. ~:. ~ ~ r'ri. {~'~These;,gu-delines w~ll ~eupedi4e~ 4he e~nvironmen4al rrevieuv ?process`by idenYifyingW~.4he ~potential ge'ologic' "~ ,.._. a ._. ,~-~:y _~. ._~-:~'7's^:~t:.r.t.r .-;.;a -z-- ~ .t:~i~t,.,t' ~v~.~ . .,. ~. ,' ~.. ~:F ~ ~ ~ r 4' ~' x,~ ~ rprob~emsiandTby providtng~a'recogniY~on o4 ~a4a needed for design;analysis and.xmitigating measu~es All : a f,' ` . , ~:.<.~.,#~ .~; ~ ~ ~ ar.. _ ,, .., J r - y : `. l . ? .. . . y . n ~+, . r.'.N~:p n:e t ~ .. p ~, ~ -`s'.'+ ~. tt~ ' '- °`t~ ° _ •.., . ~'_ ~- st~tements{should be-documented`.by reference 4o nmaterial .~(including spec~fic~;page and~chart numbers). ~ <, ,~; ~ '~av~~,lable:~to the public~~Otherjsta4ements~should be~,considered as~opin~ons and so-stated.F t S ; .i.,~' ~ f;4tti ; L ~ r ~~ ..7 z .,~~- ~Y' 7 ~• ) r t ...sT ~a :' ..*„ gF ..e .._ ? . ~, ~ i t~ ., t rt e ,~r .~a, ``c~..~ S ~~ ~ri ,~~~.~ ~3~ ~,,Sn3=~`~'~£~'.:'y~ .~"'u~''+c' `;r'c-^1'j~4~>~ t ,4I...~ ~~ ~ 's, s ~~~ ~ -a ~'i , i,,~r L, d~u j~ _ i ~ ~` ?,,l ~ - tx't;`~`°~ ~ -~~ 9r .4". f ^~^~~:*..i u ,..!,~. ..t,5,ty" ~` vf .r~`k . ; YN . R""*!.~'~~.s n` ~.-y w~C < i. . ..:r? Y. r ~ _ _ 9; CHECICLIST~ OF~GEOLOGIC PROBLEANS FOR, EfVllfFtOJVAREiNTAL IMPACYyREPORTS ~~ ~ Y ~ ~: '" .s :~, £ ~si}v't*s i R c"F_ ..Jdp t ~ ~'C~ }'~~"t_ 5;,..~e; ~'~t:+ ~ '" ~'Y7+r~`~'a•~,'~ .s,k,a:.".~'~ .~.i' 7 . .. - '' ~~+ . ,. r, ~, ~ ~ ~ r~ , t ; , ~ °~ ~~ , ~ - . .>~ ,~z =. ~ ~ ' ' ' „~ - ° ' - t Caaoc~ uPb g~ pemjc=fl ~m~ a ~ ;~~' - e io cars~ u , cn : • . l , ' z ; , k N Q'a~O~OCaC~(~~Of~L~1SR ~~ -z~Y, ,,,,~ ? ~~ ~ 3 . :.~3 -s " ~ owvir~avo,Y~owtal a~o~k~wa? ' " c,yoeo4 *~ea~i . ~ ~~eeev9onQc~9 On" . . ~ ,, ~ _, ....• : 4 _,°"' .. . . .. - ; ~ ::` .. - ,- . .r. , _ ~ !" , , _ . ..~. ` ` . .. .. .. O~Yt]COSC~ PO¢UIYO~ _~ ,P6YO~L~CI4~ x :yr ACYRlfYV~~CAU51aG ~RODI~q~ q0~' V~S ..~qHCJ~OqC1~qTAL~~WODLtF~15 '' ': ~,bp..; ~y~~ -° _v ~ ~.. 1;':~-. a~t„~.~ s. ~~r t R 4 t R ~ i~'l~~''~:'•t y*~,~'~~t ~ r ~ J ~~• ~'t `.{-. ti ~ ,, a a~a I ~ Fault"Movement •. -~ ~. Y . 7 <h ~ h n . x ~ R he ,v ~' ~,' ta^`'^r ~r ~A.~`~ s _r'" y ~ -- liQuelxtwn i~ : a , ~ _ .k. .~r3 ~ ~r > .'~~ '~` " L~ ,+ :< ~•- e M `~, : hct , ~ *=, .~ .. , ~,. :~ x '' •fr;.. ~ ai . , 2 x ~ ~ s Landsl~d¢5 ~' := , ~~~,_i r ,.~'{sS+,~ ~ r ~'at>z .: ~ ..; r^ r ~ sr~ . _, .x.. ~ ~ ~ t.. ~ _,,F a;,;~> , . i ' - ' , ;¢ ~ '~ `, ~ ` OiNerential~ Compact~on/ , , ~ s l~~ . ~<.~r ~ , ~'~~fitr ~. ~ .r t r ~~" '~ ~ ~ ~~ ' 1.~..r ~ f Y~:~. k ~ca :$EtfICII1Cf11 ~;~+ r,~# L k .~..~@ISRIIC ~ , iS~ i ~ Z..~~ s r S$1'4~ 11 fs' 4~aI ~ x ~ ~+r# i ~ ~ t .~y'- ,~t: r .afEARY64~UAGt~ ~ ' . . . ...v~a h;f , j o q ~~ ~..i ,„~ , r ..a ..~-' ,°1~' ~t : , - ~ F . ~p~qr,~ ,, * ~ ~ und Rupture Gr • g; , , ~ ~ ~ . A~. #_; r E t s. v I', ' ti;~ ~ . ' ' r s ' Ground Shakin9 i J N:~ ~:a riw rr r~ ~- by ~~~ t: Y~ ` ».~i ;~ }...~ ..F RS .~ ~'~1~'.¢`b,~a"~ ~~.y. TSU(12TIy ?~., i ~i"4 ~..x .k'~Ft ~fr2..'~ ''rz: %' .s.^ . .y ;y Yh lin: ~ iC .ia[' •r, _ + 2~ ~ y'~~~ d~"'' •*'~j~ ~ R $CIChCS ~ ti -~=i-- n~~~:4i t .. ~ - : 7 gM i: t .'t,aY~~~ I~ ' j l{ k y. ~'^"~' iC .? '~1' S.. ~ F~OOf~1flQ ~.. . ~.t" .7' .'i..i+,~a ~aaii. ~Ts:..k `tt,.~. ~.`r .~ ' ~ ~~ S~d~ { ~ i' ~ Dams and Levees) re-ot (Fait ~£ '` i rw~~` ~v e'~4 k - , „r. i ,. f~ `- x . . u _ : . .. ~a^t y h k...s! y, r~-r ,s^r - rv : i~ y- .:' i-.: x~ F~t5 `~` rr~'" ~ ' 3-``' ~ -F ~ t ~ z~. r _.d" .. ., :r 4. ~ ~ '~ ` _~, y-~. " o r - ~ ~ ` ' ,. 'r+.ra t c ~~ ts ^ ~:'~` cess L ss'ol A ' s~ a $ ~ , ~~, ~ ~ yr ,;~+.. # .~n,, J , s ~; ,~ } ~ v , r.t, ~ c o „ ~- ~r~ * F ~~ Covere0 byrCAanged ~ Qaposits. ~;~ , f , t , ~ ~ ~` ~ t -' ~' ;~ ; ~ d0~$ O~ l~Iqf~tOAL - ~ r , ` ' 9 ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ - ~ 'S ~ '~W~~uWCi~$ ~ t2^ yi CondiUOns, °~ and-Use, ;L 9 -tr ;,~ ,~, . .-. . c.~ u '. s . I ~ ~ . . ~ .;.-: a ~x"'.-. ...?" ,~ ^;.t ,.ir ..,s *i . _ 2onin `Hestrictions 1'~- ~: ~ 9 .~ z'~.. ~:' ~ '~ i t r~r~! : " r: z e ~ _u. ..t. . a - ,~ . a . . t~t-s i"' ,~ y: f ~ - ~ 'dr: ~ ~ ~ ~. .. r• < ~ ,, .~ ~ ~ ~u t,_ ~.. s.. +..: 5-:: ~ti:k s5 ~ ..i ~w ~M - ~ 7 ~ z . . ax .r ~ ~ a . ~~s L,.. ._ .. 3 ~~ ~ ~ ,+ti~,,~ -c d k ;`~'S~~ '~-'~s.-. L . ~ ~ti.~c~. 4 ~ i.,,.- „ . -. ~ . :~ ~ ; . . . . Ghange ~~ G~oundwaler Level ~~ £~ . ~ ~ ,c,r~, ~~ i . . 3 ° C"lASY~DI~~OSAL'~ 't; -^~ ~ , ~ ~' O D~sPosa(,ol Eucavated-~PAa~erial~' . f;,~.r ~.;5 :ic~,~'"_, ;~,.?~~~;«=~~_,r~.~a;'~„~;~. ~ ~!_.'t`°a ;~3 ,, ~I~~ . PR ,.< _ .a~` ° ~` ,s ,-;<w t.t. Percolation`~ot Wasle Matenal.;.. .: ,>. y,;c,• , c.r.. ..~._ '= -~ ' - ~ ~ ~s ~e~s. ~~i x i» ~r '~-,-j .. x ,..' ~ .~ ~'~ ~ , ; "` 'e`°, ~ .~._" : k -, 1 ,• - -~ - A ~` ~' r n~ `~' ;;~~ ~~"^~ c ' . _. r: Landsl~OesAand PAudtlows ~ ~ +~,~z , , ~ ~' ' ,,~` ~~~~~ ~ t`, - - ~ OUC1DA410Fi SLOPfE AFf QlOQi ~ Unstable Cut:and Fill Slopes .s.~ 3 ~ .~ = 4 ~,~' *~.( r r;S rc r ,~ OWSYABICIYV ~ ' , ~ `" ~ Collaps~ble' and EXpansive Sat ; '"~ "`~ . '°`~`°'` , °~~' ,~ , `""` '' •7'" , . ~ j`.; ' ~~ ' ~ t ll Sl D l t '- ++ •r + - Trench W . , f ' .. f ni 3 ,_ _.. <: _,... _.~ ~?.~k ~ . i ~ y a a x ~-. 1.-~ ..x...: 4 Y~ X:,Z ~ .r ; •~,-y .'S'; F _ t 2..5~-~, .~"7 ;E Jr a. ..1~C :~ l~fJ'~ "ih .a't ~e -'~ }` , . x ~ r~.... ~~ r~ ~ , y 4' '34.^''7! .j~ l J j , -...]..+ %..k.. ~. ~ 3. ~,n ` '1'.~H J ' y ._^* ~y '. t ~ ~ yL'.y- ~ .,F.i :ti ~ ~ ~=~ ,~-~ ; ' aded Areas +, -y , Eros~on,ol Gr .,; 3 ,.. ~.~ ~, ~ ~aa ~ . .- n , ~.T ~ m . _ : ~ . , ~ .,,..,,~, .+;.~.. Rurtolt -, ot Alteratiort . ;.~, . . ~ a' x` ~ ~. ..;..~. ~ a ~..= .. ; ~900~1Oq; ~tEDf~~R1YAYlON . . . ' t .~ '' ^ r :a~LOODIGG r • Un rotected Draina e b~ a " P 9 Ys . ,' ,' i r~. °~s '` s 3 ~ ^ ; ' :~ ; ~ L:`tl'": , ' + In rt io ces ~: d I S .~ _ ,... •±~% - 3 y ~ d _ _ , _ _, . ~,J.., . crease mDerv us u a . . _ _. , .. . ...k s. ;K .~ .. :.: . s. _ ~,.- r ,~. ,~r . ~ `~-e-- `~ ~. 7 a ~. r 9 i i ,r~ ~ . vt "v ~:..v** i, S ~... z r~~: ~ .~T r~r ~.' 7 i .'.er--». ~..- a, r ~. ~. +^--~. ~ '~- . ~ ~ a' .' ' ~ ~' ~ ~ .-. ; . i^ ~t ~. : ~ ~ , ..,: Groundwater Gas Extr'act~on `o1 ~ ~ a .~ c~- 4~ t a ~a -, - + + : ~ ~ .3 u ~~ys.;~v ;~ ~,...p.,, f a6~ . u ~,., . m = ~..: ~, ~ ^ .~ .~ . .-..4 ,~. .,.. , -r. as-: ; 4i' i+ «+ t ~i'~: -' & ~ ~ , ~ a i dAqD,$UD81DfEFfCIE t- ` -r.,,. a~ Ener 'Oil. Geother 9Y . .'~ r . - c. : , . i i +., : ~ t ; . c - ., ~ . r. ~. .rs> -.,.-n t , ..a'.~- s,'.L ..-...> , .. ~. . _, .._.._. , _ . _ , . . Hydrocompaction, Peai On~dation, .x-~ -. kr•- ~.~...: - ~n-~ .,.~ . ,a,.w *r?~ >,'%_ _ . ,.,.ti , : .:-:. . ~ . . .. ,.. .~ .. ., . .` ":':. ~j ~ ra '`' ~~r'`~`~ t -~a ^ ~w -~; ~--~'~~ ~«~ ~ ' a•~ {' ' i s'~^}a 1,?~,e «- ~i~~„, r«..~.F `~''a~, ~.. '`'~t' ~ ,,,, ,;f ' * CAqIC G9ASAWDS i d06 ~ ',° ~ Lav F 4 x ,:~ , :: ,; . ; ~ . ~ . 9. yY~' C1 . ~d~n 4,t'"+~~ ~-y.~~ ~ }•': ~~ >4..w'k . .~J. z~}~. Q4~1~~ _ ..}~y,~.,~.1` ~ ~'/~'~,kJvTjr"M~.'T'4er;."fi.~ .-vM+a~.sw. ~. -,h~ t~ . ~~ 'i M1~T '3.• t ~ ~~ '~ '-x 4 ~~ .,~ ~ k'; 1 ,~., t x ? ~ : ~ ~ ` _ . .~. . ~ ..« .+ ~ , _ _, i~~_ i ;' h , 4 ~a ;~ , r `. { y~ ~ y ~~ ; ,. r 1 k1' ' a a,.2 .. . ._ s . 4 . ~•y. ~,. ,~ '.. ~ .# .,,,;;j -'R ~ I . ~ ~.12..-J~. L l'.~ Y~. 1: Y . ' ~. '. ~ ~'DEPARTPAENT OF CONSERVATtON~ '~t. .. ~a Divis~on ol~M~nes and Geologyr ~ N,FRANCISCOs Room.4022.~~erry --:~ ; :' ~' . :;~ ~' _ .. - . , STATE OF CAUFORNIA-HEAl7H AND WELFARE ATiENCY • GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Gowrnor DEPA.RTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES - 2151 BERKELEY WAY = m~ BERKELEY, CA 94704 415/540-2665 February 10, 1984. Laurence L. Tong - Planning.Director CITY OF DUBLIN ~. 6500 Dublin.Boulevard, Suite D = ,. Dublin, California. 94568 . . SUBJECT:. City..of.Dublin's NOP for DubTin General.Plan.- SCH #84011002 . Dear Mr. Tong:. ~ The Department has reviewed.the subject.environmental.document and offers the following comments. For your information and assistance,. enclosed.is..a document prepared by the Noise Control,Progra.m entitled, "Guidelines.for.Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental.Impact.Reports", which provides some general guidelines as to what.this office.considers important in EIRs. ' , The EIR should.identify localities.exposed to~noise levels proscribed by the Dublin.Noise Element and describe.techniques through which conformance may be attained.:.-;` If you have any questions.or need further information~concerning these com- ments, . please contact :.Dr.. Jerome . Lukas = of . the. Noise Control.. Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs;.at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, CA 94704,:415/540-2665. . Stuart-E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief . ~ , Office o£ Loca1...Environmental...Health Programs . . _ . . , , ' . _'sr''L~i+i./ , ~ , rome S. Lukas, Ph D.:< . ~ ~. ~ ~ Senior:Psychoacoustician ". ~ ~ ' NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ':`, ~ . Enclosure y cc: Environmental.Health Division State Clearinghouse Because complaints about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise Control .~ recommends that every project with a potential for~ increasing environmental noise levels or .which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. , This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people. The infor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for ' review by those with a specific interest in noise. ~ The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many different combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is . virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelines _ should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- mental documents. . ~ , .~ ~ ~ • ~ Suggested Contents of a Noise Study Report I. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes near a freeway, for example). . ~. ~ II. ::: Two scale maps -- one showing the existing sett'sng and the proposed project with adjacent -. land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified,`and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years,: unless the project's life span is less) '.' with the proposed project and proposed larid uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. ~ III. A detailed survey of the existing noise environmerit. i. ~,• `~'~. =-..,.:r °> =_ , ~ A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed. project area and must iriclude any ~ noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of,the pro- ~ posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, ~ ~ county) but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale -~. for the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. .- B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be ~ ' affected by the proposed project. : ~ ~ C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "nor- mal" noise environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year ~ should be included. ~ D. For the time periods measured, the reported noise data should include the LeQt L~, L1A LSg L~, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If ~ , ~ day and night measurements are made, report the Ld„ also. Ld~ is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor : . conform to that used in the appropriate standard. -_ E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing lines - of equal noise level in 5 dB steps, extending down to Ldn =_ 60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown alsa - ~: - :>°~ ~ '~ ~ ~ • ~- F. -_ Identify the noise measurement ' equipment us~ed iri the ~~survey by manufacturer, . . type, and date of last calibration -~ , : ~. IV. A description of ~the future noise ~environment for each pro~ect ~alternative. ' The scope of - ~ ~ ~ the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum ~ the following information must be provided: ~ " ~ `~ ' ~ ' - A. Discussion ` of the ~ type of noise sources and their proximity to poteritially impacted areas. ~ ~ . . B. Operations/activity data: ; ~ 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day, etc.). , 3. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, and seasonal variations. . ~ 3. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). ,. . _ .. . , _ . J • • _2- 4. Frequency spectrum of soiirces (1/3 ~~ccave band data are preferable). 5. Any unusuai characteristics of the sources (impulsiveriess, tonality, etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. - 1. Reference to the prediction model used, if siandard (e.g.; FHWA-RD-77-108, etc.). 2. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. 3. Show typical levels (e.g., L1, L10, etc.) at the receptors. ~ . . , 4. _ Givel any other data yielded by the model you used. . . • - ,.,. . ,. . ; . xw _ . . . . , K. _ D. _ , , , , .. ._ . . Contours of future leveis should be included (down to Ld„ 55 where applicable), and ' ~ . . superimposed over projected population (receptor) densities _ ' . ~: , ' , , ~ ~ - . ~ :.~ - M . V. . Imp act . ~ _ _ - ; ~ ;. A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment~by comparing ambient infor- - ~ mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable standards. ~ - B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element ~of the applicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep . ~ • ~ disturbance, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc ) ~ _ _ . VI. Mitigation . , _ - . - . . A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- _ niques fori mitigation, their relative~ effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a table listing the most and least ef~ective techniques. For this table, effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to noise at some given level. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. ~ C. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated, and why mitigation is not feasi- ~ ~ _ _ . . . ble. .. ~ - ; , _ . ., , . _ . .: :;;. , . ... . ~ . p . .. , . .' ' ~ . . . .. . . .. . _ ' . . ; ; . , _ . . l . ~ . . ' ' . _ ~ F:., r. t ° ~ ~ _ _ _. ' , ' _ ' ' . . " y : - . . .. . . . . . ' ~ . . " " _ . . ~ .. }Q~f. ~.t. { :~. . ... . . . . . " ~ 3 t. } ~ . ~ ~ . . . . ' . , . , , ~ ~ . I . ' .~ . ' ~ ~ , .. , . . ~ ~' : 3 . ~ ' . - ' . . ~ ,. . ;' ~ - . - .. ~. ~. .. .. . . . ~ ~. • ~ : ~ . " Y' G. ,~ „ . C _ . .. ~ .. ~ , . k. ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~~ ~ . . . ,, , ~ .. f. . ~ , a . ~ . . . . ` ~ ~ . J .a ~ ~ , ... ~ .. . . ' . . ,. . .. . :.. . . . t~^ i y_y _ . . ~ .:. :.- ..;~ ,.. ~ .' . . . i . ^ - - . ' . . .'. _ - .. . . ~ . . . ~ ~ ' ~ . , .. : ~ , . ~ .. ':.~ ' .~ .-. . ' . .,,: .~ . ' . . ' • _ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~: ; _ y ~1 . • •. Summarization of Noise Study Reports in Environmental Impact Reports or Statements ~ . _ , _ , : : .. . . . ..; ,.: . , . . `~ . ~..Infoimation included in the Environmental Impact Report_or Statement should be,a summary .~ :~ of the:noise study. : The following informatiori must be mcluded ~'" ~- , ~ A. Maps showing the existing setting and the •proposed project~with adjacent land uses .., .. ;~ ' , . ~~ ~ , . _ . ' :. : ~ and noise sources identified.- Pertinenf distances should be noted " . ~ ~ B. A description of the ezisting notse environment -. ' ~ ~ ._ - ; ~ C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. .` ~:. D. : A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. ~, , ~. . ~ _ ~. = E. . A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of :~ , _ ;.", :. .=.., ~~ `~ the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. ;,;`~:~.:.,: ."~ -: , ~ . F. A discussion of mitigation ~measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of ~ ~ people affected when mitigation is not feasible. '~:_, - ~ ~ , :,. ~_ = , . G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which ~ ~ ' the information was taken (or the Noise Study Report may be included as an appen- dix, and (2) the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not conducted by the author.of the Environmental Impact Report. , ~ . ' .; -. _.~ .. ~~ - : ~ 1. . . , ~ . . ' . ~ . ~ . . ' ~ - . ' .. STATEr'OF• CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION `AGENCY' „„~~; • GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goremor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION " sox ~3to ` °, SAN FRANCISCO 94120 (415) 557-1840 February 10, 1984 , ~: Laurence'L. Tong z,._,:`, ~ ~ Planning Dire~ctor' ".__ ' City ,of ~Dublin ". °~``~~' .. . : 6500 Dublin Blvd: ,..,Ste. D ~;~:-.' .: ~Dublin; CA-".94568 ' Re: Notice of Preparation ~ • Dear'.Mr . Tong : :; ..:." .: ~ Caltrans ~has :~reviewed . the the f.olTowirig comments :. The DEIR should address p " of . . 3s _ ms 'a).Trip generation, distribution and assignment;:. . _ , . __ .. _ . _. , - . . `~:'. ~ -- b) ADT (Average Daily Traffic), AM and PM peak hour.volumes - . on all.significantly affected Route 580 and Route 680 intercha.nges; . =~ . - c):AM.and_PM pea.k-hour..volumes for all through~and"•,turning , ~. . '. ~, moveme~nts on any other significantly affecte.d streets, ~ , -- crossroads;-and controll'ing intersections, , . - _ ; : . , . , . . . . . .. 1 . : . . .. ' . .. S~ ".l ~ . :: _, _ , a . . . ~ , ;, • .'. d) ;Data :-should 'relate to existing ~and future cAonditions3, ~S;,the . - ... .... , ..~, .,. . . . . . • .. . ~ . . .,. _ . ... . . . - - ~ ~. ., latter...including 3pro~ect ,traffic ;and cumulative ,traffic 1;: ,~ ~. . .. .. . _ .. _ . , ,.,. . . Y. ~ ! • '~generated~:,by •a roved ~ ro ects in the vicinit ~ t p p fp ] ~ ` ' ° `` a ~ ~ r 'a - ~ ~~ s..%~, a ~:. ~ - # ~~`,. . '. _. ~~:.'~ i ~E..: ~ ~} ~ ~~~*r ~~- i .~~.~~: ~ ..1 . ,.r e) ~Proposed 'mitiga~tion, includings~modal alterna~tives a~nd y ' ` highway imp~rovements,".and.the..;propo'sed,finan'~cing*;inechani~sms .~ ~ . . ,,for'same. ,:.--.Caltrans.will..not be "~fina~nci.ally, responsible,for .' - project-related mitigation measures. ; -. ~ The General Plan should be coordinated with.a masterr~gr.adin9 and drainage plan which addresses.both current and future developed runoff conditions. This.grading and drainage plan should be compatible with those.involving other agencies, wheriever ap- propriate,. and should not'adversely affect Caltrans' existing . R~C~T~/~~ .. . . ~ : FFB 2 ~ 99~4 ~ _ ~ : , OUBIIN PLAtv~..:.3 . 4~ , : ~ '~>~ F ~ ~ . ., - . -. , : - . ~,_ -. . -. . . . . "'. ~~ y ~.. `~4 ~'_ . . .' ~ ..~ ,.. . ~. ' . . ; , '. -. : •. . ._ . ~ . . ,~ ..' ... -, .':~~..1r4 . - -. . 1 , . ~ • • Mr. Tong Page 2 Feb. 10, 1984 and proposed faciTities. All these concerns should be. adequafely determined and discussed in the General Plan and its related environmental documents. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR. Please send it to: - ... Mara,Melandry ~ , : ~ " ~ ~ .-.~ District` CEQA Coordinator :~ ~ ~ ~~ Caltrans~'District 4 . • ;. ' P. O. Box 7310 `° x.'-:. - San Francisco, CA 94120 -~ If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Timothy.Sable at (415) 557-2830. Sincerely, ,~~~~~~ ,~~ MARA MELANDRY District CEQA Coordinator ~. ~ ~ ~~~~ u~ ~j ~~ ~, ~7 ~~ ~ ~~ 4 ~:' ~~'~ LD .-:~ TED C. FAIRFIE Consulting Ciuil Engineer ~ .. . . . r.' `.~ `~ f ~~ r ~ ~, J ':' ~~ ~ . .. .7,,^.r ~ . .. . ,,; ~ _ ., ~ February 14, 1984 ~; Mr: Richard C. Ambrose ~ ;,<.. : _ ; City .Manager ~ : ~ _ : . ,~ CITY..OF : QUBLIN ~ . : P.O: •Box 2340 : -. ~ - ., .' Du bl i n,~ CA 94568 ' Dear Mr. Ambrose: This is to restate the concerns which we expressed on behalf of the Chang Su-0 Lin family at our meeting of February.l3th, and to suggest and request actions which would mitigate said concerns. As you know, the Lins own approximately 760 acres within Dublin's newly expanded sphere. of influence (maps outlining their property have previously been furnished to you). While much of the Lins' property is designated on Dublin's draft General Plan as "Single Family Residential," it is also.true that some of the readily developable portions of their property and surrounding properties are designated as "Open Space." It is this latter designation which concerns us, because our experience with other properties in other-jurisdictions suggests that an "Open Space" designation, once applied, tends .to become sacrosanct in the minds of a substantial. part of the citizenry-and of the agency staff. This .is often true even if there are.no persuasive reasons for either establishing or maintaining that designation; i.e., even if the initial. purpose and concept for so categorizing some of the . lands is as,an.interim _"holding" „designation,, pending.further,•~more ~ _-; detai l ed ~ pl ann i ng ystudi es .~ to ~ determi ne : the _: proper i ntens i ty of :, future -: ,: . -. - . ~ devel opment ~ , , ~ _ , ~. . . .. . :, . _ _ . , , . . . . . , _; , ~ ~ ~ - ~ . . , ~ ~ ' _ : . In ~ou~r meeting, ..you ,and your :sta~ff suggested that .this ..latter~:example -~ . ~~-- , f i ts . the case ,i n po i nt; that due ,to the short ;time~_frame and the ::l imi ted :. - ~.~~'~ , planning.resources available to you in~your.'.initial ;effort to create a =~ ~ ~ general.plan,-coupled with some previously published geologic concerns ' in the Eastern Extended Planning area, the "Open Space" designation is being liberally applied. It was also suggested that, as more data and knowledge becomes available to you, the initial, conservative approach can be amended to more realistically reflect the potential of the properties. It is with the above discussion in mind that we, on behalf of the Lins, are putting forth a two-pronged effort, as follows: R E C E I V~ v F; a 2 ~ ~~9~4 , P.O. Box 1148 ~ 5510 Sunol Blvd. • Pleasanton, California 94566 •(415) ~~t~~qNA1~NG ~ ~ Page Two Mr. Richard C. Ambrose February 14, 1984 1. We hereby request that the initial Dublin General Plan,"in its formal, adopted form, be modified so as to include a clear statement that the "Open Space" designation has been used commonly (at least in the Eastern Extended Planning Area) as an interim "holding" designation and that, soon after adoption, properties which have been so designated will become eligible for further review and potential amendment, to reflect their true development capabilities. In other words, it should be made clear: that an initial designation as:"Open Space" does not necessarily doom .those properties to, non-development, but~-that each property will be studied on its own merits as adequate technical data becomes available to you. - We request that this amendment be facilitated in the General Plan by: a. creating a fifth category in Section 3.0, to be labeled "Holding area, pending further planning and development studies, on.a property by property basis," or some similar wording; and b. adding a Section 3.4, which will expand upon the concept (lack of data) which resulted in the initial pervasive use of the Open Space designation (at least in the Eastern area), and the intention to review and potentially amend the areas so designated on a property by property basis. 2. Since many of the initial decisions as to open space vs. single family residential were apparently made (in the Eastern area} on the basis of geological concerns, we have retained the geotechnical firm of Merrill & Seeley to review and speak to those issues, primarily as to the Lins' properties. It is our hope and intention that, via the General Plan Hearing Process, we will be able to convince your Commission and Council that the initial General Plan should designate a greater proportion of the Lins' properties as being developable for~residential uses. - We will be submitting the Merrill & Seeley data to you during the last week of February/first week of March. We ask you to anticipate the possibility that not only will our presentation be able to convince you of the logic in changing the designation of some parts of the Lins' properties, but that it may also be able to convince you that the "Geologic Hazards and Constraints" section of the General Plan is somewhat overstated. We look forward to working with you and participating in your public hearing process. We appreciate your willingness to give serious consideration to our concerns and proposals. Would you please keep us ~ • Page Three Mr. Richard C. Ambrose February 14, 1984 advised as to the public hearing schedule? Thanks for your assistance. Very truly yours, , .~. ~ ~' ~ . ', . ~ TED C. FAIRFI TCF:ch cc: Laurence L. Tong - Peter W. Snyder ~ Jim Tong . Marc Seeley . , .. . ~ ~ ., . , "" . ~ ~~ ,~ . , ~ ~ . ~,~ „ ,'~•~ ,~ ~~ ~~„'';;.~.~~.~ ;;,•'- ~ `i:' ~ ( i 1 ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~ \ ~ ~. ty , - ~ ~ v / ~ :~ y~ ~ ~,' --\\,~ J ' ~ ) ~ J • ~_> 1 • ~~ ~ _ ~~~~ I/C _J•, U ,~/ I . q,;./• ~~ /` i ~~ f 1~ ' ~\ . ~ . --~ ~ ~~N,) . , - . ~ , ~ ~./ . J ' , ..,1~.1 ;..~,..,;-.. .~ J' , .~_~ ; : . .. .. . .>. °~ ~~ ~ .~ ~.~ ' .._. ~ • \ ' ~ UJCCC\\\\~ .~ ~J\I f-rl,-~W~ ~~~ V,u~~ ••~ . . ~~ ~`,. ` ' .;~,, ' ' ~ ~ . I ' ''•O ~•' ~F ~ . . . ' _ ,.~- .ti~i z •'.~ ~ ~i. (~~ c~~ ~ ,1 ~~.~;';. ~ ~ I~' .~ ' ' ' ±EXNIQI7 V ~ , ~ : fi , : C'~ ,: pgT ~~ :,, ~ . i,. . ~ ~ . ''h I ' ~~j : r , ~. yif~ "' , . . ~1 O.: k 9( ,// , •.~`• ~;."~~~• .II . .,~ ~ ~ . ~, ~' ,;~ ,~ ~ ~ > . C~ ~ ~p - ~•~~ ~• . ~1'~ ,~. ,i~: l.~•~r~ ~ ~ ' . ,,, i,' i f" , ,., r. / , . ,,.1 x~~.~H;X ~• , ~ ~, .,~ ,:~'~;'.'w •`,'~ .'~ ~ ~ .• ~ Dublin:Sphere ue~ ;, ,•. , - I S a, c~ ~,, '>'' •~ ti ~~ ~ ,',~ ~:f~ ', ' Eastern Dounda ~ . '; _ ; { ;;~ ~ ~ ~~ •,,: ':~' .~ ~1. , / ~ ' ` 1 c'~ ~ ~ ;! ~ ".` /: ; ~.` +~~ ~ , , ~ .. ~ ~~ .~~ ~ na i ~ 1 ' ~ . (y(~ r . . i I ',• : , . . ~ / ~ , ' •,• • .~T \ ;' ~ , '1 J ,•~~r ;'f. 1 I ~ ;~ (. :~~ . ~ ~I ~ k~ ~ I . \ ; , ~ r~~ : • ' ' • '• , ~ ;. 1 .. ,~, ~•~~' ~:~ ~;, ; ~ \..! . /•' I IR CL`~' '/ /f/ ,~~ ~l.(~I ,~~ , ~~~;~~ r~~~i , .•~~ ~•'~~ ,~~~. (~(1 ~: ~... ~1 . ~ p t ., ' . .t ~~ •~ ~ /t~• ~ ~` /~CO .~IU,•I ALON •1• / t• ~ '~ ~ ~ `~:~ 1~~: ~~ •~,/ ~~ ,. . . l ~ ~ r ~.~/ ~. ~ ~ . . . . ' . . ~' ~a ~.t+ L Nh .'~ ~ t /r~ .\ „ ~ ~~ r/ f t t -." \; , .'~~ ~ I. , ' i -:'c ~ I~~ I'' ~~~ 1 ~y • / . .~: ' ~• l~p.. ~}I ~ T~ ,'. a ~ ~ ? .5~) ~ ~. t i, ~~ ~•1 ^. ~,a 1 • ~ \~~i• '~~~ ~(i (~ ~. '1K l1 I/ ` r: \ . ~ ~ ~:~~-'~~ •~. ; ~t '~ ' '~ ',~ f~ • l~ ~, ~~~' i'~~; :.. '~ i ~ ~ ~~ .---~-~ ~• .o •(~` ~ ~• ~. ~ r, :~ ~ 'i ~ ~.` ` .~I• •'/ ''~ '_~'. '~~,~. , ~ I A TA.SSAJAR~ REE}i ?i.vi .. il )•'~N-` '. ~~l .+ (~ '''l~ ,.I~ ~~ I' ~ '!.j, ~ '~;~~. ' 1 ' ( ., '~ ~ ~.~ I~II~~ ,'.Q'F;,~, ~ \l~l ~ '` ~ \l• ~r ~ ~ ,'C~ RECIONA Rl:~~ r.~ ~~I .. ~ ,~ , I' l, ~,r .f ~ 'l _~. ~.~: ;\• T~ ~ , . '.,~ % ~ '' ,. •. . ' : • ~ • `, ~ :` , ~~'~' t I ` 'r, ' 1 ,' ~ ~ ~ r ~ , :. . ,.. ~ _ ~ . . ~ 1 ~, ~~ ~ l ~ ~ /:i~ .~ g~' .• ./`. ~I . ''j ~~ ~(. ,\ I `. ~ - ' 11 .;,./ i. t • ~ •'' ~( : ~r~ ~ ~'~~' a ~11 \ ,~ i : . • ~ \~1 ~` .~ "c( ::+ . , I~ i/ .' > / ~ ( .~. C ~t ~ ~' ~ /t ;~ 1 :.~1 ` I ~~\. .II.~~O~~~ ~ ~~''I. ~ I ~r'• '~ ,,'~' ,~/~ . ~ ~ ,•, •~' ( J I ~ ~ . ~I J; ~,- . ~ ~~ s~ 1~ ~:;~~ ..~ j ~v ~ ~ ~\: ~, ~'a ~,;~\;, ~l , )i~~, . , ~~.~ .,~,~~r;~~~~. ; ~, '~ ~ 1.. O . , - ~,. )~ ~~ ~ `~,, ..1:l , , ~~~. ~, r ~ :~ f .x , ~ _ _ ~. ~ _ ~ , ; ) , J ;, 1 (~ 8/~ 1~ ~ L 1 , ~-~ , .:w .,~' •~ i l i •~ , ~ ~ ~1. ,-.~ =;~;;~ ~~~ .~'' l~ .~<< ~ ,. ~ •~ 4~ ~,; .~- ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ( ~-. .~ ~~„~ ~ ~, l q - s -- ; ~ ~ :.: l~ ;~. . - '~ -' ~ ~ o ~ ~'t r'~(~~ ~~' , t~ S~ (l ~ , ~' ~ ~' ~(. ~7 "Y~~ ~~' ~'~' ``~`" ' ~' ~' ' ' '~ . . /• V ~+ •~~! , „oH ~ ~ ~..j (~':~ ,~~r"r~ ~ ~~c ~~~~~ ~' ~ `~. '.~~~~ - ~. ~~ct ~ • _ ' `' l . „ 1 tI / /: ~~31._ (' ~\\. ' ~~ •1 ~'\ / ~ . .t ~ ~ ~ ~~~ f~ ' ~f ~. `;;: • ~j1! ~.>' rrr`~~~`" i `~ ~ ~l I ;:~ . ; ~ ~~~.,. ~i ,, ) , :~,~;. ,' ~,'; ..,-.\ ;~,,.•.o; ~~ I ~ -::::::~`:z: ~ ( ( -~ .~ . ~ ~~ ~ g ~~- ~,: _ ~ .. f~, .~ l~~ -;,~~ -~; ,4 ~~: ~: ~::.- ~ ~,~~ ~- - - ~~~~ ~IJ" I // ~l .~ . ~, ';. ,~ iY r~ •;~ ~ ~ ' ° , ~ ~) . ti ~~; ) ~C,,.,, ~ ~ .; .~;, ~~~ ,..,,~ ~~. -.~~-.f,~~~) ~; . . a f ~ ~ , ~ :, ,~ ,. %/ ~ .~:; ,- ~:• ~,~~ ,, ~ ~!r '~ , ~~ ~~ , ` . .°~ - ' ~ ~ i ~' % ' 1 '~ '~: ~.;:;~i~,,.~~.. „~~)~, ~~ ~. :~~1;8~ -.~~1~~`i~ ~s l l(~ ~' ~ . ~ ., ~ ,. -., ~ ~ . 8 _ ~ ~~ .~~_. y. ~~..~~ -:~ ,~. ~~ • ~,•j ~ . / o , I , ~.:~l~• , ,~ 1 a~• ,~. , ,,~, ~`~ ~ '• ~~~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ \• ~ o ~.• '~i. J ~`._.:%~~ ~~'/ I1~ •,~' ~- r '.` _~ly - ~ C.,• .~JJ ' f/LLtC, • `~~ ~ .\ ~1 ~ ..~ ~ ~ . \•-•• J/i .,/ ~ ~,l/ ~` °i~~~~ `-~t~,. ~Ill~~. ~ Mo ~~ _ - L .- .' • J ~ ~ l ~,M! / ~ ('• ~/~ j ~.' ( ~i;• ~:~~~1r`} ` ~ . s( ,~ 1 ~,~ . . . ~,~ _ ~ _ . .i ~~. .1 , , 1 , .,( ~~ ~. ~~~; ~~ ~_ : ) .r,~ r. . ~ ~ }l •1 ' ---' ` \~ :~',,i _lF -~( ~~Fr t ~! ---;- --- -- `~ '`~ ~ -0 -~'-~--~ -- -_- r ~~ ~ ----. o ` -~ / \ 'il, ) ~I ~.•'i " ~ l~ ~// / c. r ~r • ' ., ; , . / v .I { ~I ~ ~ `~ ~ ('' ' . ~~ ~ ` ~ ~ , . _ ~ ~ ~~. r ; ',( : ~/ ,~ J Ct;;` ~ .._._. .__ ~o~ ~~~ - ~~~ , ~ . .r . . . . :~`~ ~~,, ;;,. ; ~ ~ ~~., , ; / ~o~,, ,,.. ~ ~ , , .. . ~ ~ , ,~ , ..~ ~:,,~ , - ~ .~ `,,. x~ ~ ~ , . . ~ ~, ~ ~- ~~ .~1~~~ / ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~;~ ~ ;~~- ~ ~~ - . ~~so ; ~~ ~ .. \ : ~-,•1 ~,. ._ ; -,. : „ :~.._ _': ; ` . •w '' .i •^ ~ .~ . ~ _ L'-~i.!~' ~~ I .. . , _ ~ ~'~ . j - ~ . / , ~ ' '\ /' r H `~~. p~ an:r,nn, : ~ ; .. ... . ~~ .. ~ .- '~ '~;: - u, uu T~uu , ~ 1 ,.N~ , , ... , . ~ •,(.._ , ` . .... J~, ~ ~l ~. ~'~.nt.~k~,rl n y . ~.~ ~ ^ ~!A.~.wi~ .~ ,: ,~ a. ~ , . I _ , . . ~ . 1 i._ . ~ ~ -_ - .>•. ^_~LkaicCa~: ' /+. ' ~ . 'a ~ ...~. S'- ~ ('~a. ~; , ~ ~"u~~..L , . :Y' ., i~ ..~ ._ / . . . ~ . • ~ ~J • l`. - - . ~ ~ . .. ~ . ' . ~' ,.. ~ • ~ . ; Appendix 11 EQUIVALENT ANGLES OF SLOP~ AIVD ' , PER CENT GR~DES1 ; AnR~e of Per eent li AnRla o( Per ecnt I AaRle ol Per eent Anglc o( Per elope yrade (I el~ ~ grede I dope. Rradc eloPe eent ar~dc 35' 1.0 11' ]9_! I 20• 3' 36.5 ~ 33' ~9' 6J,0 5~' 1.5 I 11° 2' 19.5 20• l8' 37.0 I 34° 6T.4 1' 9' 2.0 11° 19' 20.0 20° ~8' 33.0 39° 13' 6g.0 1° 28' 2.5 11° 35' 20.5 21° 38.s 3~f° 36' 89.0 1° f3' 3.0 ll° 52' 21.0 21° 1S' 39.0 35° 70.0 2° 3.5 12° 21.3 21° ~3' 40.0 35° 23' 71.0 2° 17' i.0 12° 8` 21.5 22° lO.S 35° 95' ?4.0 2° 35' 4.5 12° 24' 2^..0 22° IS' ~1.0 36° ?9.6 2° 6Y 5.0 12° 41' 22.5 2^_° 47' i2,0 36° 8' 73.0 3° b.2 13° 23.0 23° L^.5 36° 30' 74.0 3° 6.5 13° 13' 23.5 23° 16' 93.0 3G° bY 73.0 3° 2B' 6.0 13° 30' 2i.0 23° d5' 4i.0 37° 75.4 3° !3' 6.5 13° 46' 23.5 24• 44.5 37° 1~' 7~_p 4° ?.0 14° 2i.9 24° 14' 45.0 37° 36' 77.0 4° 77' ?.5 14° 2' 25.0 2i° 4=' 4G.0 38° ' 78.0 4° 34' 8.0 14° 18' .5.5 ~5° ~6.6 38° 19' ;D.O 4° b2' 8.5 14° 39' 26.0 25° 10' ~7.0. 38° 40' g4.0 b° . S:8 i 14° S1' 26.5 25° 39' 48.0 39• 81_0 b° fl' 9.0 ~ 15° 26.8 26° ~8.8 39° 21' ~.0 b° 28' 9.5 15° 7' Z.-.0 26° 6' ~9.0 39° 92' s3.0 b° ~3' 10_0 ~ 15° 23' T..S 26° 3i' 50.0 SO° g{.0 6° 10.5 ~ 15° 39' :S.O 2i° 50.9 ~0° 2Y ~.0 6° 17' 11.0 ~ 75° 59' ZS.S _° 1' b1.0 90° !2' 88.0 B° 34' 11.5 16° 25.7 27° ~g' b2.0 41° 87.0 6° bl' 12.0 16° 10' 29.0 27° 56' S3.0 dl° 21' 85.0 7° 12.3 16° 26' 29.5 23° 53.2 ~1° d0' 89 0 7° 8' 12.5 ^' 2S° ~ Si 0 ~2° . fl0 0 T° 24' 13.0 16° SS' 30.5 28° s9' _ S5,0 f2° 18' . 91.0 ~° 41' 13.5 17° 30.8 29° 55,4 92' 37' 92_0 t° 58' 15.0 17° 13' 31.0 29° IS' S6.0 !3° 93.0 i° 15' - 14_S 17° 29' 31_5 29° ti' ~ 57.0 43° Ia' 9i,0 !° 32' .15_0 17° 95' 3^_.0 30° 5~.7 43° 32' 95.0 • 3° 49' • 15_S 18° - 3^.S 30° 7' Sg.O 43° SO' 98_0 ~° 15.8 18° 16' 33.0 30° 33' S9.0 44' 08.5 ~° b' I6.0 IS° 31' ' 33_S 31• 60.0 . 44° S' 97_0 ° 22' 16_5 18° !7' 3-1.0 31° 23' 61.0 44° 25' 98.0 : • 39' 17.0 19° 3l.6 31° 93' H~.O 4i° d3' 99_0 ': ° b6' 17.5 19° 2' 36.5 32° 62.5 fY 300.0 ; ° 17.8 19' 17' 35_0 32° 13' 83.0 ° 12' 18.0 19° 33' 35.5 32° 37' g4.p • ' ° 29' 18.5 ~ 19° f8' 36.0 33° 5,5.0 ° 41' 1fl.0 20° I 36_6 33° 28' 66.p _ 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 1 ~ See Art. 34b. - SJ2 • ' i ; . ' • • ~ 57ATE OF CA~IFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Govcmor DEPARTMEN7 OF FISH AND GAME ~ - m - ' February 16, 1984 , ~-f Laurence •L:° Tong; ~Planning • ~ ~ , ~ _ Director - . . ~ . - . City of Dublin ' 6500 Dublin Blvd., Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong: ~ Our personnel have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Dublin General Plan, Alameda County, SCH 84011002, and we have the following comments. The document should consider the impacts of stormwater runoff on Arroyo . ~ Laguna in Pleasanton. Existing flooding problems have resulted in natural resource damaging channel widening projects. - Department personnel are available to discuss our comments in more detail. To arrange a meeting, please contact Mr. Paul Kelly, Wildlife Biologist, telephone (415) 376-8892. ~ . RECElVED F EB 21 1984 DUBUN PLANNING. Post Office Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 (707) 944-4460 •. ; ~ - . . ,~~ . . , J . ' ~~ (: ~- (~~ ~ ~-~: .~ ,: c•~C..- . . . .. . ~ ~. . ~ • i ~ ~ ~- i ~..2 ~,~.~. I ~ I o..~ ~Ji 1]A. V ~Y~~~ `V~~~ 11 ~`ll ~ 11 ~`lJ~ `V~o9 1L1 V~e ' .. J DEVELOPERS & GENERAL CONTRACTORS • ' . . •' - (408) 289-8074 . SUITE 220 . 300 SOUTH FIRST ST. . SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 .. 1':{~.:dl!Y~~;,Ht,;±• ;`^:!= // . . .. . .. ~ . ."~-}'"~q^QTi.I, ~ l • . ~ . . ' M~~`~~_.~:e .. • . , . 1 . y, ~. . • .... ... .. ..,..~j.. ~and -~ use f ~ ' .:. r . ~ , . ;r • 4~. at . «ximum floor area ratio for each ~ , - -'=~;::..:-Th the -.. -... .- .. . .._ _ •. :. - . : . _ ~_.::~~.,.., :.. ~:~. _ '`=~'~~~•`'=~-'category ~shall ~~be~~as~-=-=shown in Tab1e~~B-l ~of-:Ythe CC&Rs ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~and ;;thata.the :=total. maximum: ~overall ~.-floor ~~~area~ratio ~:;;~',+, ` sliall .~be :.37 . ~7 ~ of •-the = ne t =~ acrea~ge'~ (approximately 4 9 5 ~ 4 ~ , ,. _. ._. : ~-~ .:. . ....,... : ., : - - acres)_:°=of=;the :~business, park': ~;:~ Floor;_area,"ratio ~shall~` be~ "":. as' defined ~`in` the- Pleasanton Ordinance Code:~~• ' : :y;,._, ... ~ 15.- That the maximum building heights of all structures on the subject property shall be as sho~~m in Table B-1 of - the CC&Rs (attached hereto and made part of this case by ~ 16. reference) except for the OMPD district wtiere no building shall be over five (5) stories in height. In no case sliall a building b~e over 65 ft. in height at the.parapet unless the Pleasanton Fire Department is in possession of apparatus capable oi supressing fire in a building of that height. _. That a district for the maintenance of all public lighting and landscaping within the development and all street areas both within the development and all of Hopyard Road, , exclusive of the Meyer property, from I-580 to Valley Avenue,. Santa Rita Road from West Las Positas Boulevard to I-580, and West Las Positas Boulevard east of the development shall . ' be established. Such district may be used in conjunction with a property owner's association to be established by ~ the developer for these purposes. 17. That site specific soils studies shall be done for all the buildings constructed on the subject property. 18, That all buildings on the subject property shall employ solar energy to the maximum extent economically feasible. 19_ That if any fill is required for the subject site, it shall be transported to the property via freeways rather than City streets.. • ~ 20. That all street rights-of-way shown on the final map ~ shall be offered for dedication to public use or in the alternative, tliese rights-of-way may be purchased~ .- at their market value through a special asszssment -. - . district for subdivision improvements if approved ', _. by the City Council pursuant to Section 66462(a)(2),:, ~ - of the Governnent Code.~ ~..- ~„ ~. ~ 21_• That the developer acknowledges that 'the~ City of . . Pleasanton does not guarantee the availability of - sufficient sewer capacity to serve this development by approval of this project and that the developer agrees and acknowledges that building permits may be wit:~held if sewer capacity is found by the City not to be available. 22.. That all loading and service areas shall be screened ~ from streets and adjacent properties. :''pTY COUNGL OF THE r 5. Instauatan gnal at ~+'y~VOfFIEASA-'lT~N ~ Hopyard Road/V Trads , :. , AWt~dDA COUNTY, ~^K ~~h) • (ARh ivr.). " CALIFARNIA 6. Moditicdtion of tfie 1d ORD7NANCE NO. 1109 ~^ng signals: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING Hoqyard Road/Valley Aven• 'TNE APPLICATION OF THE ~ ;PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE H ard Road/Val Trads ~ •COMPANY OF AMERICA ANO ~~ ut~ Parks~4eDrrve ( ,( , CALLANAN PENTZ PROPER- PY d Road/West Las Ho ar PLEASANTON TO RE- TIES Posrtas Boulevard , ZONE TO THE PUD-INOUSTR• Hopyard Road/Stoneridge ~IAL/COMMERCIAL AN~ OF• ~''~e FICES DISTRICT AND TO Hopyard Road/lohnson APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT ~~~ (now OwenrO+ive) PLAN FOR A 573 ACRE BUSI- B. The nase mitigations ~ist NESS PARK EAST Of HOPYARD ~~n Condition 5 as follows: ~ ROAD AND NORTH OF THE 1. Acoustical analyses for all ARROYO MOCHO (PUD~81 ~30). roadways enumerated in Condi~ WHEREAS, the Prudential In• surance Company of America tion 5. 2• Entered an agreement to and Callahan~Pentz Properties, DaY ~a studies and proviGe miti~ Pleasa~tort (.:dlect4vely "De- • Batan measures when deemed veloper") have applied for ~essary. Constructed soundwalls 3 Planned Unit Development (PUD•Industrial•Commercial . abng the required portions ot, ' and ONices) zon~ng and devel• ~nta Rita Road, West Las Posi• tas Boulevard east o( the site opment plan apprwal of a 573 , ; 'and Hopyard Road. acre project (PUD-81•30, tfie "Hacirnda Business Park") to C. Condition 20 • Dedicated ~ include approximately 23 net ~n-tract streets to City acres of" "garden" oHices, 62 D. Condition 25 • SuDmitted net acres o} gerieral oHices, 50 " CC&R's tor City approval. Condition 42 - Entered E offices, net acres of '•mid-rise 47 net acres of. indus;:ial ware• . ~andscape agreement. housing, 273 net acres ot re- ;search and developrt~ent/ligtit f. Condition 49 • Obtained ~~~~h^~^t Permit prior to 'ma~ufacturing, and 38 acres ot `retail/commercial/financial ~~structb~. G. Condition 51 • Final design developmmt with the remain- ing approximatety 80 acres to ot streets. H. Conditan 52 - Design cri- be used for street and flood teria for utilities submitted and channel right~of~way purposes, to be located on the east side o( `aPPfO1~• ~• Condition 57 • CCbR's re- ,Hopyard Road between the Ar- 'quire Transportation Systems :rayo Mocho and a point approxi• ' Management Program by com• mately 1400 teet south ot I-580 Panies with 100 w more em• .and extending east to the tracks oi the Southern Pacific Trans• ~e~dition 58 ~ gus stops ~portation Company; and and shelterS have Deen ap- WHEREAS; an EIR was pre- pared, puDlic nearings he1d, and o„~ and installed. P` K. Co~dition 62 - Any prar ceRified as com- the EIR was assessment districts were . plete and adequate (Resolution cleared prior .to filing parcel No. 82~197), and the project was approved, wbjed to 109 map. ~• Co~dition 65 - Erosion and conditions, on November 9, sediment control plans have 1982 (Ordinance 1040); and ~ bee~ apqroved and construct- WHEREAS, the approval was challenged in the Superior Court ~• M. Condition 83 - CC&R's of A~ameda County and on pr~de tor maintenance of in- March 16, 1983. tfie court (i) u~ streets for 10 years. found Mat PUD-8130 was in• N. Condition 85 - All wells, consistent with the goals and ~P~ tanks and other tanks, policies contained in the Growth +~fe G~~ry sealed p.ior to . Management Element of City's 'S~ding. - General Plan and (ii) ordered i ' , O. Condition 87 - A dust con• kd plan has been approved. ~ va• rry and City Counc tfiat C cate and set aside PUQ8130;. P• C~ition 89 ~ Water sys• _ : a~ tem has been apprwed, meet- WHEREAS, prior to the court i i~B immediate and long•range : order vacating PUD-81•30, the .; requirert~ents. : Qroject site was wDdivided and :; - Q. ~dition 93 • Sewer sys. ; improvements and buildings .~ :': !tem has been approved. meet- ' begun, with all 109 conditions ~- '~ng immediate and lo~g•range of approval incorporated into ,requirert~ents. theCC&R'sgoverningthedevel• : R. Copditions 95 • Storm oprnent of Hacienda Business - drainage system has been ap~ ~ Park and all relevant conditions '; Pr~• ~hng f{ood contrd ~~incorporated into the approval -'and flood ~azard program re• '• of the subdivision: and ~ quirements and meeting bng- WHEREAS, at this time most range requirernents. puDlic on-site improvements ~ S. Co~dition 98 • Hazard con• ~ • have been completed and many trd bond wai submitted prior to ~ ~of the otf-site improvements ' construction. ~have Deen completad as well. ~ T. Condition 99 • Landscape :incfuding all channel improve- ~a~d irrigation plans have been ments and many street im• '~approved and installed. provements; in completing . U: Condition 106 • No occu• , ;Uxse imprwements the lollow• _:pencY was allowed until the b ing conditions of approval irxa• ~I trattic assessment district ~ porated into the present appli- was }wmed nnd tt~e develop~r wtion for reapprwal have gem '~s legally committed to Me •mally.been met: - North PfaasaMOn Traftic As• A. The trattic rtnprovements . sessment District. ~8sted in Condition 2 as tollows: ' WNEREAS, in conjunction 1. Wideni~g of Hopyard vrith a proposed amendment to ; Road to six (6) lanes from near : tfie Growth Management Ele• ~Johnson Drive (now Owens ~~t of tfie Gerro~al Pfan. Me ; Orive) to Valtey Avenue. ~. ~ ' ~eveloper has proposed tAat 2. Widening o1 West Las `~ CitY reaDProve PUD•8130. •'Positns Bou~avard to slx (6) 4incorporating the 109 condi• ~lanes between the SoutAern Pa• {~s of apprwal 01 Ordinance cific Tron tbn Company . Rita R d t { lOW in its p-o~ect descr~p~w~, pur• and theCNy has prepareG oa . a ~ tracks anE n I 3. Installation o1 signal at . : wartt to CEQA. a suppbmeM to ~Hopyard Road/Inglewood .;the EIR ta PUD•81-30: a~d n.:._ ~ MMERE~S. in reviewina this , ;CEQA, a Suppkment to tfx EIR 'taiitics: entwi re.dcctw~m ~ES: Nor~e Ass been:~prepared: the City total ~p kngiA and re iABSENT: None Council has reviewed end con- ~duced r al ertwssio~s, so- ABSTAIN: None - sidered the iriformation com cial Denehts of more time ta ROBERT E. RURER, tained in tfie E1R a~d the $up• tami}y and cortirtwnrty Me due MAYOR pkrnent to the EIR and has ~to reduced rwrk trip cornmute ATTEST: tound them complete and ade- times; signiticant construction James R. Walker, quate (Resolution No. ): and •jobs ot local and rcganal Dene• City Ckrk WHEREAS, the Planning tit over a 25~y~ pe*~od: posi• ByDorisGeorge. Commission held a piibl~c hear• five fiscal impact upon the Ci• ~p~tY City Clerk ing on October 26. 1983 arxl fy's gene+al fund; increased ta= NPPROVED AS TO fORM: recommended approval ot the Dase and drv~s~hcation of em• Peter D. MacDonald. rezoning and deyelopment yioye~s insulatmg the City and City Attorney planapp~oval, and community trom adverse ef• ' WHEREAS. a puWic heering fects o1 single-empbyer laba EJ(H16IT A - was held on November 8, 1983 decisions: imprwement ot the 57S^~^t E~~h before the City 6o~s~c+1 04 vrhicfi ~cirtulation system in northem +nd FlndinQs time puDlic testimony was re• Pleasantn[Lj~xlud~ng improved F.w purposes of this ExAibit, ceived relating to the project: emergency vehicttresponse the Hacienda Business Park is and times; reduction m ffood hazard referrpd to as the "ProjecY'. and WHEREAS, the EIR indicates i~ presently u~anized areas; the Amendment to the Growth signifiwnt enviro~mental ef• imprwernent of ambient noise • Management Element is re- tects would result trom ihe ~ kwels in residrnUal areas; on- •~**~ to as the "M~endmenY'. ' reapprwal of PUD-81-30 Ha- site and ot}-site streetscape .~- V^d ~~^d ~^^~^B- ~ cienda Business Park, as wm- - Deautification; and ather bene- A• 51~+t~irrt Effect Potmtial marized in the Significant Ef• : fits mumerated 'n project and regional surplus of tand com- fects and Findings, attached staff reports, puDl:c hearings, mitted to commercial/industri• Aereto as Exhibit "A" and incor- and applicant presentations: : al developrnent resuRing in de• ._ ~ porated herein Dy reference. ' and °' ~' ~ lay in Prqect buildout or aban- - . a~d as more comp~etely dis• - WHEREAS, dxs City Counal part+aly donment of Project in ~` cussed in the EIR itself: and . ;~ finds that ad significant ef- buiR state. . WHEREAS, CEQA and State • fects have been eGminated or a.l Findin~. Area phasing of' - ' and local guidelines adopted :suDstantially lessened where ~t~ devel.oPrTrent is infeasi• : purwant thereto require this : feasiWeas sharn in Exhlbit °A" We due to econorn~c co~sidera- City Council to make specific _:and (ii) determi~es Uut any re- tions. findings when an EIR identifies :. ~maini~g effects. as summa- a.2 Fxt Developer has com- one or more potentialy signiti- rized above, are acceptaWe be- deted in-tract sheets and ut+li- cant etlects which may. resutt cause the economic, social, en- ties tor the entire Project. AHOw- irom apprwal of the project: ~ vironmental, and ottier benefits ~ng Developer to deveaop and a~ of t~e pro{ect enumerated market Me Project as market WHEREAS. this City Council 'aboveoutweightAe unavoidaWe conditions dietate vnll menimize finds that potentially significant adverse ernirmmental eHects: the Gkdihood of delay in Project environmental eHects either (1) and buildout or abandonment of the have been avoided a substan- - YVHEREAS, Uus C'rty Counal R'q~t in a partially buili siate. tialy lessmed by cfianges and twsappraveda~arnendmentto . El ~ 'Different uses are located hout the Roject making ; throu atterations which have been in- e- the Cxowth Management g corporated into the project dur• ment of the Gef~al Plan (GA- " phased development by area ing the review process. indud- 83-1)wAich specificalFy darifies .,~aciical. ing co~ditions of ap~xwal (2) that approval of PUO•81-30, ~ a.3 Fxi. The ProjecYis bcat- require mitigation by another Hacienda Business Park. is con- ' ed at the intersection of I-580 public agency havi~g jurisdic• sisient with the goals and poli• and I-680. an area well suited tio~, or (3) cannot be m~tigated cies contained in the GroNth _ : tor large scale urban infiN and except by mitigation meawres ~Management Elerne~'it, and tfiis '~e hkeiy than less tavwed lo- or attematives found to be in- , City Council finds ihat Me p~o- cations to build-out as sched- feasible given economic, social, environmental, and other con- ject is consist~t with the goals ' and policies of the Pleasanton ~~. a.4 Fact. The notion of sideratio~s. The facts and find- General Plan- and phased project develoqrttent is ings supfwrting these tindings YVHEREAS: Mus City Counci~ ~~s+stent with City's require- are summarized in the Signifi- further finds that ihe project : ment Mat the public imprwe- cant ENects and Fi~dings, at• confotms to the requiren~+ents ~~nts related fo the Profxl be •tac~ed hereto as Exhibit ..A.• and purposes ot the City's PUO !buiit in one phase. and as are more tully found in 'ordinance and 'a in the besi in- • a.5 F+ndin~. The Residential theadministrativerecordofthis terests of the public health, ~Community Mternative. Re• ~ project and !safely, and general weHare; duced Intensity of Devefoprr~ent . WHEREAS, despite the meas• THE pTY COUNpL OF THE ~~~. No Project Attema- ~ures adopted to avoid a sub (XTY OF PLEf~W'ITON DOES ~~e or Maed Use Atternative stantially {essen the potentially .:HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: '~a Partialy mitigate the po- significant ettects, certain et- Sectlo~ 1: Finds the recitals tmtial significant etfect. How• ' .:fects would occur. including: ioontained hve~n are ,true and ~K. ~h a~x ~ef^ahves regional land use effects of kurxL is infeasiWe. long•term partially built indus- 'S~etSo~ 2• Reappracs tfie aqpli- a.6 Fact See Section X11 (for ~ trial/commercial sites and -< +wtion of Deve~o~er n to rezorx . '~fessibility oi these Alterna• ., ', preswres to increase quantities ` of planned residential Wnd and :~`: 'to PUD-tndustria!/Cornrtiercial .`:,and Oifices District the 573 :;~~•) ' '~ .8. ~8~^t ~Hect. Poterr~al '~:: " - densities' inueased trattic wl. :~;..~acres on the east side ot Ho¢ : >> incompati6ility witfi plsnned •. ~ umes a~d deterarating levels of _-~yard Rwd DrtMCen the Arroyo ~ J'~sD'~ ~e- ' ~ service; increased emissions ;: ;Mxho and a point approxi- :` b.l ~ indln~. Mitigatior ` ;~asures incorporated inro the .. ared concentration of air pollu- - i...!matety 1400 teet south of 1-580 .. tants:growth•inducing etfects of . ;:, :~and extend"mg pst to ttie tracks -,-' ~~ to reduce tratfic and , ,'certain public service imprwe- :;;':- of the Southern Pacific Trans- =:~truck noise will substantially ; '" ments necessary to accommo- ;~=: portation Compar:y a~d (e) to : ~.: kssrn ti~e noise ettects and .. .. ' date project develo{xrxnt: in- . :'°• ~.approve a devefopment plan 1or . , _:`; me*ebY avoid any potential in- ~• ueased usage of water, sewage >=;.the wbjxt site cansisting of a , r~DatibilRy with the hospital ~. treatment capacity, and energy: '-• Dusiness park, as submitted r. S+te. . ~increased demand for police .-: and as modified by the condi• " . D.2 Fset Condition (1) Nos..~ 'and fire protection services. ci- ~ tions o( approral contaened in ~`-~. 57, 58. 75 and 76 (heran- ~aeased nase levels: erosion. •:E~diibit ..B..~ attxhed txreto ~ after sometirties collectivdy re- ' co~struction o1 buildings in an "~and incorporoted t~vein by tAis .• lnred to as "TSM and 7ransit area with groundshaking snd 'retermce. • Conditions" (2)) provide for eapansive soil hazards, in- `SactSon 3: The ordinance shall -~ b~ ~aage. TSM progrartrs tor .creased discharge ol urDan pol- ' De puDlished once within fitteen : aU cort~panies empbying wer lutants to surface streams and •(15) days after its sdoptan in ~ hundred (100) persons, bus irxreased hazard of toxic spills ~^The YaNey ~'anes,' a newspa- ~~ and sFietters, and a pedes- ~degrading sur(ace and grou~d per of Qenerat circuiation pub~ ~~an/bikeway along West Las - and Stoneridge = Positas Blvd 'water quatity loss of repana~ habitat and prime agricultural , ~Gshed in the Cityof Pkasartton. :SeclSon;: This ordina~ce yiap . , . .•~^'~• a~l ol which wbstantially . soils to urbanization: change in ~be effective tlwty (30) days at• _'-educe t~atlic. Candition No. ~ 1~ diminates t-uck trips hom : visual charocter o1 the xes; and potential disturbance ot known tK the datr o1 its linal passage -~sndsdoptwn. ~-•• - _., . - ~Me ricinity oi the hospRal site. .' • srchxological sites; snd _. -. _:INTRObUCED at a regular .~Thex conditions w+11 resutt in ' WHEREAS, this City Coundl . imeeting ut Ux Gty Cwncil at '. ~ an acceptabk extrm nax kw . ( finds that, Dased on the inia• ~the City of Pleasantan on No- . , ~d for an appropriately designed . ~ ~ mation presented to it snd , made part oi the rocord ot this fyerttiDer 8. 1983. _-... -.. ..-< iA00PTED at a r meetir~g ~° • ''C. Stp~ik'"t EnscL Re~onal ' case. tM projecYs eco~omic. environmental arW oth• . social 'of ttx City d tl~e Qty at : ~Pleasanton on NorernDe- 22 ~Dressures to inuease quantities . .~ot avsiiaDk residential land a~d , , ' er bene(its kxlude: provision of . . _ ,: :1983 by tQe tolfo..ing vote: • dcnsities of slloweA residential ; bcal pDs in a net out~ca+xnut• ~.'.iJ-YES: Councilnen'~era - t~"~1°~^L ,_,,,, ,,,,,~,,, ~,,,{ ^ ~OUreS `nill substantially ksxn 'efib4!s at local 1e+~e~• •• c.2 f~c1.,Cib's Ge^erol Ptan ~ weY~~~y.:~~ontains pop~latan penchmarks. ~,3 ~act Balance of joDs to housi,vg within Tn•Valley (1.01 jobsjhousing indea at year 2005) minimizes pressure to change Iand use or increase densities. c.4 FindinQ.Land use author• ~ity on a regional level is in the ~jurisdiction ot other public agencies and can and should be enfwced by such agencies. c.5 Fxt Enabling statutes allow neighboring cities and counties to establish zoning and growth management proce• dures, if required. Euisting Gen• eral Plans in the Tri•Valley pro- vide sufficient housing to meet Tri•Va~ley needs without chang- ing land uses and/or increasing densities. D. Slgnificant Ettect Potential inconsistency oi Project with ' • . existing Growth Management . ' Element policies. d.l Flnding. Adoption of the ' Amendment will cause potential , , significant eHect to be avoided. d.2 Fact. The Amendment - providesthatthe Projecttogeth- ~- er with all previously approved . ~ job-generating projects are con• sistent with GME policies. II. Transportation and Cirwlation. q, Signific.arrt Etfect fncrease ~~ existing tratfic volumes on free- ways and local streets. The cu• mulative eHect. at 90 percent of buildout of reasonably torseea- : • ble projects (estimated to occur well after 2005). resutts in five intersections falling below Level of Service D (LOS D). a.l FndinQ. Mitigation meas- . ures incorporated into the Pro• ject to decrease traffic conges• tion will substantialty te.-~r. ~!:c -- " significant trattic ettects. a.2 Fxts. Conditio~ No. 2 prwides that development may continue only as long as inter- sections in the vicinity are main- tained at LOS D. Because no further developrtient will be al• Iowed until mitigation tra(tic improvements are under co~- strudio~ to improve the LOS if lOS E is predicted by a traftic study no local intersection will (all below LOS ~. Condition Nos. ~ 2 and 70 provide that Developer shall be required to complete of}-site roadway. incWdi~g. lo- , cally aHected freeway imprwe- ments as required, and traffic signal improvements. Conditio~ . No. 72 requires Developer to "„ provide a hafiic signal master ~ tontrdler system, interconnect system and wtficient expan- 'sion oi city oNices to house the ~_ -'... ~traHic computer. Cond'ition No. :73 requires that public improve• '~nents be constructed as a con• . tinuous project_ The TSM and , Transit Conditions will achieve a ~ reduction in projected trips, re- ~jucing local and regional traffic _ rolume. ,.. ~ - . ' _ a.3 FacL The Project adds • intrertientaly insignHicant traf- '~ fic to no~•iocal streets and ` 'heeways......,... . . a:4 Flndine. Sortx ot the oth• .I er mitigation measures identi- ~ tied in the Draft EIR (e~Rension • 01 BART to Tri-Valley. Light Rail ~• Transit and regional transit ser• .:- vices) aro subject to the jurisdic• ~--' tion of other puWic agencies .and can arxf should be entaced '- by such agencies. Other mitiga• : tion measures aftecting bcal - :~ :tronsit are under stuQy by the ~::City. ..:., ...:. -,. . . ~• • a.5 Fsct BART is wbject to . the ~urisdiction of tAe MTC; ' Light Rail Tronsit is suDject to •- : tfie jurisdiction oi MTC: regional - ~ "~ heeway improvert-ents are sud •; Eect to the ~urisdiction ot GI• trans. 7hese reganel troNic and .._. .. . _ .. .- _... _ ._~:e. . -'... , ....._ ..- _"-' , _"'..._ ,_ .. ... . .. . _ .... ' 6gp }rceway ~mpr ts ere I~u~s, thus re0ucing~vefi~cu l~r emiss~ons both by reducing :x~ ~D'~^4ion grants. The Air Quality ement Plan is ~.4 f~ndin~. A mit~g,;;,on 'meawre which has not brrn v~~ pqected to be o~e~~~ P~KK See. Liver~ to year 2005 ; ~vdume arid impiovmg level ol ~Dased m~growth rate for T i V torporated into the Projec! co~• . more•Pleasanton Eztension ;~`ACe• ~ 3 Fsct: 7fie-Tri•Valley 6al b r alley • :Pleasant other ~communities served Dy the ~ctrni~g construttion of olher xwer eftluent disPosal tacilit~es SWdy, interim Reporl No. 1. a~ transd mAas~ 6 Fsct Loc a . ~ance of joas to housing as dem~ ~~ }M~ties, is not within t~e ~unsdiction of . . ures irxluding bus system, Park onstrated in Section 3.1 of tAe e.3 The 11ir Quality Manage~ li ;Ciry. The recommended m~tiga~ and a City-w+de and Ride Lots ~ Dratt EIR should cause a ~essen ~t P1an projects comp ance tion measure is with~n the jur~ , TSM ordinance are currcnUy ~ng ol vehicle miles travelled with oxidant standatds ,by isdiction of other public agen~ . ~ under studY by the City. and' a concurrent reductan ot i ,1987. ~~ ~ ~`~`i cies and c~n and should De a.7 Fh+dine• The Reduced In- o~s. ~~ehicular emiss 4 Fl~ding. The Reduced In• • b 'A S Eff~ct Water t i~^t ~5F sct. Const~uction o1 tensity ol ~evelopment Alterna• No Project Alternative, In• tive • tensity of Development Alterna~ use demand exceeding existing i sewer eHluent transportation ili i i i , creased Residential . Capacity tive, No Project Alternative. In~ creased Residential Capacity on capauty. distribut a.l findl~~. The mitigation t es s w thin and disposal tac ;the control of OSR50, IAVWMA Alternative, Partial Approval AI~ Partial Approval AI~ 'A~temative ~measare incorporated ento the 'and EBDA, As a member agency ternative or Mixed Use Atterna• tive could partially miligate the . ternative or Mixed Use Alterna~ ~W~t to re4uire suHicient wa~ tt ;~~ (./~VWMA and by agreement potential signi(icant tratlic ef• i tive could partially mitigate the potential eHect. However, each ect. ler will avoid the e a.2 Fact CaWition 27 pro~ ;with DSRSO. City may particr pate in the decisions to ezpand n fect. Howevet, as described Sectio~ XII, these Atternatives o1 these Allernatives is infeasi• ble and unnecessary as Traffic Wdes wch buitding must Aave an adequate wppty before it is tacilities, and, pursuant to exist~ :ing General Plan policies, City are inteasible. The Atternatives are unnecessary Decause the Conditions will substantially constructed. i i l di i ' has urged such constructio~. which i lessen the ettect. +n~. Add o~a • a.3 Find t str c.6 Finding. The Reduced In- on measures mitigat have been incorporated into the b.5 fact. See Section XII (fw b~tion facilit~es rrhich will elimi- i i tensity of Development Alterna- . Project substantially lessen the inteasibility ot these Alterna• nate the etlect have Deen dent • f~~ and will be finanud Dy the ~ive. No Pr ect Alternative, Par- tial Approval Alternative or effect. a.8 Fact See Section XII (for tives). b.6 Fsct. See Sxtions III.b.2 3 (TraHic Mitigations; and III:b North Pleasanton Water Im- . provement District ("NPWI~"). Mixed Use Alternative could partially mitigate the eftect. infeasibility of these Altema• . Tri-Valley Jobs/Housing Ba6 .' ,, .. a.4 FacL Developer, by agree• , ~' However, each o( these Afterna• ,- tives). , a.9 Fact See Sections II.a.2, • ance). SignHi~arrt EHect. Generation C ment, is oWigated, in con~unc- : " tion with other North Pleasan-' -°f tives is inteasible and unneces- ~ry as eHetts co~ceming wa- Ila.3 (Trattic Mitigation). nifiortt EtfecL Potential " g S( . of total suspended partkulates ton developers, to tund the wa• i f iliti i '-~ ter use demand are significaMly: _ iti ti h ' b ; g pedestrian/bicycle safety har potentially exceeding standards i on ac es striDut ter d necessary tor North Pfeasanton ga e m on -• ~essened y t " measures incorporated into the ard alorig W. Las Positas Blvd. o~. . during construct 1 finding. The mitigatio~ ~ area developriient. Initial work _ .-: Project. and during buildout on interior ; • measure to reduce generation ' on the formation oi the district ~ .'-`•, cJ Fxi. See Section XII (for : streets. Construdion oi l Fnding b of total suspended particulates °'has begun, construction pas ~- inteasibility of Altematives). _ f i '' ~ . . a pedestrian/bikeway alo~g W. has been incorporated into the ' • -~n authorized for some aciJ d i t a i ' :• c.8 Fact See Sections IV.c.2 ttl iti Las Positas Blvd. and Stoner- Project and will substantially mprwemen s are n• es, an t t~c~pated to be completed in uent m - and IV.c.3 (Sewer e ation) idge Drive has been completed lessen the ettect. Co~dition No. 87 2 Fxt ~ 1986. g . and potential eHect has been - • requires Devebpe* to submit a a.5 Findtne, The Reduced In- D. Significant Etfect_ Increase in avoided. dust control pla~ to City for ap- tensity of Developrtient A-terna- :. police and tire protection ser• b.2 Fxt fnterior streets are wide enough to accommodate p~~al. City has approved the l ' ~. ~~~t Attemative, Par- tial Approval Alternative or _- v~ces will be required. d.l Finding. The recommend• tratfic and bicycles until side- an, s dust control p Developer and ma~or site construction Mixed Use Alternative coulA - ed mitigata~ r.ieasures incor• walks are constructed. Deveb- work invofving earth moving is partially mitigate the etfect. pwated into the Project to dr ' r has constructed a stri- een an ~a^P1et~• H°M'p"~~• each °f these Alterna• crease demand o~ police and tire /bikeway along th The No Project 3 Finding ~ •~ a inlwsible and unneces- fire protection services will sub- len h of the south side of W. La Positas Btvd. and alon the g . . ~~native could partially miti- f j~Y ~~^~'8ation measures ~~-aated mto the Roject stantially lessen the ettect. d.2 FacL The tollowing Con• north side of the entire length of de- ate the si nificant etlect i g g velosxnent ot the Project did not ~ will substarrtia lessen the si M B- ditions have been incorporated Stoneridge Drive. proceed beyond the buildings nificant eHect. into the Project: ~~~ ~N ~~~,: A. Significartt Effect. Generation already under co~strudan_ The i i a.6 Fact See Section XII (for ~nfeasibilityal Atternative) (1) The Project and individual sites shall be subject to the pro- of carbon monoxide levels , s econ- ve No Projxt Atternat ~~cally infeasible and unnec• . a.7 Faci See Sections IV.a.4, visions of the Gty's Fi+e Code which approach or equal the newstateonehourstandard. essary because the significant N•a.2 (Water demand mitiga• ' ~ and nationally recognized 26 31 32 ) (Nos standards a.l Fnding. Mitigation meas• ~eHect has Deen substantially ~5~^~ t s)• B• ~~°^t Eff°d- La~ge m' , . . . . . ~Z) Buildings shall have ures incorpo~ated into the Pro- t to enwre federal standards '~ • ~•4 F~ ~~~ X~~ ~fa i ~ crease in vrater use on site. The mitigation 1 Fudine D alarms as required and visible street numbers, fire Rydrant b for primary pollutants will be met along access routes will ves). infeasibili of Alternat tY ~•5 F~- ~~tio~ III.c.2 , . . ~wrc incorporated irrto the ' cations shall be marked. (Nos. : wbstantially lessen the effect. °(~st Contrd Ptan). ~~ene~ation ~8~~^t EH°d ~~ R'qeci to ambd ~ratet use will substa~iatly fessen the eHect. 46. 33. 30•) •(3) Pirocedure for the safe a.2 Fact Conditio~ No. 107 requires primary air quality - • ~of total suspended particulates _ b.2 Fsd. Condition No. 48 requires instaUatiwi of water ; fiandling and storage of crom• • • bustible or exp~osive materials . standards to be met befwe in- emental development is al- ldlowing co~struction. d.l Fnding. The mitigation ~^~^^6 dumbing fixtures. ' ; rd~l be established. (No. 61.) i i D ` cr byr~ measures incorporated mto the ' ~.3 Fir~+¢ The Reduced In- tensity of Developrr~errt Akerna• • . e m n '(4) Fire hazards sAafl '• ` ~ a.3 Findi~p. Mitigation meas• ures incorporated into the'Pro• '~'~ to lessen traNic conges- ~tion will substantialy lessen the . " • ~• ~'~O ~O1°1~ ~~~• ~~' . ~~en(N . 28 29~ 103. ` ' ~OJ d7 ject to lessen tratfic congestion ' 'etfect_ 2 Fact The Traffic Co~di• d :tial Approval Alternative or •Mixed Use Alternative could •r •) ,(5) The Devebper sha~~ pre- ' w~ll substantially lessen the , .eNect. ' ' . -_ `:tions will cause a reduction in ,,'~Dartially mitigate the eftect • >:vide on-site private security tfie mined b d t d a.4 Fxi The TraHic Condi- ' -~ 'vehicle miles travelled which `• H~"''~'"~*• ~°t these Atte~^a - : tives is infeasibie and unneces- y . er e gua r s as =_;':Police Chiet. (No. 54.) - tions (see Section II.a.2) will re- ~ duce traHic volumes on C' ~ ,. '~will. in tum. reduce the genera- '~~ of total suspended particu- . , ;~-Y asUxmitigation meawres c ~~1~~:~ d.3 Fl~ng. Pursuant to a ement Detween r ti A ti M' , thus ~educing vehicutar streets -- •~1~• incorporated into the Project ~' e on g r ga '- : 4 ~ , -: '-: emissio~s.botfi by reducing wl- ~ d.3 Fi~ne. 7he Reduced In ~II wbstarttia kssen ihe s+ .- ~ ~Y 8 `:': -~ +~•~"' r nificant efiect ' oper - and Oeveloper. Deve ~+h~ ~ ;l~as agreed to contribute to the .~ ume and rcnprwing levels of , ; : ~:tensity of Developrtient Attema- Irn i~ No Project Attemative , . :. '= b.4 FscL See Secbon XII (tor . tequired tunding of required fire . ~M~. - , a.5 FlndinQ. The Reduced In. . . .:'creased Res~dential Capaoty inteasibility of Altematives). cb n N b 2 5 F L S S ' b ~- 'statans.. equiprr~ent and per` ~~ :' ' ~ tensity of Developrnent Alterna• No Project Alte*native. Im .-; tive .. Nternative, Partial Ap~xwal A! .%~ternative a Mixed Use Attema• sc ee e o . ~. • . .^~• ~Water conservaLon m~t~ga ='d.4 Fact. 'The Mitigation recorded b h , :' creased Residential Capacity ~ ~tive could partially mitigate the : . een as ;-.t~s). ~ :. _•: .~?s;: ,r , %tgreement Therecommend aga~nsttheProperty. tr6FkdFn~ ~ .- Alternative. Partial Approval AI• ~~ temative a Mixed Use Alterna• . lpotential effect. However, each '. ;of these A7ternatives is infeasi• . • ed mitigation meawres, of min• ` .,.;_: d.5 Fact. The petfta~ to form k Fi `~' - tive coub pattially mitigate the 'ble and unnecessary as TraHic r imizing landscaping water use . anE industrial water use are ~ n• re tl~e NoAh Pkasanton '•: '~wertient District ("NPFID"j ,,potential significant eftect. ;Conditions will substantially, .. .. sen the ettect l , , , ~• unnecessary. =-~•: .;.. ,.. ` Aas been completed and work However. each of these Alterna• tives is inteasible and unneces• . es ~ d.4 Fact See Section Xtl (for -,- • b.7 FscL Economic impad ot ater connection and te x ~ :-;o~ fo-ming the NPF10 has _ De un ~, sary because the mitigation i 'inieasibility oi Nternatives). 2 (Trottk See III d 5 iact d w .was u - fees wip encau~age minimiza• g . ~ : .' . d.6 Fi~dln~. Project ~evenues ~ n- measures which have been ~ corporated into the Project wb• . . . . Conditans). tion ot industrial water use. will be greater than Project . i stantially kssen the eHect. ti XII f F S S ' E. Sl~nif'~ca~ EtfecL Intro• ductio~ ot new households to a ' There is sutficient wate+ supply to meet tt+e prqected derrwnd. ces. m- ; casts ta all City serv ,,; ;duding police and fire services. on ( ee ec w acL , a.6 '• infeasibility of these Ntema• ~non•attainment srea for oxi• ~ C. Si~nFfioetENactGeriuation ~ ,.; '~.. dJ Faci As shown n tAe tives) ~dant. .... - -. ot sewage eHluent Eeyond w- : ::,, Na~M Pleasarrton Ffscal 4npxt , aJ Flndln~. See Sections lit tll 4 ti G 2 , • e.l Flndln~. Residentiat r~h in Pfeasanton is regulat- ' Dacity tvadaDle to t!x site. ...._:. ' - e.l ifnd'm~. TAe mitigation ._.i. Rport (April. 1982), i~aeased : ' revenues from developrne~t wilt . y an .a. ( r Qua . III.a. TraNec MiUgations). . g fed as an sir yuality mitigation .. ~awre incorpaated into the . ,-= eaceed expenditures requi~e0 to '' ~. B: Slenlficant EMect Generation ~ - jmeasure, and n cons+stmt with ,-=`' ~TW~'~t to coM~d gennata~ of ~age eftkient will wDsbMiab _ •: service -xw develoPrne^~ • >; 8 fb+dbK. The Reduced In• d ::; of regiorwl veh~cular emissions tri i t -_, I~ ~y Ar~ ~ Q~aliry Man• substantially ement Plsn ~' a . . bssen the effect. :• ~_,. . :~Y ~ . .. .i ; ten o( Developrtient Attnna• S+~Y . e ps n a ' related to commu ~ ran•attainmrnt arw fo~ oxidant , g i lassening the eflect_ Compli- c.2 Fact Condrtion No. 23 ~ ' Ywe. No Projcct Altemative. Pnr• i opution ; ~ar-oe with ox~dant standards is ~~t ~ui{di ks 1~ ~ ve or -_ . tixl Approval Alternat td . p ,. b.l flndin~. The Trattic Con• • IProj~ted in the near futura l P{ G y ~ ~ ms be wiU~Aeid Gty it ~;::µixed Usa Altetnative cou 'p+~tially mitigate the eftect. , ditions vriq subsbrttially kssen ' enera an ~ e2 Fact The olicies o1 pov+tfi msnaganent :!sewer capac yis not aradabk _ t.3 F~ei See Sect~cr s N t2 , '!a:+•tiwr. ext~ o! Uv~,e Nterna- tt~e eflect. .. ~ F- - ~ . p . u...w .......,th :.. rmm~liarrw riifh . _ : . IanA IV.b_7 Mhf.r t~..:.,s ...~ -- ~.:tives is inhasiDk and umeces• - .. ~orpOrated into the Project ~tial large transportation er-ergy ~ A. The Fire Department is to Q~s6 ~~ to me~Main ~P^e~e snvironmental rovrrw a1- `vill wDstantially Fesse~ ttx s+H~ ~consumpfio~. ~pe advisod by Me business(es) ~+stant durinp construo- ;ter Mat procesa Is completed. h~K;~ aN~,y, b.l Fkdin~. The r recponsible of their control ~n. C. lncr~~s~d A~~idenl{~1 ~ ' ~ d.9 Fact See Sectic~^ Xll (for ~ed mit~gatan meaw orpo~• 'metAOAs f.~r hazerdous maler~ Vlwal. ,Capaclty Alt«naUva. an{~,~pi1i,y of Altematives), ated into the Project to cause a als. A. Siqnlflunt Etfect. c•1 Fl~dlnq. TAe lncreased d.10 Fact. See Sections ~reduction in mergy consump ~ B. dusinessesaretoD~o'~ Chenqa In visual c~aracter ol ~Residential Capacity Alterna- ~-V.d.4, IV.d.5, IV.d.7 (Fire Md 'tion n+ll wbst~ntially kssen the materials and equipmenf ne- ~~~ea, including bes of dis- ~~e ~s infeaside. t Senices Mitigatio~s). ~ettect. 'cessary tor co~trol DoM .in tant vfetas and agricultural c.2 Fact. The Increased t~ open space, 'Residential Capacity Alierna- •V. Noiu. D.2 Fsct. The Traltic Co~di- processinfl and emerpency ~A. SiQnFflcarrt EHect Construc• tions will reduce vehicle miles condition~,: R i, ~~ t + a.t Fi~dlnq. T~e mitiqaHon °hre Is an ,altemetive to tne •. ;tion nase near residential re• travelled and result in a less• G The Fire Depa'rtment is to ~~~e to leave paps fn land- Amendment. Under tnis ARer- ceptors. e~ed use ol energy. be advised of ttie type and ~a^9 -o aHord views and re- ~~~~e, City would amend tAe ~ a.l Flndlns. The mitigation VII. C~obp~, quantity ol materials stored w ~~~~ Da~+amic views ot Pleas- ,~^d Use Element ol tne~Gen- ;measures incorporated in the ~A. Sieniticant Eftect. Erosion used a~d notitied of siqnificant a~ten Ridge hom site is inteas- : era~ P1en to sltow the number ot ProjeGt to decrease nase levels ;during construction stage, on• c h e n g e s i n t y p e a n d/ o r ~e~ ! housin0 units in Pleasanton to •will substantially lessen the isite and at channel improve .amounls of ~azardous materi- •a.2 Faci. A planned streets- ~~e Increased. TAe Amendment ~Etfect. ments. als within .twenty-four (24) ~Oe scene cpmprises the uni- would not De adopted but Me ' a.2 Fxt Condition No. 105 a.l finding. The mitigation hours of the c~ange(s). 'A^^9 aestAetic concept ot tha PTOject could be approved. T~e - reQuires truck trallic to use :measures intorpo~ated into the D. Technical advisors and PTOject and is a major }actor in 1~c+eased Residential Capacity through on•site streets to Hop- Project to confrol erosion will references materials are to be ~~~etinq Me Project. Alternative mig~t result in less 'yard Road, avoiding alf residen- substantially fessen the ettect. provided to the Flre: Depart- a.3 Fxt_ 7he.hiph standards , raqional traftic congestion if t~e tial uses. a.2 iact. Cond~tion No. 63 ment for asslstance im controF end abundant urban landscap~ average commute distance a.3 Fsct. Condition No. 86 ~requires Developer to restrict Iing emergency situations. ~9 ~+'ould De beneficial in'sof- were reduced (es a result of ~regulates haul routes during ~grading to non-rainy pcriods • E. All apills are to be repwt- teninq the urtran environment substantial numbers of Pleas construction. ~and stabilize erodible slopes. • ed, fn such a manner as pre- ~~' minimizirq dust, certain pol- ~anton workers c~oosJny to Rve ' a.4 FscL City has adopted :Condition No. 64 requires De• scrfbed by the Flre Department. ' ~~~ g~ ^o~~• M~easanton). Thls alternative noise ordinances regulating veloper to provide and maintain (2) All wells shall be sealed. - B• ~9~~ent Etlect. Tem- •would inuease haftic on local - •construction adivities. sediment basins during con- c.3 Flndin9. Development of a 'Po~rY disturbance of site and ~oadways and Increase de- ,,H. Significarrt EHect. Potential =struction. Condition No. 65 re• ,•joint city industry council to ;: ~nne1s during construction. = r,. mand on community services. - '':.noise impact on adjaning resi• .' quires Developer to submit ero- , monitor Indushies is unneces- ,-;; b.t Finding. The mitigation ,: T~ ~~rease fn City's fiscal -.. . .:dential area near proposed "~ sion and drainage control plans ':_~ry ys State and Iocal reguW- :~ ~~asure Incorporated into the ;'~~ may De insutficient to_ t} , warehouse. ~~and a grading and drainage ~.` tions will accomplish the same `=- ~I~t to reduce temporary ~^~e services and Improve- ;. . b.l Finding. EHect will be 'p~an. ;end. • d+slurbance s+iDstantially less- °, ments required by the in- ; avoided because it is doubtful 8. S~Bnifi~artt Etiect Ground- . c.4 Fact. State faw to take .'~ ~ ett~- -~•~ .- Geased residential devebp- that the Project will include rei4 .shaking and expansive soil geo- ettect January 1, 1984 and the ' ~`~oPment Alternative fs ; ment. 'served uses and noise {evels are bgic hazards. -~- City's proposed Hazardous . an anemahve of Dolh me Pro- • ~•3 Fact. TAe Increased . ~ regulated by ordinance. b.l Finding. The mitigation Materials Ordinance will strictty '° !~t and tAe Amendment. In . r Residential Capacity Alterna- ~ b2 Fxt. Train route may be ~' measure incorporated into the regulate the handling ol haz- =' ~dition to the preceding find- - ~'~ is inconsistent with curreM • abandoned by Southern Pacitic. Project to control groundshak• ;ardous materials. -~gs and anayses, the City .•General Plan Land Use Ele- with no rail service to proposed ing and expansive soil etfects IX. 8bbgy. finds as tolbws: menl designations. warehouse area. Therefae, the will substantially Iessen the A. SignHicant EHect loss' .• A- ~ D~ol~ ~ernatlve to . c.~ Fect Due to existing ' site is unlikely to have noisy ettett. of nparian habitat along Tassa- ~° A+~^dme^t (31• -~9~era1 plan policies the ar~ warehouse use. - b2 Fact CondRion 55 re- jara Creek and hatf of Arroyode a-1 Finding: The No Project nual residential growth .rate ~ b.3 fad. City Noise Ordi• ,quires Ueveloper to have a soils la Laguna. Attemative to t~e Amendment •~~Y ~t exceed two percent :nance establishes limits to .engineer on sRe at al times dur- a.t Finding. The mitigation ~~e~~- '` '` •- '.(2%). - ~noise beyond the property plane ing construction of the public measure incorporated IMO tt~e ' ~ FacL The~No Project AL- ~- D. Res(dentiai C«nmu~ity of an irtdustrial area. ;improvements. Project wilt substantially {essen .~*^~t^'8 tv tAe Amendment .•Attematlra_ _ . C. Sigr„fi~rrt Effect Increased b.3 Fact All buildings shall the eNect. wou~d maintain Me present ju- d.1 Findiny. The Residential ~nase Fevels at residences afong •be constructed pursuant to the ~ a.2 Fact. Condition No: 68 .' dicial Interpretation of the Cw~munity Alternative is in- ' portions of I•680. I-580. Santa Uniform Building Code. Site requires Developer to meet alt GME The Project would not be ~~+~e• Rita Road, Sto~eridge Drive, W. •specific soils sfudies shall be requirements of the Calitomia eOProved absent either (i) an d.2 Fact Under ti~e Residen- las Positas BNd., and Hopyard, periormed. Department of Fish and Game. •~~t^'e amendment to the '~ ~~nky Altemative, the ~ Road. _-- --_ -- Vtli. Nydolo~. ~ a.3 Fact Developer has per- `~+~ral P1an (see, e.g., discus- ~~~dment would not be a~ - ~~ r2nding. Mitigation meas- •°.• =~>='a:~icant EHect. Reduo- mit hom Califomfa Departmertt •~ ot TrF-Valtey Employment D+o~ed and Ne Project would . ures'to achieve acceptable resi- tion in floodplair. due to Tassa- ot Fish and Game that requi~es ~ter and Increased Residerr ~~ be'approved and indvstri- dential nase levels incorporat• jara Creek and Arroyo de la ~ a shaded, low-How channel and ~~Dacity Altematives) or (ii) 81/commercialty zoned lands ed into the Project will substan• .Laguna Channel improvements revegetation. an amendmenl to the Project ~~d be rezoned to residentia~' tially lessen the eHect. including removal of about 704 8. S~gniticant Ettect Altera- '<see e_g., Reduced Intensiry of uses. The Residen0at Com-. c.2 Fact Condition No_ 5 re• ' residences from the 100 year tion ot the Project area's wild- ~~oD~t. Partial Approval ~munity Alternatlve is inconsis- quires Developer to analyze ;Aoodp~ain. ;Ilfe and vegetatio~ habltat ~1 Mixed Use Attematives). tent wiM the Land Use and . ~nase leve~s at certai~ specific a.1 Findtng. TAis is a benefi- ;would occur. ~~ ot t~ese Alternatives is Housing Element policies of the areas af the Project and miti• : cial impact. • b.1 FFnding. The effact is ~^~~+ae• ~~nt adoption of -General Plan. Demand tor com- gate to City Standards. ~ ' 8. Si9nlticant Ettect. Cumu- ~unavadable. The only possible ~ of the foreyoing Alterna- .~nY ~es would qrow -_ c.3 F~- a~r areas near °lative dischatqe of urban pollu- 'mitigation measure is edoption ~~. ~~ Project Alternative -~without increased revenues :, .. !improvements planned as traf• tants to su~fece streams. o} the "No Project Attemative" .~~~~~t results in the _: = Oenerated by fndustrial and _ •}ic mitigation measures but `, , B.1 Flndlny. TTe mitigation whkh is infeasible. No Approral 01 PraJect Alterna- ,~~ ~~~rcial devebpmertt. Tne :. ,funded through NPID are measuresincorporatedlntotfie ~ b.2Fact.SeeSectionXll(for ~~ ~~fi ~ ~eas+ble (see _•~~ential Community Atter- , .;planned to have noise mitiga- Project to decrease cumutative inteasibility o1 Altematives). ~~~~ ~~- :, .' :~tive has the potential to qe- ,- :tion measures undertaken as -. ~dlscharpe ot pollutants will sua C. Signtficarrt EttecL Loss '= • ~ ~•,. -~+ate significant adverse air, .part ot the improvements. Im• .:atanHally lessen the effect.' ~ of prime and near prime ayr~- • JB. T~4Vathy ,~Employment ... ~~~• and energy effects u a. ... •provernents will be in place prior ., b.2 Faet' Condition 84 re-. ~ eutture soils to urbanization. ,. :. ; CN+ter IltOernativo. .r :.~, ..,, .~. _, :rawR ot . continued outcao- .;.: to signifiwnt increase in traffic quires Developer to utiliza oiI c.t Ftndlny. The mitigatan = DJ Fk~dk~y_ The Tri-Valtey `mule. - ~ . - ~and nase due to Project. - ~•and yrease traps and tempo- ;.; ~ measure of Project phas~ng [s ,~' EmpbYrt~ertt Center Altemative ~;~ ~ d.3F~ct The street and utili- - ~.. ,,;- 'D. Si4nFficarrt EHeci Generation ;;rary sediment retention Gasfns. _~: Infeasible. However, shoR term ,~is en aRemative to the Amend i;;~~ k'hasVucture Aas been com- -Y,bw.:, - ~'. .of nuisance truck noise. _ ,::Conditlon 61 requires Deveto- '-. ; eNects are lessened to the ex- ,'~:' ~L ;The Project ' would be ,: •r: ~ted and s[zed tor deveb~' ... ~ ;, ~' d.l F'u~dln¢. •The mitigation ~:per to establish proceAures for .~.~. ,teM feasible. x~:Du+n as provided in the PUD '~'~^t ot uses arW uitensities as - tmeasure irx,aporated into the •. 'the safe storage and handling c.2 Faci. All intrastructure :, ~euse of Pleasanton'a loca }':D~^^~- ~^s ~~~^U ~°'^ tProject to reduce gerreration of .of tox{c meterials. ~:~_ ~~ ~tor the entRe slte has Deen ~'tlon. theTri-Valley Empbyment ~,~u'^e^t$ t° flna'~ce the'^' ~truck nase witl awid this effet2 --,- D.3 Flndlnq. lmplementatio~ :completad makin9 pheslny 1or ^ I~ter Attemative could miti- ,.!hastructure mandate deveiop- ...d.2 F~ct. Condition 1Q5 re..:;of a aheet and parkfn9 area ~tartnlnp impossible. The Derre{- ,s;pete potential. afpnificant-.re- ~~;.~^t of commercJal and indus- . ;y .,,,' +quires Developer to relocate ~•:;vacuum sweepin9 proqram wilt , aper fa engagin9 In dry fartnmg ~.~,`-.;fl~~ tratfic, =aN quality a~d ~~~ ~a at proposed denar ,, 'trucks to routes within the site ';:;aubstanttally {essen tne ettect. :: .o( bts not aubjeci to unmedfate ';~9Y ettec4s ldentified In th~s ~8 ~'-.,_ :, ~_ ar. -~ ..- >'' r~and onto Hopyard Road rarth -'b.4 FecL The Owners: Asso-`i. constructlon. w ..;.: ,~;::Enhibft A. However.'the Tri- s<. E Reduced !nlsnsitp oi Da' _`? z. ,:. ~erly of aU residences. ~~~ _ _~ ,cJatton dens to inltiate a sheet ` c.3 FlndMg. Although the No,,, :~Valfey Empbyment Center Is ,,veiopment Altsmathres. ..~. j~ .•: d.3 Findin~ Aflemative miti 'sweePln9 pro9ram to aweeD ~ ~ Project Altemattve coul~ par ifnfeaaiDle and unneceaaary be- -.1 - e.t Fir~dlny. The Reduccd ~~ ~gation measures, i.e., rebca ~atreeta as en adjunct fo City ~tially mRlpate the ettect, the No ~'~eause tAe aiqntficant ettects "; ~tntena}ty of Devebpment A11e+- `° '~`,tion ot truck generating uxs. '.: -1Street sweepin9 pro9rams. The ~; ~ Prol~t Altemative Islnfeasrble. ;~; ~wMc~ oould De mttipated by the s: ~native Is irtfeasible. •.. .., =_ - ~~, •are unnecessary as mitigation .'~;Declaratlon of Covenanta, Co~- :: '' c.4 F~ct. See Secflon Xlt (tor :~ jTri-Valley Employmerrt Cenfer ;~~ ~ 3- e,2 F~ct Under tAe Reduced.~'~ .. ~measures incaporated in the ..`-.;dlNons and Reshktions pro- ;. ~ infeaslbillty ol ARernatlvas). ,.•"?. •Alternatfve are eubstantlally ~,.; {ntensfty ot Development ANer- ;~ :, Project cause the ettect to be ~;vides Mat the Owners' Associa- '-, D. S19nlilcant EHect. Place-~`~, ~lessened Dy the m(tfqatfon ,:__ineWe, neltfier the Amendment --- - -+. . _. ..:. ' "- ~ lavaded. _.:. ~ ~~don sAatl monltor a propram of ' ment of flll hom Artoyo de la -'measures kicorywated into the t;~ ~e Pro would be a~ .•; i ' ' ' C.4 Fsct. See Section V.d.2 ~perklnqareamalntenance. ,-' ~ 'LapunaoneprkuflurallanCs. _Prolect '.''"" ", "`::,;proved. Cl~would adopt ~`~ :'~(Nase Mitigatio~). .. • C. Slgnlfkant Etf~ct. Poterr d.t Findlnq. The mltipation ^.~~ ::' D.2 Fict. The Trl-VaBey Em- ~ amendmenfa to the Land Use "- '' . ''VI. Ener~y 'tlal toxfc spllla deyraCln9 aur- `measure Incorporated fnlo Ne ' D~oYment Center Alternatlve .and GME Elements where~y -_' ~'A. SiQnH{urrt Effect. lntreased :tace and proundwater quality. '' project has caused thls etfect <' would De° Inconalstent wlth -'~a1{pwaWe kite~alty of deve{o¢ ~:~-~"! _ ~energy use on site during ton• .., :c.t Flodlnq. The mltigaHon .~..~to beavolded. .:..: ., - -:c_ ~C;oa-sl an03ofthef3ME. :,' =;'-"~.~nt in the North P~easarrta+ ='• ..'atruction and operation. : ~meaaurea I~cwporated into Me ' • d.2 Fact: FIII has been bcat- .•n.i • b.3 Faet Unde- tfds atlema- '~`.uea would De tedueed: Goa1 2~`=~!' . ~, a.l Findln~. The mitigation .~Project to reduce the potenNal ~'ed on the dte of a residentlal •~-'tfve, more Pleaaanton workera ~_=of Me (irowiD MsnaqemeM .~ rt~easure incaporoted into the tor de9radlnp of tAe water qual- ~~development curtentty under .1:~wai10 comrtwfe to PleaaaMon. ~~,.:' E)ement atetes thef develo~ ~" ' ,~ :Prqect to mitigate ener~ use .;-ry Qs a resutt o} toxic spills will eonstructlon by Ponderoaa ,.;TAere viould ~hrwst certalnly .; ~ ment ehould oceur ln ~n e1F- >•=*~.- . 'wiU wbstantialty kssen the e1• .~wbatanUally leesen tfle ettect. ' ~Homes. Inc.• . ~_ .. ="Oe a bwer jobs/Aoudny fndex '=~dent, bykal and ordery faslr~ ~.~1sc1. ;~•. '' • -_'..= ! e.2 Fsct. Condifion Non. 103 ' E. SlpnHkant Ett~cf. PoteM ~, ~I.e. more pOs tlun fwuslnp : j io~. (iHen po~ected demard. .: }a.2 iact Conditan 18 roquires ~{~nd 85 Incorporate the tdbw- V! Nel deatructbn of downntream :~TAe ~zi~tkip (ienerd plan Re- ,•~-educed htensity pf de~ebp. . .that aU Cuildi n g s in the Project (tnq rMtfpatlon tneaswea krto •~aquatlc Popufatlone durlnp. , i~' . Co~rntti~e b~rrentty ~'t~errt wouf0 res~ fn Cevefop- • 1 shap empby s a l ar energY to the itAe Pro~eet: . ico~atrucrion M the . vklnity of .~~0 f~e randHCationa ol 1 rt~ent beinp scattered Cerouqh- '' imaxanum eztent ecawm~csJiy - ~(1) Buildlnfla. hous7n0 ~~ Moyo de la Laoune. • :•~tortrnsrcld ~nd IrMustr(al de-, ,~ out dx re9bn. 7Tb an res~t ,k.esibk. Dusfnea~ee wlnp hazardoua ~ e.t Flnd~n0• The mllfQatlon :~vebpmsnt In addFtbn to tAe ' In adverse pnpncri aa il would ~encaxaQe~sfal~IXlat~fon~otener~ ~ .Code ars tequke0 to ~ . ~pro}ecyrwltl~vodthe~tlect ~ ,`~~fa ~addltbna! d~eve~lop~in~wilt .~p~te~intraahuctn+e~~~ . ns+t :++itiflat~o^s. Pro- uae o~ fr re~op:nent on a bwlding by~ ,.~t ..,-_~.~, Yiea!cr ihan 819e ot capacity). • ~. H ttx tratf~c study anatys~s operated'in con~cnction w~th ' a rtiust be sco~omlcally - ~ecl ~ ,~~~ng basis vdth respect to at a~iy etlected.inlersect~ori or .shows t~at a~y aHected infer- ~^Y allowed light ~ndustrial use Mi ~ ; ~ ~Cepa e ol supportin0 e~u- for requ~site u3D~tal irr~ t ~ :traM~c, mr and pu ices :impacts. ~ intersections: the Developer s~all begi~, to impl,ement teasr yectwn, tsectbns, would ~~x~ecd ~~ual ro or great• or o ce use. L. All tyqcal uxs associated h s rtxn ements and tommunlty ~ . XIII. Growth Induce ble mitigahon.measures. Aflect ~e~ than ot capaciry) Dut ~th researc and devefopment ~ pco~ ierv9ces. A reduced intensity of i A. Si;nHic~i+t EH~ct. G~owth ~induting impacts associated ed ~nte.sections,shall be thox intersections~listed in TaWe 5 01 can Ce mitigated so as to De no ;greater than mid-LOS D(86%of snd light manufactunng for thc ~tronic and semi~conductw o~ use would resuR in a reduct ,o! tax base and a reductio~ ot ;~~h provisions ol basic employ the North Pleasanton TraH~c fd A ;capacity), aker mitigations, the ~ ~lustnes. Painting enamelin M and , ~ Clry's ability to assess those ~ment, remwal of flood hazards. ' ~ e Study. Volume 3. ~th t i City shall condition app~oval l l i , . g ~Quering shops properties tor needed caPital lti l gMeration o1 more jobs than emP~oyees can be housed local~ ons: lowing modif~Cat . i. Delete tAe tdlow~ng inter• jupon wse mp ernentatan ot t ;mitigatian measures. No Du~~d• . ~ N. Sheet rrxtaf s~ops. ' ng ens resu Improvements. L ' kom assessments to rinance '~Y• and construction of wate+ sectwns: ing permit may be issued until O. S~orage o1 raw materials. . the Infrashucture mandate tle- iand sewage treatment and oth~ Oougherty Road/Dubl~r Bou•. ;the mitigation measures are ei• h ~M ~n process and finished Q~ds inventw~es velopment o} commercial and d cY service facilities likely sized ;f« additional growlh. {evard Foothill Road/Canyon Way ;Mer under constructan a t e impkmentation programs are . : P• Wo~dworking shops and fndustrial uses at propose ities d a.l Flndln6. Growth•inducing (Dubl~n Canyon Road) estaWished. cabinet shops. - . ens F. No A proral of Pro ect ~ ~ ~mpacts have been anatyzed se~ ~parately under each subject foothill Road/Deodar Way Stoneridge Drive/Foothill u. tt tAe trattic study analysis ~shows any affected intersec• ~ke Uses • A. Administrative, executive ARernative. 1.1 Flnding. The No Apprwal ~matter heading herein and have '~n tounG to be avoided w Road Johnson Drive/Willow Road tion, or inte+sections, Mould ex• ce~ed LO$ D(equal to a g~eate~ and business offices. B. Business service offices. , 01 Prolect Allernative is infeasi• substantially ~essened because Johnson Drive/Rock Avenue than9l%otcapacity),andindi~ +ncluding employment agen- ae. f.2 Fact As explained in the of the incorporation of teasible mitigation measures, or have (West) Johnson Drive/Rock Avenue ;cates that tAere are no mitiga• ~tion measures the Developer cies, accountants, notaries. ~stenographic, addressing, com• EIR, adoption o1 the No Approv~ al o! Project Alternative would been found unavoidable be- cause mitigatio~ measures and (East) ii. Add the fdlowing intersec• 'can implertient to improve that ~intersections(s) to mid-lOS D puting, and related services. C. Business consultant o1• • resutt in eithe~ (i) the develop• ment of the Property p+i~suant altematives have been found to iW f i tions: Hopyard Road/Valley Trails ~(86% of capacity), then the City •shall not apprwe tfie project ~fices. D. Design professions oHices fo its esent zornn and rcel - ~ S ~ e. eas be n See Sections I 2 Fact a North •application. (engineenng, architectural, ~ map or (ii) no further devebp• ~ ment of the Property. Develop- . . . through XII, including but not 4 2 I ~ ard Road/Valle T~ails Hopy Y $ th ' ei, Notwithstandin the re• B uirements of Condition 2(cxi) draftin , etc.). , r': ' E. esearch, development, ~ rsuant ment of the Property p~ , . .a. ~~mited to. Sections I.a. ~ II.a.2 I c 5 Lc 3 I c 2 a 6 '~ ou Hopyard Road/Coro~ado q .above, with regard to the Hop~ ' . analytical and scientific oHices. " :'. , to its present zoning and parcel , . . , . , . . . . , • IV.a.4, IV a.2 III a 2 a 3 ~I ' Santa Rita Road/Mohr Aven-' :'~•yard Road/I-580 westbound ' = f. Manufacturers' represent• :' map would have an equivalent :; ' . . . . , . . . . IV.c.5 and IV c 2 IV b 2 b 7 ry ue ~oH•ramp intersection. Duitding :;~` atives and sales ottices. _ ~ ~ ; ~mpact. TAe streets and inlras• 'tructure to support the Project . , . , . . , . , • all facts supporting inleasibility i S Mitigation measures may in- but are not necessarity l d •perm~ts may be issued once the --peveloperhasbwidedfarthose G. Headquarters w region- ':~ ;.w~de finance, insurance and :;~ , are already substantially com• on ect af the Alternatives in X~~ u e, c timited to, the following: improvements deemed neces ; real estate ottices (oHices of pleted and channe{s have Deen • . _ • ~HIBIT "B" i. Construction of Stoneridge sary and acceptable to Me C~ty mi5 tYPe which serve mainly . improved. The Property lies at :'the intersection of I•580 and I `. CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL Drive/I-680 interchange. Engineer to reduce the intersec ~asanton and Dublin are pro^ ' ~~~+t~) ' ~680, and area a riate ta ' e~~ PUD-81-30 That the development 1 ii. Widening and improve- ment of the Hopyard Road/I- tion from its wrrent LOS E to - ~p$ D or better and has agreed • ;- H. Medical/dental clinics and percent •urban infill. Tw 20% of the Pro ect has alread ~ ~ ~ Y . shall be substantially as shown hibit E 580 interchange. of Santa Rita Widenin iii that those improvernenu shall ~ constructed as soon as related health maintenance or- ": :Sanizations not including man- been approved or built. The No x in the develo ent plan, ~ the Design Guidelines, Exhib- A g . Road to six lanes from b580 to ;. '. passible. '..utacture tabrication or sale of '' Approval oi Roject Aftemative is economically infeasiWe be• . ~ 8, and Articles IV and V and 4 ot the Declaration ~tion 13 Valley Avenue_ . iv. Constructan of 1~580/Ha- 3. That since the devebp- ment plan does not stww the :any artide a commodi other , '' ;~n those incidental t he ser• ~ ; , cause of the problems created an ina uate tiscal base to ~ ~ . of ~'enants, Conditions and cienda Drive interchange, and ri specific design of buil6rtgs to . t h . ~~ ~ded (general u se , _, . P~ D~ meEical/dental uses serving = • suDport pro~ected demand for . ~ ' Restrictions, Exhibit C, all on '.' file with the Planning Division, ve to e~ctensio~ ot Hacienda D that interchange. e proper y. De constructed o~ t all Duildings artd i~dividual site - - 'mainl the Pleasanton/DuWin Y . capital improvernents and com• except that tfie Design Guide• v. Widening and improve- .Iandscaping and parkirtg shalt area are prohibited). munity services for the com- munity as a r+hde even without . hnes shall be modified to clarify ment of I•580/Santa Rita Road require design apprardt by the i ~- ~Y ottice use listed above ~Y be operated in conjunction ~develo ment ot the Pro ect. . P ~ that alI building and site design shall be approved by the City. interchange. ti. Widening of Stoneridge lding City prwrto iswance of bu permits. Apprwal by the City with any albvred a conditional- ' -'Liens resulting from assess- Modificatans to the Develop- . Drive to six lanes between sha11 De approval by tfie City allowed li ht industrial use or • .~Y H ments to finarxe the intrastruc- ture mandate development of, ~ ment Plan, Design Guidelines, Foothifl Road and Hopyard Council with recommendations i i research and development use: Barbershops 1 ~ ~commercial and ind~~ctr~aL~~s~~ " ;~..^.q~ieleS.IV and V o1 Section . 13 4 0( fhe CCB.Rs stiall be gov- Road. vii. Construction of the 1- on. hom the Plartning Comm ss 4. That permitted and condi- . . . . K. Travel agencies. •, densifies. -- :,;-Nrvposed Partial Approvol Alter• G . erned by Artic~e 14, Chapter 2. 680/West Las Positas Boulr tionaly permitted uses on the L Prescri tan armacies,. P Ph ' ' . '~~~ `Title II of the Ordinance Code of vard interchange. suDject property shall be as P~ded that at least 80% of .. • g.l Rnd+ng. The Partial Ap~ _ the City of Pleasanton. That construction and im- 2 viii. Widen~ng of West Las Positas Boulevard to siz lanes fdlows: Research and Development/ the interior display area shall be _ ~used tor the preparation and . oval Aftematrve is inteasible. ' ~ 2 Fact The Partial Approw g • ementation of traffic im rove• P~ p from I-680 to Hopyard Road. Light Manutacturing/Ware- ~~ of prescriptions or trade . d . ~al Atternatire has similar im• i ' ~nt and mitigation measures ~n conjunctan with the develop- ix. Construction of north and southbound auxiliary lanes on I- house Uses ~ A All industrial uses, activi- ru - ~• M. RestauraMs, in conjunc- ._ ty pacts to the Reduced Intens 'of Developrnmt Attemative. See -nent of the project shall be gov- ' 680 betvieen Stoneridge Orive d I 580 :ties and p~ocesses atlowcd in 20(1) (Pe*mitted ti 7 2 'S _'tion with OMPO uses my. -. C~~cial Uses : .~. `Section XII.e.2 Mizsd use Aknrnative i H erned as follows: " a. The devebper shall co~- an • . z. Constructiori of east and . ec o~ • ,`. Uses. I-P Oistrict), Article 9, - ; ~• A11 allovred and co~ditanafy ..- ' ' . . h.l Fi+~d~ng. The Mixed use .•~~uct, as provided for in the -~westbound auxiliary lanes on 1- ~ '~Chapter 2, Title II of the Ordi• ~ ~albwed uses in the GC (Central -.. ::- GF (Freewa Commercial) -_: : ~Attemative is infeasiWe. developer's plan, the following: ~ 580 between Santa Rita Road • ' . inance Code of the City of .'' ,` , y , -~;.: and C-N (Ne~gh- : Commercial) ,. h2 Fxt The Project is bcat• ed near the junction of two free• ' i. Project interior street im- .: 'P~~~ents including signals. and I-680. • • xi. Transportation System . ; Pleasanton. -- ' B.Industrial wpportand~x+ ,,..~.~~hood Commeraa~~ astric2s : . . ~vrays. Nase, air and tratfic em• . u. Complete the wideni~g of ro Management programs, irKJud- id t li it d t h .~vice facBRies to indude activi• ervi 'vi of li it d t th ~ ` ti :::~;~~ePt the 6.342 acre parcel .;..: ,~ E~~~ ot Gibrattar Drive and ,- ~,-;pacts from Me freeways, mapr m Hopyard Road to six lanes f near Johnson Orive to Valley m e o, r es ar- .ing, Dut no staggered work hours and •ing g ~ m o e s c es e ; , businesxs on the wDjxi prop~ :; ~~~ridge Drive on which tfie . arterials and in•tract colkcta 'Avenue •,.:...=:' < . . .. , , ffextime. -. ., ~.= . or .servicin of ucts 3 ~ 8 ~ oommercial uses shall De bmit- ~ r i t. . SLfCCtS WOU~ f12VE- a IIE'$atIVE 7 •impact on the quality of IHe ex . ~~~• W~den West Las Positas ~ Feasible traffic mitigaLon ~ 7 s Y;_; produced on the site; wch as ... ' ~ ed tothe fdlow~ng ~•t .•. , i n ~ ' ;;pected for a residential develop ~~~evard to siu lanes between :. measures shall begin to be an gmcer ng s „ r.: repair a~d maintenance.of ap~ .~:,-~ A: Artists and e ' ':mmt. In addition. the Project ~.s ::^. ~e Southern Pacific Transpor- tation Company tracks and San• ... plemented on a priority bas~s to be determined by the City Engi wnces or component parts :-^i pl 3! tool'm~ printers; testmg shops wppty stores . - ~n.~ B• ~~r and beauty shops. rlocated in the middle of an area °;planned for industrial and com ta Rita Road. .: .= neer (and appealable to the Crty i h b i h - ~? small machine shops topyin~ i h t -~ '. C. Candy staes. ~~ •- <• Catering establishments D mercial development and would . N• Widen Santa Rita Road to ~at least four lanes (o~ an inter• ng w~t eg nn t e iCouncip, : least stringent and tfie least ' . ng, e c.,.,. :,, s,, 4,, : p oto engrav <:z-C. Accessory uses ard struc d~:E- ~~~atessen stores - 'De relativety Isolated 1rom sortie types ot retail ":schools ~~sis) }rom West Las Positas ,: . tostly. Increasingfy more stnn ` tures when related to and 'via- -- F. Drug stores and prescrip- , ~"~` 'shopping and other commumty ~~'ard to 1-580. _> -• . -: ~nstall signal at Hopyard •" ~ :..gent mitigation measures vntl -:' be required and implemented .~, dmtal to a permitted use_,~.. ,1ion Dhartnacxs H~' -~'... WarehousinganddistnGu t G. Einancial institutans in- ;r ;: D ;services gene+aly desired to be close to residential develop ~ • Road/Ing{ewood Drive. -- ,. .- e ': by Develope~ i~ adec to ma~n ,, . ,•~ tion type industrial uses(not ur f, ttuding banks, savings, and . . Liens resuking irom as •'''~• ~nstall signal at Hopyard ' -'ments .~;tain traHic Ievels at better than ~ .• 'cuding the staage d radioac ,~; :~ns, tinance cwnpanies, etc. - - ' . ' .sessments to finance the inlras ` Road/Gibroltar Drive. ° ~ - '-. • . "' :~= ; LOS E (9196 ot capacity). :z; tive materwls or fud or tlamma . CUP. ^~: ; : . ~ - ~. . t~h d h ~ G .'tructure mandate devNopment -~~ ~~• Install signal at Hopyard c. Each sfte specific pro~ect h Cit t fi l . .w de liquids) <-;~; ~; ,;_ i • EM } t ~ ' ez an ymnas~ums :-! M. • •CUP dubs T lot comme+cial and industnal ~Road/Valley Traiis Drive y na e or wbmitted to t ur ngacort anu ac ,~.; n . . . . } ~.'uses at proposed densifies. • •.(North) (Arthur Drive). --., ' t ll i dif th iii M . 'design apprwal shalt be accom- tr ttic stud sati • i d b =, ;:~ ing processes of phamiaceuU roduds rovided no nox ~~ : tel : 1. ke cream staes. } Liquor siwa. '; . :` J ' { I. MonitwinQ of Dcvclopmerrt ow ng o . y e v o ~ 'signals -. -~• ~ y a s pan e y s factory to the City Engineer p . p ,:-•iousoroflmzivefumeswodas ,. . ~ ,., K-Newstands. -.._ .. .. Altarnativ~. {Final EIR Com = ment K) - Hopyard Road/Valley Avem .. prqecting future levels o1 ser- ~:'~ sreproduced. ,=-- -•. ~ L Printingshops. . . "'~~ i.l Flndin~. A suggested m~ti• gation, pAase development in .' "'ue ._-. :. .~'' H°~ a~r~~d Road/Valley Trails ide Drive) th) (P k '.~^' .•vice at the abovedisted aHected .'intersections. Future traftic hall include e~cistin • ~iti n ~ ~ f. Manutacturing a camdn• _~vingprocesxsofbiologicalprod- - ucts rovided no raaaus a of - M. Restaurants and soda ; .,:.`~+ntains not irxtuding drive- .., : ~s a~~ ~ load estaa~sh' - ~Gty Dy monitoring devNopment E ~~`^' a~ s ~ g o s s . p : T M _ - ' . h• land restricting growth to hvo '- Hopyard Road/West Las -!ha}};~, projected trattic ham ' ~ fensive fumes or odors us ~ ments. ~ : • +-1~,,. , _ ` ~'million square feet every five ~~itas Boulevard .- :. . other projects under construc ~ >- . ,J_ produced. ;:f ~-:4L .:~.-„ -. N. Statio~ery stores. ~. ; years, is unnecessary as mvi• Hopyard Road/Stoneridge ~ tion and/or having received 1~ :~• 6. Sales at wAolessle, ot : 0. ToEac,co stwes. = ; tti ~ronmental irnpacts wdl be miti• ~ive -• . al City approvals, and prqxled ~-:'saks to the uHimate wnsumer e gener , S. That Decaux tra . ~gated. .-..::-....... .r,.•..~ , :.`.; Hopyard Road/Johnson :.;daHic from the project wbmit. :.:lol poducts made to 1he cus ,~ated bY the Macienda Busi~ess , 2 FscL The rccornrnended i .i Orive ._. . s -` ' • lted lor apprwal. The street net- ~~torn~rs wdas. s; ~~.,.,.., .~Pa~k witl create unacceptabk ; - . ,. t ''' .: imitigation is unnecessary be- ... . • Santa Ritn Road/11Vest Las ' : iwak aswmed shall be that ex- at tfie time the project is istin ~' H. Engi~i~g. dnftine ind Cesig~ tsc~lities ~ " .inase kvds fa rcsidential uxs ,,,,,. .: ...a~onq teetnln slreets +~'+thin t~~ •~tause (1) environmentai im• .-'- pects ol developrnent are miti• f Positas Boulevard ~ Santa Rita Road/Pimlico g fubmitted for apprwal snd as it . . '. :~ L Research and~devebprrxnt ~ ...~ iGtr. eccoustical analyses stz~ : ~ ' gated Dy mitigntion measures ~'~ ..Ikive ..- -. 4witl e~ist as s result of ~oadway ta ~facilit~es ..zh ..~ . ~ b~ carried out on Ssnta R ~ s s?:a P 1 L ~ ' .'snd conditans of ~pprwal as ' D. Wlun tha Levd ot Service. , ;knp~we*~^u Mher u^de~ co^' ction or requKing and hav. t~ ~ :`'- 1. Manulacture of proto .~ types -~ -. • :. . as o lVest Road between - ~8oulevard snd 1-580. Wes~ ~'s n Sections I througfi deuribed :~X of this Rcsdvtio~ snd (2) Crty as descriDed in the FH~fir+ap . ~+P+~Y Marwal. NRB RipoR u s (fnQ r~c.e~ved fwl City spprw . ; ., _; , K. My researth and Cerelog• ~ ,-.;Positss 8oulevsrE betwcs ' W~si -b80 k,~l~ries allaw for oentrd ef de- ~i7. reaches LOS D(equal to a ..als. _ .. ment use Mst~d ~bove a~sy ~e `. - . ~~Mopyard Road and 1 ~o~1y 111~BN ~Q iS fUct"a w~-ety d~1orm3 ~d: jisit ~TR1eC ld ~~t/]i ~qf {D 7vy1 -a wciu.x+e w. v~u xrwc3 aeri~ laa Po~+t~s Bov~~ ~""'~^ ~ ~++bl~tp ! e ~ ~~tw OrwM~-n Psc~4ic T~anspa• ~~slwwn In Table ~•1 of the addition ot A~vsl+ns to w-aes~ ,ir~ t1~is d~v~lopnwnl a vwM- 5m- CCLRs (attuMd ~~d We DuildinH '"Loxez 3~ TAt tM strtet ruember ot ~ D~+E ~~R+• - ytabonl'.ompany tr-idcs a~d ~ I~tl Dui ted so as to . 52. Thst Ihe de~~lop~r's ~n• - f~W Road and -iop~srd Road ~de pxt d Mh u ~fer• G. Building lnishes and cd• e+ the strect at ~~ s++~ P~+~*~~~+~Y de. ~ and Sto. ~) ~~Dt for tM As~ ars shall utilire snd contr~d S+~Y s+ tsiculation; critens, snd ~ ~YeGwsvn Vatlcy l~x+~ ~ p,~m ~~m~e w~hst ~+ct w~he~e no p~~' ~~~ha~M be ~ Doth natural m~tariels. FR+ limea. A~y nigt+t. 0~ ~ptiGgetion rtwasur+s ~rc neoes~ 1~ fke (5) sborie: +'~ ne~t. In ; bricks. zand 61a3ted concnfe. ~ 34. Zlut aA ducb. meters, air aswmpciax M Dound. 8K" x ;oondtNOq'vee sqWprtieM, snd ' 13" or 844" a 14" iormat w~liich Issry to xh+eve +~ ~'~ ~~ caae shaN a bu~ldwt@ De ove~ ~ ta+¢h saw~ aood. and refiective +an ot~er mechanical u ~xt tortfi the besis tor de~ign for kvcl of noise wiihin thr~e areas. •65 tt. in M'gM s/ tl»p~ ~ap~ ~ ~Sass wit~ painte.d roof stucco. ~ Y ~ w~ ~~~ ~w, and ~twm ~The applicant shsll pay tor unkss the Pleasanton Fwe De• p~irtteG cmcrete and slumin• ~+~~. ~~ ~~ strui.~e. S ~ artn~t is in sse~s+a~ ot ~n. • Im lhe Qround. a efiewhere. ee , ~Aroin sysierric as vnetl as rele•. ~~~ ~na~yxs and }or the ndse '.D P° screened hom ww ;vant information concerning ;mitigstion m~~sures (meinly ;appMStus ~apeDk of suQpress• M. Building Aeights majr v5ry ,Q~~Y in lire in a Duddi ol that A~pending upon type ot use snd ~M'+th matKials arcAitectwally w~~s. traific, etc. This informa• :sou~dwaNs) deemed neceasary • H ~ ;tcmpatibk ~rith Me main ztruc• ition shdl De suDrtwtted pia to ~ to attentuate rw~se Beneraled ~~• : location. 'the w~mittal trf the tentative t~ p~qect, prior tn iswance ~ 16. That • district for the t. tt ~s w~c.~oura~d Uut ~ ~~~5. 'TMt all m~chan+ul ' lmy~~a~ ~~~~ ~g}~~. ' puiidings nrtfiin the wDject de- ~ a~Y b~Q D~TTM~S ~^ ~ ~~ t adhere to site ~qu~prrKnt De constructed in I~• Thet all app~cable re• ~x~ect property Me deveioAef N^g a^d ~^~K~~g ~~ « `~~ p~ 'wch a msnner tAat nase ernan• ~quirem~nts o} the Alameda ~ shall enter into xi a~ee~*~e~t ' developm~nt and all street ; or~entation and sun contTd with fbod Contrd District - : wRh the City agree~n8 to pay lor areas Doth wiMiin the develop ~ p~oper utitization of aaM and '~~Q N~ ~~ ~~ ^O~ ~ PK~' '~OU^~' ~Zo~e De met. ~tnestudiesandpfovidethemiti• :ment and all of Hoqard Road, roof msulation; inte&ration of ~a netpa~ D~~~°~~ 54. That the development igation measwes wt~an dre*TTed ~e~c~usiveo( the Meyer propertY• act~ sdar systems ~s erxo~r• o~erty ~necessa~y by ttx C1ty Engineer. ~hom I•580 to Valley Avenue, : aged 1a at least hot water use ~a normal errviro~ment fa that ~shall prov~de on•site private se- t~~s~~ ~~~,{5 ~a~~ pe .Santa Rita Road from West Las as well as supplemental heating ~zorrng district. ;curiry guards as determined by 35. That aM ligfiting De con. the Pdice Chief. ~used to tund consUu<<an o~ l~~~as Boulevard to I•580. and ; and codin6 systems. Istruded in such a manner that• ~ 55. That the developer shad ithese noise mitigating tncilities ~Mlest Las Positas Boulevard , J. Eac~ Duilding site should ate and ~east ot the deve~opn+ent shaN be ' incorporate proper orientation iglare is directed away from wr• ; Aave a sals engineer on the site ~wherever tound app~~ iroundin ~es and ri ts• .at aU times dur~rtg the const~uc- !Me cost spread to poperties ,established. Such district may ~ for "sun and climate co~trd as g P'O~t ~' . :~ o} alI blic improvernents ;wRhin the districis. ;be used in conjunctbn with a ~ well as protecting adjacent io1-way. ~ rkin ovmer's association to ~ building's solar access. ~ 37. That all tr~sh and retuse y,, ~~ the suDject proqerty. ' 6. 7hat building a~d pa B iPfOPe~Y . .=mi~imum setbacks shaH De as' .;be established by ttx developer K. If a building does not act ~o~~esarch'~ract tr~ ~wm-'~::': iprovide abundan eb~Y ke~stfaage -_ ~ ~ set lorth in the Hacienda 8usi• -! 1or these P~~Po~s• ''' ~.; as a total roof screen to me- . 1 ~ ;~~}~~~ties throu out tfie su t ?`:,~ness Park Design Guidetines -~ 17. That site ipecif~c sa~s ;chanical equipment then any '= ~DatibkwimthemainstructuK Bfi ,~ . ?;;.;dated Septernber 14, 1983 and . studies shall be da~e for all the addition to the building to ': ~ 38. That aB trees used m D~~~Y- '.'.' ~the Hacienda Business Park ~ buildings constructed on the 'screen present or tuture me- '~~~P~ng De a nimimum o1 ..-' ~~' S7. That Me CCbRs of the •-- ;~CCd~Rs, attached hereto and wbject prpperty : chanical equipment a solar cd- (15 gallons in sae and all shnibs ;_-~Hacienda Business Par;e shall r`~made part of this case by 18. Thaf all buildings on the lettors shall be of the same '~a mm~mum ot 5 gallons. ;..-_ ~.. ::`; •De amertded to require partici- tion in a Trans ation Sys- ' =~ reference. ' . . subject property shall emp~oy bu~~ding design elements and 39. That 6^ vertical corxrete .=~._ ~pa P°~ 7. That the Des~6~ Guidelines .: sdar energy to the maximum ~ color. The use o1 separate me- `:~~ ~~nstalled betv+een a{6 „'-, ~tems Management Program by ..' •:' :shall De used as a guide for the `extent economicalty teasible. ~~chanical screen fence design -,paved and landxaped areas. ~~,' :~:;au comPanies within the bus+- ~ ; landscaping of the Hopyard 19. That if any fill is required • shall be discouraged rdth all 4~- That all parking space be -~ iness park employing 100 a ;Road puW~c sen+~e easement ' for the subject site, it shall be ; screening designed and ap• ~~riped and provided w~th wheel .`. :tnore ~mPbYees. Such a pro- ;stops u~less t are ho~ted ` am shall invdve car pooling. ;ynd median strip, but final ap• ,transported to the properry via ;proved at the ~esign Review ,~~rete curbs, in which wse -<%;~~ P~ng, and aRemate work :prwal oi the landscapng of .freeways rather than City Board approval stage_ ,~~t areas shall be provid- :^ ~~~5• ~~tives oHered fo m- :those two areas shad rest with 'streets. 24. That no materials, w~ , the ends o1 all ,:r koura e employees to partici- ithe City staN. ' 20. That all street rights-0i• ,plies or equipment including ~Y~ ~" `( te ~~ ~r in and ran . 8. That the Des+gn Guidelines i way sho+vn on the tinal map "~company owned or operated ~8 SPM~ to att.ornrnodate tfie : pa Doo1 8 : sha11 be used as a gufde for the : shall De oHered ta dedication •:hucks and motor vehic4es shall ~o+ert~ang of autortwbiles,' _-: .r~:' ~ ~Poaing should include preter•' ':. jlandscaqng ot the 33 ft. to 50 • to puW~c .use or in the atterna• be stored in any area on a site . 41. That all utilities required :~: lential parking, flex time ar- ~it. with public service ease- I tive, these rights-of•way may be except inside or behind a sdid .~~a~~ ~ ~^t ~!~' ". ~cen2eVe~tEach c mo~ pat y n- ~ments alo~g interior project i purchased at their marleet value '.visual barrier which screens ~ I~ved in the o am shailG - ~roads, but final approval of the through a special assessment :such areas trom sunounding ;~nto a a~reertient with h Ci~ '= ihave an employeea ssigrxd to ~ ~landscaping of these areas shall ~ district tor subdivision improve• i properties a~d p~blic streets, g ~`,~~dinate tAese adivities.~ .• • •_ t*,rP_ ni>le as •L,rt ot!he design . ments, 'rf approved by't~e City each barrier shall be at Ieast 6 'approved by the City Attorney ~ ~ That all bus stoqs and .- ' 'cons~derotion by the Ciry: ''- ~ Council pursuant to Section 'ft. in height. ~wh~ch guarantees that all land- ! 9. That the Design Guidelines , 66462(ax2) of the Government 25. That prior to finali~g a '~~iD~Bm~ ~m~ a~°~ _`~ ~~ ~ t~ ~, En~~~spe- :,,.~ ~'shall be used as a guide for the ~ Code. ;final map on the subject prope - '' of all Dus stop shetters ~. 'tandstaping and design of the . 21. That Me developer ac• ' ry CC&Rs shall be approved by. 'ful, attroctive and weedfree ~" ~~ ~site parking areas and side and ! knowledges that the City of •~the City Attorney. If there are :manner. Said agreement shalL tshall be approved by the Ran-~- •' `rear yard areas, but final ap- ; PFeasanton dces not guarantee `.commonly owned areas, the !run with the land tor the dura- :~~^8 ~~'^~O^• . :proval of the landxaping and ' the availability of suHicient sew• ~ CCd.Rs shall provide for a prop~ ?tion ot the existence ot. the s~ M~ ~h~~ures on the wbject "' ~'design of these areas shall take .' er capacity.to serve this devel• ieRy ow~er's association w+th :structures bcated on the suD- : ~o~rn ~all be desig~ed so 'place as part of the design con• :oprtient by apprwal of this pro- ;sufficient power to manage all ~j~ p~~Y• '• ..~~at interior nase kvels sha~~ ~sideratan by the City. ; ject and that the developer ;such areas. The City shall be 43. That the dere~oper sha~~ ~t ~ hi than 55 dSA Leq ~ 10. That all signing for the agrees and xknow~edBes that !nartied as benefic~ary of such :install sVeet trees as required - H~' ': project shall be wbmrtted to the building pertnits may be wrth- ;CCBRs and shall be granted tfie .;bY the Hacienda Business Pa~k ;~? iduring busutess hours and that ;Ciry tor apprwal. The Design ~ hetd if sewer capacity is found ~power to entorce its pro~sans r,;~Des+Bn Guidel~r~es and CCSRs '~~ hat~ ~11 be designed sa ~ Guidelines shall be used as a, : by the City no1 to be available. 'rf the property owne~'s assoc~a :' ~t ~^ ~O ~~ ~~~ R' ;~~t~be h''~gt~e~ KK~~ ~~n ~~ guide for such signing. -. ~, 22_ That aH bading and se*• itio~ fails to do so. _ ~. ~}quired by C'rty adinar~•-:.~: ~ than 45 dBA ldn. . 26. That this ove.all ~ i 44. That any damage to t 60. 7bat because the s~bject - 11. That where enumerated ~ vice areas shal! be scteened ~ ~°1~ . wiU be subdivided and • ~ ;cw~ditions of this PUD report i from streets and adjacent ~op• 'and each individual site deMe1 s~sNee~ ~mP-~u ^~' °t~t :'~a~y '' ~ co~llict with staternents in the ~ erties. • - - ~opment shall be subject to the . ~;.; ~8 a~~ d~^~6 CO^~~nO^ '`:~~r ~at least parts at it sotd at a later :,' ! 23. That the tdlowin stand• •Drovisions of the City's Fire '~` ~~ ~ u+~ G~~Y ~«- ~'=~ ~~te, the ord~nanct ap{xon~~g .PUD developrnent plan. Design + 6 ired at uU to. the ~~se PUD-81-30 or an abstract ~Guidelines and CC3Rs. the for• .; ards sha~l be utilized in the de- 'CAde and nationally recognaed ; Ga ~~, ~ y,{ ~~f. ~Ibe recorded in the {rtier shall contrd, except that ;sign and construction of all ...istandards, where appl~cable - devetope- '~•'~'""f.s s~ Y ; de~,eloper may irt~ose mwe re ~ buildings on.the site: :- ., ... -'relative to fire. life safety ,;.; -'45. That ~igfiting apprwed Dy ~: IoNice of the Alameda CourrtY r' 27. That no Duilding shall be f~ ~dKe ~~~t ~~ ~::' ~~Of~ ~ mat it shaa be dear ,. . .j strictive conditions. - . ~: - -: :. . A. Walls. parking. landsca~ : ~'~ ~provided around the perirtxters ~ ~at alt mnditarts of approval 12. That the developer real ~ ing and the e~cteriors ot all build- ',. constructed on the subject srte bf this wse run wjth the tand. - - ~~ize that the devc+opment plan ~ uigs shall at all times be main- ~..'until an adequate ~vater w p p l y ~.t o f ad bwldm g s on the w E~ e c t _ _ y; , y, ;, _ . CCE,R . ~ tained in co~dition. All ..~ is available for the part~cuiar ; pr A` ~":~<'=:~ej `'.: ~°..~< 'r T Design Guidetines and s B~ t~-~ i`';~ `61.'71wt bec'ause research ; ~are o~y guides to the develop- i;.!painted surfaces shall De kept ~•:strudure as identified m A[:~ s~ ~~~ ~Y ~,.r ~~d de~elopment and light ~. -.~ment of the subject W~Y .~V~~Pe*b Painted m colors ap~ : Water DlstriDuNon and Suppty ~j~Pd~ce. Departmm4•buiMinBs .iz'Imanufacturing uses would in arid that where statements, ta ~ pfovad ~y the Design Review -~St++dY ~~ N°~+ ~+~ -~,~~~~~ ~~~d -~ ~~ "~lueyse the potential haard o1 ibles, ligures and other data Board. Unimproved property -~~~ we~ ~~^s ot the l.o~r rb~.systems.~-lhe :tYP~ ~.: ~•~D' Y.,. ~~a ~p~stion or ocpbd :• ~within these docummts co~flict ."-= ~ shaU be maintained in a sightty `~~ ~+~+~e ~1°- ~~Rm~.~~a°~ ~~~~'D~~ ~~rt '~'~ ~• c :~ 1981 .:,,^ _: •_~.: . :z' i mer~t and that ttxse systertn ~. H ot hazardous or tox;c mater ' ,. with Cr'ty procedures. policies ,..: conditwn hee ot weeds and de• ) - ,;,.~ t` ials.'the develoCe* shaa 'aak i' ,! and codes, the City's proce• :~.;` bris at all times. ~• .';i "= .-~- '. I~• That no temporary agn ;.^.~shatl 6e lnstaNed pno~ te f*tial -? "' tcuftural use sAall De Ated y` buiJding tnspetiion. ~t"',:~!a:;s ~.,C. '~th tfie fire Manhal. C+1Y Engi ;a'~ ~- i durns, polic~es a~d codes shaH ' 8. Attention shall tie paid to ~n' `i '" eer, qualified citizen(z) and .. "j 'within the bounds of the pro- ;,;;! ~~ 47. That the site be kept hce ;~ '. ; gove~n, except tfiat the devela >- buiiding location on the s~te tor i sed o ect which causes a,.; ~of fire hazards fiom the start of ,:K ^y attected outsde ager+aes to :_.; '.• per may impose more restrictive .;:: I 4~aximum sigtit eHiciency nnd Po P~ I y 1-: stablish procedu~es fa the ?.~ I ocedures and standards. .~- •.=.:='~~ aesthetic relatic;nship to adja• ti~e hazard. •~ -- '' •,'.;~stroction to final i n s p e c ti o n : a }e staa e snd handlm8 0~ -:; ~• ~~ 13. That Table B-1 of tfie ~F~centexistin builCin ~ 29. That all flood control '~:,and tfiat tf~e Fne Oepartment "i;~ ~ _ ='t g ~~ channels and alI ad'acent ease- '~'emerBer~c.Y numDev De provided .~.~ ~++~~ ~te'uls. ::;: :: • ' - . ;; ; ' :CCd~Rs shall be used as a guide C. Use of Duilding ekme*its .. ~ ~ ' - ,.~ }a parkinQ withi~ the Hacienda ~ and tandscaping to screen ~ts within the subject prop~ .• ~dWant to sll_tdephorks e^ %3 j'~, That'any ncisting assess , • " i f . ~ shatl be maintained frce '.:. ~tfie site -'~-°• ° ~'. - ,gusmess Park. Dut that final trucking nreas or outside stor• ~Y ' rtxnt distric4s which ttx.prope* ~,.~approwl ot parking required .~nge and trosA shall De incorpor- from (i.e hazards at all times. ,;=.,~ 48. TAat the ldbwing water .~ ~, ~Y ~ w~ to shaU De ~ ~. ~shaM be datarmined at the time ,. ; ated in eacfi site plan design. 30• Thst all fire hydrant bca• .-: ;consmi+~g plumbwutfuclures be =-'' ar~ ~ior to tfx appwal of `: •of desipi raview by tfie ~~"i .- D. Exteria wa11 hdQAts snd ~tio~s shall be marked in the ~:;installed: s) bw flush water :~=, ~~~ ~p a~~~ _ `. ~=- ~ ~ ' slreet Wue reflective sheel ~'~~elosets: D) thower fbw tontrd ,"" :,'l,~: i•~~4~1j~iaYtM tn~ximum~~'~Io~ .._ finishes shaM be used to screen M - ~sAall cause s seR~ertation W be ~'. • ``^-' •- ~' rool mounted aqui ment im Imarkers to Fire Department ~;jhesds: t) ~entors n interwr _' x :, :s,reb,-atw 1a wch larid,N_te tst' ,. , D a .. . tsucets: snd ~'atsuletion d lat .,,, ed in conjunUtion wit-+ : • sha pe'as s~ow~r~ kk~ 7sble ~: dud~nQ axtensuna of sny root ~1. .. ..~°ry ~ • ' elsrrxnts as of the w. ts~ 1. rThaf all constru2tio~r' ~rater knes. -=:1•~^- .~.-~ ~+ the }inar m~D• ~ , ~0 C C i~ R s i n d W a t~ t h e :.! s b P ~ V°~ ~, p l a ~, s s h a l l b e r~v~ewed a n d s p ' 4 9. T h s t f h e d~ r d o p a rf oo~-~ : 6 3. Th a t in or d e r t o ~ e d i+~ x : + o a~,~i(efiimum `Pnral(;11oor. .: {r ~ d°~ ~~'~~~ •~~~ -, 'pov~d M the i'we Dpartrne~t ~scmrabbinsn~nawcfiirbnt z,~, osion. B-~d'^6 st1O"a ~ i°' ;~: ~ysa atio ihs!_tie,37.,7,16.oi ~e . I ~ ta ensvre thet f'ce Cod~ nquire- ~;.!pr~ fiom U-e Cih Driw to the :. . tricted to non•rainy pe*~s - '. ' {icroaQe`~(spp-oxiirisbly ~nA fireshes slnl! ~fteet~r Im«+ts a~~ a+~t P~~ Miauance (~n~n~ d oonshudion. ~;-t :" `: aQY M~•Novcruber) ~+d ~ ' .~ ~.icrets): 01,3fw'by a{ness ~stterttion to cxsb s aP• af bAld+nt P~mQs. • '/ 1 50. ifi~t 1Ae devebDe* ~-Y~ ~rodable alop~s sh~ ~ hY. :};oaf"~rea'ia1i~ ~ha~ b~ ss proacl~ w+thin ka6ividWl ! 32. That u wch DuMd~.B site snd aN Ass tMt ~e ` or oR~1°~Q ~a' ~"as•OuRt"d~aw. , ' bnfaybRll~tttD.-'.-r..:,,<:...~.;w;, py No+~rnber 155tl~ (tl+is • ~ M !Ae PletssntoA O~rdi•' ~~+8 ~~+a^ ~«'^".O0^+0~°^1°^~' ~/ P~~'"•:, . . _ . ~inq the tsndscspir~ ark! sd}a• I~~~, ~riN ieducx d~9os~+°f1 °! ~' - . •' ~:15.1'h+t the n+aidntum build• . I • • ~ urA ~w~ b f{r~ Dpart. fd. TR~t ~PO~ D~ ff+e ~~. .~~.. „r _a ~...a, ..~. .,.. t p F Buildin¢ d~dl~ s1~// ar .. i~t stsaidards. shaN be sub• ,~~(~n 1er Mn1,~aM wd sbY~- = s.-;3g~nls ~nd ~ar+c~s c( d~ad ~ .. i+ig aate~ qual+ty in wrrou~ding • ~ ~ ments may be candef~d ia • w~ uently i ao uisition b ... .. .. ... . . :: . : : .. ~rite~u ~ submitted:as part o1 ans for tAe 'the wrp~ovanent P~ 97. Th~t ihe develoqer De rr ~ 104. Thst ttudevdope~ must bmA plans ta a~ construc• sponsiDk t tn~talla!im of Y treek . b4~hat tempaary sed~rnent ins sf~all be provid~ tion b t q y tonned assessrtient ~c~(s) w+th costs to De as~to alt develoP~T~en~• '. ~ 85: ,-That all~. existing,~.wetlic ~ ~fie street 1 system within tAe devel~nt. TAe street ~~ Me LAVYVMA eaxment . o LAVWMA tor approval. TAe , en as ~ re ed iii the design qf tfie devdop- ~~~~~n~^6 W~t'°s ~'^thin the or holding tanks on septic-tanMs tikd 'the site be properly sesled ~ty shan p~ a minimum of ~0 h di t esign oi any work in tAe ~VW MA easemmt must be ment to the saGsfactio~ of the City Engineer. Maintenance of ~ distrid(s). i 73. That the public improve• ll h . and aDandoh`ed prior to the rading: bperations un- tart ot um va• rg peuure so wari, ~ unts mounted on galvan- : d i l ie ith PP~a'~ ~Y the LAVWMA engi~ s. ' tfiese retention Das+ns shalt be `ensuredt~roughoutthefullcon• a ~ ments required by the Gty s ~ be comPkted as o^e contin- g s less Zone_7 retains ipculit i ser a n ~~ stee poure po s w p~ace flases, on the L$•1C 1Q5. Thal until such time as ~M1e*~da Drjve interchan e is struction of the project. Oil and Ulized on ll b h , uous prqect and shall not be ~ phased. on -wN1:, a rv t wells .tor ob special appio`val is obtained ,x~uk per City requirements •md P.Gard E. standard details g .. Konstructed, all truck traltic e u a : grease traps s site to catth grease and al. hall l 74. That the off-site public ~ improvements required Dy the ,from the City Engineer tor tem- ,porary use oi an existing weil fp ,unless otherwise specitically ~Be^e*ated Dy the devebprnent; ~~~ by tAe Cify Engineer, !~~dud~ng trucMS used in 'con~ oper s 65. That the deve ; wbmit an erosio~ and sedimen• f h ' City and completed by the de• er rr~aY be m^Side*ed for velo 'construction water. 86. That the haul route fa all /lpprwal tw Me numbn, loca- struction activities, sAall be di tion, and type of ekctrdiers rected northward on internal e t : tation co~trol plan as part o w• p ~ acquisition by a subsequently materials to and trom thii de- y~all be withheid pending tinal rtract streets to Gibraner Orive ~apprwed p~ans prior to appr al of the final map fa the subdi lormed asessment district(s), be assessed to all t h t i vdoprt~e~t be aPD~~ ~Y ~ City Eng~neer priw to apprwal design and rev+ew by the City ' and, hence, northward on Hop~ yard Road to I-580 so that no En meer vision of the (irst unit ol the suG~ ject properry and that sa~d map o cos s w t benefitting propeRies within the of the linal map a the start of i . . $g, Ttiat tfie developer wb~ 'trucks sAall use existing C~ty `streets otAer than Hopyard t shall make provisions 10+ the ion throughout all l t district(s). 75. That a pedestrian/bike on. any construct 87. That the developer wD- or mit a refundable cash Dond hazard contrd pria to approval 'Road rwrth of Gibralter: aRe~ i i i d D h eros o contro phases of deveto~xnent of the • way shall be constructed along ~ the entire length ot the south mit a dust control plan as part of the improvement ptans prior' en ve ~terc a r ange ot the final map. The amount ot ;the Hac this bond will be determined Dy '~ ~~structed, alt truck traHic ,~~~, 66. That the landscap~ng at ' s+de of West Las Positas Boule• t i i to approvat of the final map• That storm drainage 88 'the En neer. ~s,hall be dirxted to usc so{ely g Tha~~ ~loper sup- y~ternal tract streets and Ha• ~the interesections of the Chabot Canal and Gibraltar Drive. Sto• mprove- th stree vard alo~g w ~ ments. This facility shall be ad• ~ . swales, gutters. inlets, outfaMs h mit detailed la~dscape and irri- k+~da Drire interchange. The ~Droject's CC&R's shall be 'neridge Drive, I~gkwood Drive lacent to the curb and gutter, hall be a minimum ot 8 tt d ' e and channels not within i ~area of a dedicated pub~ic strcet ~gation plans as part ot the i*n• :. ~p~t plans. These plans • ame^ded t° i"~~ude this restric- ~:and West Las Posrtas Boukward .a~d the intersections of Tassa• " i - D . an s ~ wide with widening at all obsta• street signs ": "• cles (fire hydrants or puWic service easerr~ent or ~ .•not dediczted to Alameda Courn, : 3hould include a street tree ,, `:, ~t1O^• -• _" danting plan: larxlscape ptans .;": : 106. That until such time as ; ~ ve r jaro Creek and Stoneridge -' ;and ~Nest Las Positas Boulevard . , etc.) to maintain 8 ft. dear. An ' ': ty Flood Control District.- = i i d `the tratfic assessmenC district fa ~~ns, Dutter strips. and ~~` s has been famed and asiess- ~) .~ .shall 6e instaHed by the deveb• t i t ' interim bike lane shall bepa int- ~ ' ed and signed on the north side ne nta ;Zone 7 be private ma N ~by the p~operty owners or _ ; y y ~an right-ot•wa landscape :; •areas. The irrigation system _. ~ts kwicd on all p~op~rties, " m• stree per at the time o ~ :' p rovements. That the tandscap- ~(utilizing the area which wilt ulti• ?t~rough an association ap- sha0 include automatic con- -_: •^o °~upancy ot any Duitdings ' ""~~ ~ a~~d . 'ing ot all in tract +ntersect'sons, ' ` ~ mately be the third traHic lane). - ~Thenorthsideof WestLasPosi• ' -- !pr~d bY the City. - 89. 7hat apprwal of the on• ~ `trds. _: . . __ : ... . .. . _ ~ • , :~ • 100. That pr'ar to construc- :~. 307. 7hat the City, at ~as described in the develo p- : r ~ment plan, shall be installed by ~ , :tas shall have a sidewalk adja- tter ' b d h ,s~te water supply and distriDu• tion system be w+thheld perd~ng e~c se, shall hire a . tion, the two archaeological',,;, ~O~ ~^ ,~t~ ~U}ied in the archaeo- : qualifieG atrtaspheric iaentist :the developer at the time of con• gu an e cur ~ cent to t °whi~h shall be a minimum of 6 linal design and until the deve~• bgical studies performed fo- ' ~ air pollution expert to eval- ' struction ot street improve• ments ft. wide with widening at all ob• ofxr has demonstrated to the this projxt Dy Hdman and /ls- iuate project•generated air quali- establish air quality ~mpads b . 67. That the parking stand• 'ards described in the Design • stacles to maintain 6 ft. clear. .:This north sidewalk shall be satisfaction of the City En~nee* that the proposPd system meets d bn di t , . ~~ytes shall be evaluated Dy a.,. : qualified archaeologist as to .~standards to minimize air quali- ~~ =1Y ~mpads hom the project anQ , f Ai i Guidelines and the' CCbRs tor the Hacienda Business Park constructed along with indivi• dual building construction as g e an a both the rcnme rdnge requirements for wpp~y . s- : or ; t}~~ ~ent and bcat on ~torical reference: A qnaGtied ar•,.:. ?~sure that State and federol standards for primary pollu- _ i ' shall be used as a guide for the each separate bt is developed. id ing water m this area. - rnat tt~e de~'e~ope~ c~^' '= ~ 90 . ~ ~ l- • ~aeolo~st shall be made ava : abk on-site during const-ucteon `~~ tants are met at the site and ~ ~ ovisan of arkin tacilities on pr P q the su but that ~ Pr~Gefb. e sepa• ~ 76. That an 8 tt. w rated pedestrian/bike way be . p1y wfth any and atl applicable h abng access routes. and devel• : ' ~' activities within the area of :;:,; ; :op a monitorin6 P~oB~'am wtiich : 'final apprwal shall be gronted n review co~sid• f desi rt constructed along the north side ot the entire Iength of Sto- e crosscon- 7equirements ot t nectio~ contrd and backfbw these Aistorical sites. ln ihe ev ., _ .. ~nbeusedtoevaluateair ual• . .• mt that human remains and Q l t de tA r j ~ ~rt g o as pa eration Dy the Gty. ' ner~d6e Drive, along with street ~xevention device programs rc v - ve S as e p o ec Y ~D .•artifacts are encountered pra- ~^ ~~^t such stand- : ~ • 68. That all applicaDle re• quirements o1 California State _ improvements. M interim bike lane shall be painted and si ed ~i quued by the Ca~ifomia Adrnm- istratire Code, 7itle 17. • °, to or during constuction activo- _; ties, wch activities are to be ards would be e~cceeGed by any ,, . ~incremental developrtient pro- • ~ ., 'pepartment oi Fish and Game ng along the soutfi side (::tii uhimately be !h° =:« ~K` ~Il ' 91. That tfie devefoper pay the estimated applicabFe Zone 7 haRed until an evaluation and ~ rernoval to aftemate sites can Posal, that particular pro~ect. .•' be met. 69~ Tha. .~,~ 'wa~c streefs b . _ . tAe third traHic lane). The south side ot Stoneridge Drive shall and City co~nection fees and • the meter cost pr~ia to Counal pe comp{eted a sorne other shall not be approred. ~thod of protecting these ma• 108. That the developer and e con• tr.;n tnis development ~ structed generalty as shown in have a 6 tt. wide separated ped• • apprwal of tfie deve~oprtient for terials (acceptable to a qualitied .the City of Pleasanton shall m- :. 'te~ into an agceemmt re3ating: the Hacienda Business Park " • ; estrian/bike way which shall be constructed ato~g with indivi• any water meters (irngation meters) not directly related to a a~~~eologist) can De accom- _ ~~5~. .~. ..,;. ,. -. . jto possible da~ms against Me .., Deve{oprnent Ptan. 70. That the deve~opef shaN: . ~ duat building cortstruction as building permit. 101. That, where tonstruc- .., lCity ta inverx tondemnation, ` o~ assessment district reliet ~ ~ complete the construction of ard Road to soc lanes from ~ Ho each separate bt is developed. 77. At all locations where 92. That a seQarate water ;meter be prwided to each bt of , tio~ for xcess roads. service - trenches, a~d other similar ..: ~any other daim seeking to re- l f d ' ' py : I-580 to Valley Avenue: com• lete the co~struction ot West : s~dewalk is planned to be con• structed adjacent to curb and • record within the developrnent :~nless otherw~se approved by or s apprwa e- 4u~re the City -.functions must be made over ~_. ; the Aistaiwl sites. there De ap~ ::: ~~~t °f ~"^g a^ as- di th i i p ~ Las Positas Boufevard to s+x from the Southern Pacific :{ `, ~ B~tter. but at a tater date. dowl- ...; ~g satisfactory to the City Engi- the City Eng~neer• - ' 93. That approval o( the saro- er re- . str ct or o sessrt~ent plied to such locations, to the .,,;; estmt possible. a byer of idl -:;. ~tund in contrave~tion ot these ~ a~es • TronsportationCompanytrocka ' :''r~eer shatl be included in the r , tt b d ' .tary sewer system be vrithheld final design and urtal end+~ .•rnattrialtoalbwsuchconstruc•:_s';~;QUDtonditans.Suchagree• : ~:ment shab De recaded contem- . •, tion to bccur rriihout twving to ': to Santa R~ta Road: widen Santa , ~ ' RiU Road to at least fou- lanes . an gu e cur • 78• That the bcations ot.the • g y ,,-the developer has dertwrutrat- ' ~, . -.~wt intothe layero(archaeologi ~~ ~aneously with the wbdiri• _ s~O^ ~p ~~ D~~Y • ;(oti an interim Dasis) from West sitas Boukva~d to 1•580: P ' l t+tility trenches be approved by . ^° tfie City Engirx~er pria to start . ed to the satisfaction of the City 'Engineer that the proposed sys- - . ~1 deqosrts, ;;..t~ -~ = i- :.. 102. That. where possible. -: l~. T~t ra parking will De as o . {nstaU tratfic signals at Me in a ~ tersectiw+s ot Fbpyard/Ingle . of construction. 79. That the ped/bike ways -tem rs aAequate, connects te an approved point of discharge : arrangements sAalt be made x' ~~~0""'~ °^ a^f' streets within y'~~ appropnate bcat agenoes t '"' „ d l r~ : vwod, Hopyard/Gibraftar and .~Hopyard/Valley Trails Drive ~at the major entrances be sepa• '~ a~d meets both the immedsate ~rated irom tfie curb lines by a<:andbng-ra~gerequiremenuof u ar :;a aganizatio~s for the depos+ 1. ~:110. hat only mo ~~andevafuationofrecove-ed .~~"'~~ ~^~s ~°~^• ~': h '(North) • Artfiur Drive. m o d i t y ~minimum of 5 ft unless other• ' the sanitary sewer system n an orx news- ~~rt~}~_ p n, e{ p~~ ~p ~g T~ating more t PaPe- shaN be albwed outside ~the tratfic signals at the inter ard/Valley . sections ot Hop wise approved by the City Nisandalltributaryareaz ~~h ~y ~~t~y~ ~~y ~ Engineer. -^ •..~ :: ~~ 9d. That a separate s.anrtary y~r~ of matenals. .; ,~ ~,* +~ I~ ~+ildings withi~ the devebp- ~ ~ y , "~Nopyard/Valley Trails Drive i H :. SO.Thatthedesi bcation, and type of signals and electro- ~~: ~ ~Sn ot tAese d~s- '-xewer.lateral be rovided to ~ - -•` `g =1"~` ~' ; each bt of record within tfie de- ~ r; 103. Buildings housing and ~,x~~~s shap pe approved by ve. o~ ~,: th) - Parkside Or ~ yard/West Las Positas, Hop ' liers be a oved Dy the C PPr m' t unless otlmrwcu a ~~^ o- ~` susinesses usmg hazardous ,~ p~nnmg pmsron. ,~ ; , ";~~naterials as defaxd by the Gty ~' x ; ' yard/Stoneridge. Hopyard/ EnBineer prior to the start ot Santa Rita/Pimlico co~struction. -, •.. «- ••:; h `:J ,provedbytheC+tyEngincer F-~~~eCodearer uuedtoadhere 95. 1"hat approval of the ,{. °4 ,~ z : _ ~- '"`" '"' ~ ' 1 Co~d"ition Nos, rcler to the nson, o '.and Santa Rita/West las Posi .~ :' ' 81. That all curbs on public storm droinage system be wrth- ~ ,,:~ x° the t°U°'"'ng c~d~ti°^S: '' ~~ - `- -~~1° F1fe ~~1°^t a tn 1p9 Conditions ot Apprwal ot ' :~ `tns. /UI o1 the above shall be rove• d i `'~' ` ;,t ;streets wittiout rkin lanes De ^. Pa B .• ~•~onstructed ss 8". vertical . ;held ~n final and 8 ~S^ P~ •_t'~until the deve~oper has dertnrt- F . `~'Tk adrised Dy the busir~ess(es) ~;- '?~. now v~capo-• di~ance 1040 ~- {ated intotheProject_ -. -- ~- •?':= , m done er a rove P PP D ~';ment plans. AU ot the aDove im• ; provert~ents may be consldered ' ~: • - :~' P.C.C. curb and urier. ~' •' " ~¢-.. 8 ..' 82. That a11 trees proposed to . ~strated to the satisiaction of Me .City Engineer that the system is ._; ~esponsi~le of their tontrol ..... . ...... . ;. .. _ ,; methods for harardous materr : .~~ 2 The TSM and Trorurt Con- . ,:,t y ^ _ ~ " a ' ' • ~for acquisition by a wbsequent• formed assessrrxnt district _'tl ';. be planted within street nghtof• ~~~.way areas be selected trom the ap •!adequate, connetts to sn ._;Droved po~nt of discharge, : _ :: L . :~. '~ditions and Conditions Nos. 2, t - ' i -~ "~ .-r B 7he Dusinesses arc to pro- .,qp, 73 and 106 are sornetimes :.:i nt i d i l y • :(s) with costs to be assessed to , approved street tree list w rc- '!meets any and all applicaGk re- of the Alameda t i pme s sn cflu a ;, ~~p~Her cdktitively referted _ :~.,;.~ ~ter ~ecessa fa contrd both tn ~' ~W as the °Tnffic Caidita~s." : ~1' !all benefittin pr o p e r ties within the distrid(s~ teive spprwal irom the City .`. Engineer on s specHic request remen s _, q u .~ C o unty Flood Contrd District .. s~ ~~~ ~ v: `:.~ . :. i : ~ _ ~ .. . 71. The devebper. with costs to be assessed to atl Denefitting basis. That the CCd.R's include ~ 83 ~}Zone 7 meets an and aN uble requirements af the~• . ve 3 The No Roject Atternat ditans. -: ,. . : ~•-~ ~ 71x Fae Oepartrnertt is to ..: ~to the ArrKndme+~t and Ux No .~ t ~ , ~ jpropertles witAin Ihe assess• . ; ..:a requirement that the property '' :~aal EmergencY Ma~aHemerrt d P d i temative , ; ?~ ~dvised of the type snd ,.,;Approval of Project A ': q~a~tity of materials storod a-; "ero sane0rn~s coNectivdY re• ..';,: .•;ment district(s), shatl scquire htsof•way needed to con• :the ri owner's assoeiation pay the City ~an annual tee fa the mainte• rognm. an flood Mazar .. meets the irnmediate snd br~• ~. Lsed and ^°bfied a si~ifica~t ..; i: ~terred to as the "No Projxt N• ,. " g ~struct the improrernmts listad . .., nanceof thepuWkstreetswith• ,rsnge roquirements ol tlrs de- . ,,,,, : .: _>::=AanQes In type and/or _;;',ternative R1O1^ts ol Aazsrdous materr . ' ' ~ . sbove. N necesssry the City sRall aid Me dereloper in this .:in the dereloQme*+t for the li-st °!ten (10) years after acceptance ~vetopment snd all upstream .';sreas intended to De dnr+ed ' ==t ~~.als with~n 24~Aours ot .tAe T# ~ t- • T • ~ :~ z , -= process. ~ • ~ ..-~ ., , ~ ~+~- - : ~ ~o} the streets for maintenance. Y~~ , ~ s~ ~-.,, 'through this trsct .<:- , ~: s -~-' t ebct-~t PoM'er des~t '?'~~°~ ~"~ ~ K' ~ Th •~ % . 72. TAat tha devebper pro- vide funding tor a traffic signal - rfhe smount ot this tee shatl be (detem+ined by the City Engineer i i s . ~bution. Ras dishiEution. corrr and xry ra rwcsta~ service . r .~: ~fererce msterials are to be po- _ _ ;~' ~'~ded to tM Fae Departrrrcnt for ~> ..= ' - master oonvoller systwn. inter• Icannect system. snd svHicient ent to cover c `and sha11 be suH ~nticipated City costs durinQ . ~mu , uired alarm ~~ ~ i e ~n nder ' 1~ tbd ~ stance in tan rxnx '.: ~~~. ~°~'^Q .,. Q,e~i PT Vi A59 ._ . .. . • . . . "' ~ ' - ~ i~apa~sion o1 C~ty oNices to ill ~Aoute tAe Vaftic oomputer ~!!us ten (10) yea~ period. -.• 84. That a detaikd Qrading ~ u ts trencA unless otherrese ~rGNt~r ~ ... ,: ,. ~ ~ ~- . ..., . ort ;,.~ ~~ix~ Denp , . . ~ , ; to tM roQu'wernents set by ttx IMd d-ainage Dlan wd aN wp~ . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ .;,~peaficapY ~VD~ . r ~ , 5 .." ~n a ~~ ~S ~ :e. 'y' bv th. Fre Deoxtr~nt :~iblish Oecertiba 5. l3Ti3 ~ ;,c _ • ~-`:~_~~~ ~~~.~ ~~a ~.~~s~~~~ ~i~ r ~ .. ~.' ~ ~~_.:1 •.~ ~~~ -~~.~ A ~VOPKING P~PORTTO 'I'I-[G CI"['ILGNS OF PLEASA.N"I~ON OCTOBER 1983 c~ . K ~` ~ . ' ,~Sr,, ~.,~'S ~'~'t~.~{ ~ ? ~ ,^.f'c~ ~ ~~;'~' r 6"H~k ~ k ~ .t ,. r ~,: i" f,"r` ~! r': . . . ~. , _ ` ~ t ~ .r~ t'} r .~* ~1 ~~i ~ tr f .+~ ~~'i''~te+~l~ M~ . . . - ''~ .~': ~- .~, t r` t, -: ~~~~x y--: S1Ze: Phase I of Hacienda Business Park is 493 net acres of ~: Dear Friends a ~ k ' _ ., F~ <ir ii ~.,~ ~. i,~x„1,,ri~' developable land e~cduding land devoted to improvements -:{.. • ~' S ' '~ IE you"}•e dqven along Hopyaid Rwd or West Cas'Positas recendy ~"'~ ,v such as flood conirol and streets. ;.;you've probebly noticed that.things.are happening at Hauegda ..~x; ... . Business Park. We'd hke to ~ke th~s opportunity to bnng you up to ~h~: ....= . ... _ ;;date, so you iyill knoN ~vhat ~rogress has bein made and what y+4i~ r~; Location: The park is located in North Pleasanton at Interstate ; hap~n from here on out ~ ;,Y ~'}~~~~ 1; ~80 and Hopyard Road. - . . `; ~,.%i ~~ ,~ . ~ i '!f .~, ~ 1c' ~ ~ - . ' FusE and perhaps most no~ceable is that all the streets are pi~et~Hnc~~~~ ±. ma~orlandscapmg hasbeen pianted SoundNalls ,trafficl~bhts bu$¢:~_' Zoning: 7'he acreage of the entire park has been zoned for '_~stops and other amenitiesare m place. All these improvements jlave+s~yr, commercial and industrial development since 19fr}. ; lnen funded_by the developers of Hadenda and will be mauitai{~gd bX'+~y " the Hacienda Susiness Par}. Qwners Assona~on ~at no eicpensQ k1~th~-LL, ' ` aty or revdents of Pleasanton:' ~~ ~~ u.'~~;" ~~i ~^ '~' Develo ment Guidelines: Reappro~•al bv the City ~.,:~.;:.~.:~ .~.~.~,~.~~ ,~.~3~~.,~~~ _ _- P -- ~ -- ; W~thinthePark;ChatwtC.enterisoccvpied and AT&I'Covunumcahons`, Council ofFlaaenaa s P15nned Unit De~•elopment ' P.U.D. ordinance and its 109 conditions of approval will ~ movc~ inm ~ts buildmgs ttvs month Ottier ten+nts luie.d up i~dq3~ °~ ( ) Grum S Forsterlrisurance Company Viacom Cable tjgwlettPackar~ ;, guarantee Pleasanton residents and the city that they .~ and a Sheraton Ho~el U,~ ,~r3, , >~ ,~~ ~~Y~ maintain control on the twenty-year buildout of the park. '? .- ' : :':'~ •"` " '~~ ~ ~' In addition to the controls imposed by the P:U.D. ordi- ' The qua6ty and master planning of this development has beenand will~'' ~ continue to be our o~emdingconcem at Hanenda: We are deeply'~~ s~~ nance, the developers.have created self-imposed GC&R's :i . committed to maintain~ng the c~uaht7i of Lfe m PleasanroM.~d tq1~`~~: ; (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), which will ~~ ~.sy~ ~ .. • enhance it where,we can C'i 2, 1,,~ t `~~pYc~,.,~ ~~ insure a consistent, quality development. ~ ~` i _ .,- N ~ #rs~.:< ~ ~ 4' ,~ One of the waYs Hanenda BusinessP~k ~1 accomph~h tttt~i~s~ay y,c ~r _ ` ~ pro~idingasourceoE~obsfo,r:te~dents,Asyouprobablynohcgc~ma''"'xy.~, T~bs: Thedevelopmentoftheparkwillaesultin24,000on-Site ,.:recentissuebfPlcasanton:Pqt(iways'Cnim,&Forsterinsu~ac;ceCom~~.~ ~ ~.already has begun to mauit;[or ~ob opemngs As'rimore~mmpa~eg ~,~ve.~ jobs when completed in twenty years. At present, 80% oF ' ' into H~nenda t(;ere ~~u be~add,t,onal:opporcun,c~es noronij%t`gt'~~~ ~: Pleasanton residents commute outside the city to work, tramed spenalists but for entr}~ level ivorkers as well ~ ~~~~ • and 50% of those residents commute outside the Tri-Valley. ,,..~. '` ',<; ~` ~~;r s E: ; Y` c'y~"~;,~;` Hacienda Business Park will provide jobs for many ;. It ~s essent~al that the young peoPle tvho are students in Pleauanton~Y~ -;, ;'~ schools toda have an o~ortun;ty to firid 'employmenk in`thei[owns~;~ residents who are now commuting outside the city to work. Y PP...,. ~` community. And when comPanies relocate to Hacienda Busines$Park=,_~ thev employees who alreadY.livg in Pleasanton will find theii commute~;, times greatly reduced with more fam~ly and leisure hme.available T" f; OPen SI7dCe: The park is located within Pleasanton City - - --~, 1"~ r~~y ~; limits, on land set aside for commercial and industrial ~ r-~ development. lt does not endanger any agricultural land ~: Anothrr new asset~for Pleasenton u.thg.opening oE the Co~umt '` ' Rgom at C.tiabot Center AlreSdy rt has meet~ng~ of P~easanfo~} ~vJ~ ~d`~ Or SurrOUnding hill5ides. social urSam7at~ons booked as far ahead as junG; 1984i and,sye arS bQl{:.. • ,v ~~~},~S at ways toaxpand tluf spac~e i~ 4t r" C, i,T ~.~~~y' .rc.~~L$ z. ~' ' ~: ~t~ ! J ~: fii ~ ~ !§~ + ~` . % '` k '~`~4'r'`~ ~ ~ Density: On the average, only 40% of the land within the _ '')'he follmu~p~ pages of this rcport W~11 ~ive You mor~ iqfoqp3t;un aboU~;_ the Hacirnc~aBusiaess Park''Please l~iok them ovei Wg ttprik thz ,~+n~~:~; park will be covered ~~'ith buildings. At least 25% of each apstivennanyqfyour4uest~qnsabouSFLinenda ' ~}j~Y~ ~~j~a`~3"' site will be lushly landscaped with native trees, shrubs ~~r` j `" '~ :~ -~ tr'~`~ ;~"'~.,'~~ and plant life. Many of the building projects will include Ifyou hov~ (urtt~er queshons~ please fi•elfree to cqntac~ us a~:~b3-230dt ~; Plazas, patios and/or courtyards. Each side of all streets u[~3-91DQ Ypur qucrohons apd coqcGrns ar~ important (q us: M~ you > are ~nviiedtp drop by at any hpie ~nd sec what ~ hippen~ng~t f-Ljaenda;~ ~'~~~ have 33-50' wide landscaped areas. Miles of pedestrian `~. ~y ~~+ ,~ ~,, ~*~ ,;~~~~'r~`A r' °.'., and bic cle paths are pfanned, with those along Stoneridge r ~, ...~ 4 ,k~, t, t. , Y~ ,g~,t~ 4.., Y n ` " " / ' *' ~F ~ ~ ~ !~ ' ~,~'s? ~°ei and West Las Positas already complete. ~ S~ncen1Y-.~+lkU,,Pt ~ t ~~ ~Z ~4i .Rt .~~^r 1"k .~ .~~ G ~ i.. 1+~ y T ^..` 1 ~x iej.. `~t,°hF~(~{ ~~~ ':'i ~.~ ''~~' ~ ~ N> ii 4f ~~', :; ~ . ari .:: ~ ~Y('471 `~r. J t^,~`l~"1 I.i ~(~ ~ ~'~,: :,, ~'ji~~~~~ ~ ~5 ~ ' i~ ~~''}~ '~- Q ~`' ~~~~t x,~~r~~~{.~~ Citizen Participation: Each building has to be ~; L~ ~~ ~~. ,~ ~~vt~J,' ~" approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. .,~ ~ t ~ z.» ~. ~ , , a} 't '''Joseph W Callahan '' t~ ,. Jack R Swansi~p .~,f~;~ ''"'.r'~''~` ~ Reapproval of the P.U.D. for the park guarentees that ? ' °'~L~ •= ' ~ '"'`~'s~w Pleasanton citizens and the Cit retain the ri ht to rcciew CallaFwn PenEz P;operhes ,~. • T1ie Prudential Insuranc~ ~ Y g .. ` . ~ CompanyofAmenca '? } ,~•=:,. each proppsed building project. ~ ;, . . ', T , . ~ ' .' , l e ~ . y~~ . ~ + , , ~ .. r~ ' '- ~ .~.~S:::i"l ~.}Fxi' ~ ~ :JUC..r..l'.~'- _s=~ ~ ;t z. 1' `" . . . . _. . ~ --'---°'_ 'L-`~.. _ . ..... ._..».._. . ~ ~e - ~.~~ , .~; ~.~~- . ~-_ ~ . ~ ~ Community BLiilde~•s Handbook Series 1NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT HAIVDBOOK ~ . ` - Sponsored by the Executive Group o f the Industrial Council of ULI-the Urban Land Institute 197~ ;~s: ° ~ • _ ~ . - Stanford Industrial Pa~ck (Research ParkJ Stanford Industrial Park, located approximately 32 miles south of San Francisco, is perhaps the most well-known research park in the United States. This 770-acre project is being developed as part of a program for increasing the revenues from the original 8,800 acres of land granted to the Univer- sity at its founding in 1885 by Senator Leland Stan- ford, on condition that the land could never be alienated. During more than tzvo decades of con- tinuing development, almost 80 percent of total site area has been leased to over 80 tenants. At the end of 1974, approximately 16,000 persons were employed at the Stanford Industrial Park. A majority of ienants are in scientific, technical, and research-oriented industries. Many tenants have links with the University. The site of Stanford Industrial Park was used for little more than cattle pastures until after World War II when the attrac- iive peninsula south of San Francisco became one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. The University property was being surrounded rapidly by new commercial, residential, and in- dustrial deveIopments. Nearby cities were edoinQ their boundaries to~vard the western foothills. At the same time, inflation and the higher costs of education were straining the University's budget. The opportunity was identified for deveIoping the income-producing potential of the land_ In response to these development pressures, a master plan was drawn up initially designating 210 acres of University property for industrial develo.p- ment. In 1953, a faculty advisory committee on land and building development was organized to `~ :; make recommendations to the University president :- :; on all land and building proposals. Actual indus- :~:~~.trial construction began two years .earlier when ':- Varian Associates, an electronics firm, leased 10 E.. "~ acres~in the southeast corner of the property. Sub- ~;_;:^~,:~ .:. ~:; sequent .expansion's have brought the park ,to its current size of 770 acres. ~.; `` .. rt . - . ~ . ~ ' . ~ . -..:.:,.,~::- .... .,........... , ': ~~~Development Policies and Procedures ~ -~. ~~The .Stanford University Board of Trustees Iaid do~vn general policies to guide the University's ~.~ land development program in 1954. Among other things, the policy stated "that the aim of the de- ._, velopment shall be to produce in the ultimate a ~. community of which the University Trustees and .- : all those who have its welfare at heart can be proud and that will, by reason of the fact that it is a University project, serve in an important ~vay as an educational example in the field of community . development." - Zoning provisions for StanFord Industriat Park have been developed cooperatively bet~veen the city of Palo Alto and the University. The pzrk falls within two different zones-the (LM) and (L~t-5) .. Light Manufacturing districts, of which some oE the most important provisions are: . LM --- - LJt-5 - Minimum lot r - ~ . _ - size - I acre ~ " ~ 5 acres j. aximum ~ l building - .' ~ ~ ` coverage 40 percent • _ 20 percent _ Open green . ~ area - 30 percent oE ~ total Iot area ~ ~ ~ Off-street 1 space/250 1 space/200 parking - sq. ft. gross sq. ft. gross buiIding buiIding floor area floor area Minimum front setback 50 feet ~' 100 feet Minimum rear ~ . and side d ~ yar setbacks 20 feet ' 40 feet Use of the I.~tif-5 zone, which provides for re- ~ duced industrial densities, was necessitated by the extension of development into steeper terrain south and west of. Junipero Serra Boulevard. For parking space, e requirement of one car space for each 200 square feet of gross building area has proven more ample than needed in the ~varehous- .~ ing operations of the publishing and printing house tenants. Surfaced streets in the development are 40 feet wide on 60-foot rights-of-cvay; sidewalks . - are five feet wide ' ~ - , . = 0peration and Management ~ ~ r _ , , t ... ~. : ` `. _:The development'~of Stanford Industrial Park is ~. managed by _the Land Development Office, which functions under the University's Vice President for Business Affairs. To attract tenants, the University depends on the prestige of association with the University, the beautiful Iocation, and the pleasant climate of the San Francisco peninsuia. Since the Park's inception, the University has accepted mem- bers into the industrial community with oreat care and as development progressed, the standards for . admission have become even more ri;iu. If a •. _. .. . 41 ~ ~vould-be tenant passes the preliminary and in. formal tests, he is invited to submit an over-all plan detailing the type, size, and location of buildings, along tivith plans for setbacks, roads, off-strect parking, and green areas. The plans are considcred by the Land Development Office, the University I'lanning Department, and then by the President's Faculty Advisory Committee on Land and Building Development before being submitted to the Presi- dent and the Board of Trustees for review and approval. The University Committee on Land and Building Development composed of six faculty members, three students, and trvo staff members, represents an accommodation to the demand for greater student participation in the operation of the University. - Clients retain their own architects for building and site development plans. The final blueprints approved by the University are incorporated into the lease. As construction proceeds, the Land De- velopment Office supervises the job to insure its completion according to the exacting standards specified. Originally, industrial land was leased for 99 vears, but ~vhen demand mounted, the length of leases ~ti~as reduced to 51 years. The University recognizes that shorter leases will permit an earlier recovery of the land in the event of changino ex- pansion needs of the University. The fact that the land reverts to the University on the termination of the lease gives the University an interest in the property throughout the life of the lease. Currently, the prepaid .lease.fees range from $30,000 to $175,000 per acre and are added to the University's endo~vment funds. The lessee pays for all taxes, r. . , , .. , . . ... . . '~,"~~' 2-22 ~ Stnnfocd Industrial Park a primary orientation to- _ . ~ ~vard rescarch and dcvelopment. - .' ~ •. 42 • . .. 2_23 Park occupants provide bicycle racks for their em- , ployees. ' _., , _ _ assessments, utility•extensions, and service. Utility systems-including gas, . ~n~ater, electricity, and sanitary sewer-are owned and operated by the ~ city of Palo Alto. .: ~ - ~ . The University must explicitly appro~~e any ad- ditions or material modifications of the exterior : design of buildings. Tenants must keep and main- tain neatly and in good repair all buildings, grounds, sidewalks, roads, and landscaped areas and are required to preaent the develooment of nuisances. Lessees may not remove earth or trees, eYCept by permission, or place any sign or adver- tisement on roofs, exterior walls, or grounds. - Observations Stanford Industrial Park has become one of the best known research-oriented industrial develop- . ments in the United States. Nevertheless, like nearly all other such developments, Stanford does not cater exclusively to research firms, but in fact -:.~ has a wide variety of tenants and operations. _ _~ ~~ . Despite the restrictions imposed-land cannot be , __. _ _ =: purchased by its occupants:-~and the ]ack of active :_solicitation~on the part.of the University, Stanford - . Industrial ~Park -has' attracted ;many =:desirable : - ` ` ~~ ~ ~> =- -~- - : :...~ , ~. =tenants.`None of the'tenants has required rail serv-,_;;:::' ~ ;":~ ice, ~ a not uncommon `circumstance~.~among opera ~ tions which ~do'not produce~high-bulk,-lo~v-value . , ; products ; ,,, .,. - ... =_ , :: ::.' _ ; :: Possibly, the most unique feature of the Stanford ,~ '~ Industrial Park is its sponsorship by an institution .~. of higher learning. The University has done a commendable job in creating a community asset which not only benefits financially the city of Palo ~ Alto, but through careful planning and rigid con- - trols also fits harmononiously into the existing land , . .:.. , ::.: ,..;. ,::: .:.<•: ~.. _ . . _~_ use pattern. -- :-. . . ~. . ; ~ ~.~.~~:~.: _'---~=~ - - - --= . - ._.._~..._...__._._.- ._ - ~ • ~ \ ~ \ \\ ~~ ; `\'~ ~~~f~ _.-- _.~;:, . -~~ \ \ \` \ \ \ \\ ~\ ,~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~----- - _ _ - --" -_ ~~ ~ .',~~~ ° ' ' Ir._.; ~ ~"'` '` ~`~ ''~ ~'-~=~ ~` o _ . . ~:~ ~~~ ~~,.~. : ~ _ :~ ~; v ~~~ : . .. '. ~ ~ - ~ ~ .~ -. . . . . . •== a ~i~~°+fi'.t~ .~ ~.7'~'r=a '~ ~ . . _ ~ ' . . _ . f ~, { ~' .,` .,~~ ~ ~- -~y"'-~~~I ` ! ~4~~5 ~+. ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~ , : ~2~iv.,;,`~' ~ ~ ~~ F~ p~ ~ r=' ` . . . .. . - _ i ~'=.°~~Ib"'~ .~~L~ ~ ~ a . . , :~. ;~.:~ ~~,yLk~~~~' s-' ' L~ = r.~ i~;~ iZr1 .. - . ~ . ~ - ~ _ . 'F~~ L ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ X~ ..' ~ . _ ~- - - STANFO R D INDUSTRIAL PARK 'F: ~ ~y' ~~ ~ {~ V~ • . , .. ~.r.'~ ~.'-~iLZ~ I~~'=~! . .. - ~. : _ ~ : .';'' _=}~r:=-'~'T;'°~ _ - . . i~al'i;'~~ _ --_~ ~ ~ '- ' '.=M-" i .1 _ ~'.~'. T~ _ . - ~ -~~~r-~rr-,,r-~r-s-.r-r--r 2'24 Stantord Industrial Park site pIan. Thc adjacent Stanford Univcrsity c~mpus Is situated to the north and west of the industrial park. (Thc SE corner of thc pagc.) - • " " ' "` = " - ~ ' . ~ 43 _ 9 , S _..'.c _ _'7y?', i7~.~ v:`?Z'~+R ~i".y t'i'=~:t:' ~=~T'_~'a"7. '~Y^ ~ ... -~ - ~2.~...c._Y1] Z_....'1.1' - ''~ J+.::~4 i:i s ~~. r.~ ,,~.~_ n~'Y~:-~cD.y~ ~..y... zr~r~T` ~"F' ~. ti l'; • • nary investment in options, plannino, enoirieerinb, marl:et analysis, and the application for rezoning. Tl~us. an industrial parl: dcveloper is not prepared to fix rioid lot lines at this sta~e, as is customary in a residential subdivisian. Some sites for future lar~e plants, or for laroe sinole-tenant buildinos, must be custom shaped and cannot be achieved by combinino small preplanned lots on a standard gridiron site plan. ' h•Iore flexibility, therefore, needs to be introduced ~~ into industrial park zoning requirements. Changes in the development plans which do not violate ~ ~ basic standards should not require further public hearings once zoning is granted. These changes can .. be revie~ved administratively. The developer, ho~v- ~ ever, should understand the qualities and charac- teristics of his land so thoroughly that he is able to present alternative deveIopment plans any one of ivhich ~vould result in an industrial park equal ~ to the basic objectives and spirit of the commu- nity's zoning ordinance. The second difficulty relates to provision and utiIization of open spaces. Rather than having den- sity and open space requirements ~vhich focus uoon ±~:e amcc~;~; 4_f 1_and which cannot be devel- ooed, built upon, or paved, the empnasis should be pIaced upon the utility of the open space. Ivfost indus;rial park zoning standards require large yards, sometimes 200 to 300 feet ~vide at the periohery of an industrial park if it is contiguous to a residential area. Front yard setbacks of 100 feet are not uncommon. The result of these overly tion bf a 9z-faot hi;h sce~1 sculpture ~vhich has bc- . come a landmark on the Bay. ~ Another land-saving ooportunity ~vhich ~vill re- ~ quire a space credit adjustment in the Industri~l Park Zone te~ct is the shiEt af off-street parkin~ for employees and visitors from parkino lots to rooE parking, under-building parking, parking garaocs. or shared narkinQ. ' The low structural density requirement often set in industrial park zones-ZS percent to 35 percent -coverage, in large part is an allo~vance for the ~ land area re uired for employee arkin . It must be -~ ~. kept in mind, however, at roof and covered park- . ing is a function oE land cost and only very expen- ~ sive land can justify the added cost for this kind of .: restrictive zoning requirements is the division of open space into small separate parcels. The ex- parking. The zoning ordinance requirements for off-street parking are very important protections provided to the comoany which decides to locate in an industrial park. An important extra benefit for moving to a pIanned industrial park is to get a~vay from the traEic congestion caused by on- street parkino in the older industrial areas. It takes more land area to park an employee's car than it does to pro~zde and service his or her ~vork space in the plant (including the proportion- ate share of floor space of services within the plant, such as of"nce area, clinic, and caieteria). ~Vhen land can be saved by providing parkino under or over an office or indus:rial building, or in a multi- story garage, the,zoning ordinance shouId c:edit the industrial park developer or the industrial oc- cupant with the area aE saved land, permittino some of it to be used for plant expansion, and some for a true open space nse such as active or passive change of some of this excess yard area for one or recreation. _ ~more large open space areas could provide recrea ._ : ~:m = -. ~ ~_° tion area for all occupants of _the park to enjoy : .: Planned Multiple Use Zones ~ f; k~: s, ~ ~";=:If the.industrial park site has a unique topographic PUD, Town Sector and New To~vn `~'': "° ~~: ~ feature'or enjoys an outstandino scenic view, this , :.:-The industrial park deveIoper is seekino flexibiIity ~ ;• open space can ~be shared with the public which ~ . ~~n land use controls part~cularly~for ~` ~ pleasing com ~ would result in a more aesthetically :~ -~~~. :: :~-- ~ ~' ' munity asset than deeper or wider individual yards ' increase iqsite coverage _ ;: .:»,;, : + :~ An example of this approach is Cabot, Cabot and ` mix of land uses, such as~commercial and office -. ~. - . ~-`+~. Forbes' South San Francisco Industrial Park, which ~ buildings with manufacturing and ~varehouse ~-= ~ ~ provides t~vo types of shared open space. Adapting - facilities in the same park; and, :.~, .: ._~ ::_- _. ~ ~ the site la yout to a hill y. terrain, three graded earth- ` ' some elasticity in development and subdivision . en banks extend through the park, planted to planning, without pre-commitment to exact ~ screen back yards and rail spurs from vie~v of acreage to be rezoned for industriai or com- ~ adjacent industries. ~ mercial, and to deIay precise complete sub- This is probably the first industrial park to pre- division Iayout untiI a major client lease or sale ser~•e land at the hi;h point oE the site and to en- is settied. _ - . , able the public to visit and enjoy magnificent vistas This flexibility is being achieved in some oE the . oF San Francisco Bay. The hilltop is also the loca- new multiple-use zoning distric:s ~ti•hich z:? usua?ly - _. . g'g ~ • February 21,1984 City of Dublin Planning Department P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Attention: Laurence L. Tong Reference: Draft EIR for Dublin General Plan Dear Larry: I have.reviewed the City of Dublin General Plan Policies and Techn~ical Support and have the following comments: - I presently own the property located at 7475 Starward Drive where I also operate my buisness and lease office space to other buisnesses. The Dublin General Plan for the Primary Planning Area shows approximately one-half of may property being designated as medium-high density residential which is a change from the current zoning of the property. Per our discussion Larry, you informed me that this was a mistake and that the entire property would fall under the General Plan designation of Retail/Office. I would just like to make sure that the Final Draft of the General Plan is correc°:t before approval. The second issue I would like to bring up concerns traffic circulation in the neighborhood of Starwood Urive. My buisness and the buisnesses along the back of the existing center across the street are fed by a residential street and it is only a matter of time before the 3.acre parcel to the west of ine develops a Office/Retail development and increases the amount of ~ommer.cial traffic on Starw ood Drlve. I would li=ke the City to consider:extending Starwood Drive to San Ramon Road thereby provi.ding 6ette.r traffic circulati:on for. the existing bui:snesses and f_uture. deve.lopment, By providing a traffic signal at the San Ramon-Starwood intersection and interconnecting this signal to tt~e San Ramon-Amador Valley signal and future San Ramon-Silvergate signal, traffic on San Ramon Road should not be greatly interupted. I feel that this Starwood extension will greatly 6enefi~t my 6uisness and fiufi.snesses s~urrounding me, ~ and I am planning to contact existi.ng 6lii:sness owners: to di~~cuss: th.is proposal, I w.olild aPPreci,ate. you look.ing into this matter and maki.ng sure that the Final Draft EZR addresses my proposal. If I can be of any assistance, please call. Sincerely / C,,~~2 V J , Tony Yerduzco. ~ , • . DUBLIN ~~ RAMON SERVICES~ISTRI T C FIRE DEPARTMENT HEAD~UARTERS STATION 9399 Fircrest Lane 7051 Dublin BOUI8V2fd Telephone: San Ramon, Ca~ifornia Dublin, California 94566 829-2333 February 21, 1984 Mr. Lauxence L. Tong, Director ~ -~ City.Planning Department City of Dublin .. P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong: The Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department has reviewed Volumes 1 and 2 of the City o£ Dublin General Plan as requested in .your letter of February 10, 1984. iVe have found these two documents to be quite complete and we feel they will be of great value in assisting us in the develop- ~° ment of overall fire protection plans and programs for the ~ City of Dublin. . We have found a few minor corrections which should be included in the final documents: on page 31, Volume l, the second line under Section 8.2.1, should be corrected to "a sworn staff of 38 and responding to 1250 calls per year"; in Volwne 2, page 4-25, Section 4.2.12, Fire Protection, the second line should show 38; the second paragraph, line 2, the improvement fee is $600 per dwelling unit as of February 7, 1984. iNe would like to be kept abreast of progress toward the adoption of ~he General Plan and will, at any time, be available to ans- wer questions ~and/or provide additional information~you may ~ desire. ~ .. .. . . Very truly,, Yours, / ~'~- ~j., , ~ Ph' ip A. Phillips~ Fire Chief PAP:cb R E C E I V E~ F~a z ~: ~9s4 DUBLIN PLANNifVG . • • ° ° . . D ~ .o D o ".' February 21, 1984 Mr. William Tenery Chair, Planning Commission City of Dublin P. O. Box 2340 Dublin, California 94568 . ~ . Dear Chairman Tenery and Members of the Planning Commission: ~ The Bay Area Council represents 300 major businesses, some of which are relocati.ng to the Tri-Valley. The number-one issue facing our memliers is the shortage of affordable housing. We appreciate having this opportunity to co~ent on the Dublin Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In our view, the draft plan and DEIR represent thoughtful analysis but do not adequately address the City's need for housing. . Our organization encourages local public action to increase the supply of housing in the region. We are particularly concerned by the situation in the Tri-Valley where economic growth is outpacing planned residential development. The employment growth projected in the Dublin Draft General Plan will exacerbate the shortage of housing within the City unless it is accompanied by appropriate residential development. . . Given this situation, Dublin officials have a responsibility to take advantage of all opportunities for housing. Land supply constraints within current City bound- aries necessitate looking to lands which are likely to become part of the City in the future, specifically those in the extended planning area. Our detailed recom- meridations for this area are attached. ~ We urge the Planning Commission to.recommend that the Draft General Plan be re- vised to reflect the City's commitment to housing by designating lands~in tne extended planning area for residential use. We further recommend that the•DEIR - be revised to reflect th'is change. Thank you for considering our position.'~ ~ . - (~._ - ! cc: Du:olin City Council ; Laurence Tong .Tohn Blavnev The Bay Area Council, established in 1945, is a business-sponsored organizationinvolved in policy analysis and advocacy onregion-wide issues such as economic development, housing, transportation, infra- structure,land use, environmental qualiry and job training. ' Sincerely, . Bradle J Inman . ' Vice r ident ~ EXECUiNE COMMfTTEE CHrVR~fAN CORNELL C. MAfER Chairman of the Board & CEO KaLcer Aluminum & Chemical Corpomtion SAMUELH.ARMACOST Presfdent & CEO Bank oi Ameriw, NT & SA MYRON DU BAIN President & CEO Am(ac.lnc. _ PEIER E HAAS Chairman of the Board Levi Strauss & Co. JAMES R. HARVEY Chairtnan, President & CEO Transamerica Corporation LAWRFIVCE U. HUDSON Plant Manager Gerber Products Company GEORGE M. KELLFR Chairman of the Board & CEO Standard Oil Company ~ o( Cali(omia JOHN F. KILMARTIN Chairman & CEO Menyn's CHARLES A. LYNCH Chairman & CEO Saga Corpomtion RICfiARD B. MADDEN Chairtnan o( the Board & CEO Podalch Corpomfion FREDERICK W. MIEIXE. JR Chairman ol the Board &~CEO Paci(ic Gas and ~Electnc Company P. MfiHONY RIDDER President~Publaher San Jose Mercury News STAFF PRESIDENi' ANGELO J. SIRACUSA VECE PRESIDEM BRADLEV J. INMAN VICE PRESIDE/YT COMMUNICATIONS BRIGfITE STEWNG PFOJECT DIRECTOR MEREDRN G. MICHAEIS Poucr,arUV..vsr [~ipTINEW STEINIF THE BAYAREA COUNCIL, INC. 348 WORLD TRADE CENTER ' SAN FRANCiSCO 94111 ~~ (415) 981-6405 RECOMMENDRTIONS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTFNDED,pI,ANNING AREA , Bay Area Council recommendations for Dublin's extended planning area are based on our analysis of projected employment vis-a-vis projected : ~ - •: housing units as proposed in the Draft General Plan. ~ Factors . , . ~: ~ °: ~'' t:;~~'; , .contributing~to our.conclusions.include: -sub-regional:trends; trans-" .~ ;~portation imgacts; mix of~housing types (single-family and multi-family); ~ - and housing affordability. The following discussion'covers technical=. ,t;;q:. ., analysis of information in the Draft General Plan (D.G.P.) , as well '~°-_' , as practical_implications of the Draft proposal. _:While the recommenda- ''% ~ tions focus on the extended planning area, the discussion necessaril.y ~ involves the primary planning area in arriving at an overall picture of the Dublin community. _ °. Technical Anal sis of Bay Area Council Proposal and Draft GeneraZ Plan The following table depicts the differences in the two proposals regarding existing and projected employment and housing units in the primary and extended planning areas. 'F~cist=ng Primary Jobs Housing . ~ Projected Primary Jobs Housing ~ .~~~ . _ - .. - - Projected Extended f Jobs/Housing BAC D.G.P. 8,207a _6~,OOOa 4,428 4,428 4,500b 2,400b .. ' - 4,452 3,700~ - 23,760d . 21;,000 ~ . . . 9,828d , ~..:1,900e : . . . : . } , ~s , ,,~ . 36,467 ,~~. > 29,400 :.,... 18,708 10,028 .76 .50 . THE BAYAREA COUNCIL, INC. 348 WORLD Tf~ADE CENTER SAN FRANCISCO 941:3 ~. l=j= i~81-G`~t)~ . C~ J • aThe difference between these figures results from BAC use of ABAG number vs. D.G.P. estimate. bThe difference between these figures results from Bissell & Karn analysis of potential on vacant/underdeveloped land citywide vs: D.G.P. estimate. ~ • ~The difference reflects BAC recommendation for a slightly higher ~ density on 79 acre parcel east of Dougherty hills. dThe difference between these figures and those presented earlier by BAC result from recalculation by-Bissell & Karn. eThe difference between this figure and the one found in the D.G.P. -~- resluts from removing the projected residential development on the -lands south of I-580 which are not inlcuded in the LAFCO-approved sphere of influence. . ~ _ f"Jobs/Housing".refers to the number of housing units available for employed residents. Ideally, a community should strive for.a one-to-one ratio; thus the closer a community is to 1.0, tne more balanced the community. The.:terni is arrived at by dividing.the number of jobs by 1.48, which is the average number of employees per household within the Tri-Valley. This figure reflects the number of households formed as a result of employment or "employed residents". The number of housing units is then divided by the number of employed residents. In a balanced community, there would be a housing unit availabl,e for every household. An imbalance less than 1.0 means there are workers commuting into the city. Sub-Regional Trends ... As noted in the D..G.P., the Tri-Valley is..becoming a major employment center.~ Housing development is not, however, keeping pace with job ~ generation, indica ting that the sub-region will likely.be an in-commuter of workers. Al1 communities share the responsibility.of acco~nodating the housing needs accompanying this tremendous job growth. While a one-to-one ratio: of jobs to housing may not ever be achieved,'it'y • is good planning to aspire to this goal. In fact, California State:; ' • Planning Law mandates that localities zone sufficient vacant land for residential use in relation to non-residential uses and growth ;~'~ projections. ~ • ` - ;~ . . The D.~G.P. contains some progressive policies concerning housing` . - needs. Dublin officials must realize, however, that the City of . Dublin also contributes to the esnployment base in the sub-region. Under the scenario proposed in the D.G.P., the employment in the extended planning area far exceeds the City's plan to house the workers and their families. This, in turn, pushes the responsiblity to provide housing onto other communities within the sub-regian or, more likely, to communities in eastern Contra Costa, southern Alameda,~or Santa Clara counties. ~ While the land use designations recommended by BAC will not result in a one-to-one jobs/housing ratio, they approach that goal significantiy. - 2 - • 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 wduld 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 traffic impacts noted in the document. The provision of housing near employment centers has long been recog- nized as efficient land use planning. On the other hand, ignoring . this practice often results in considerable transportation problems, ~ " including congestion, long-commute times,~and air pollution. The ~'~ ~~ -= . 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. ~ . . .•Land Availa.bility ~ . . . - . . _,_ :,..,,,~.~....__ . _ . If the City of Dublin intends to provide housing to meet current and ~ future needs of a11.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 remain within the city limits. Thus, the City must look at the opportunity existing beyond its ~ current boundaries. This oppor~unity is.clearly the lands north of I-580, extending eastward to Croak Road, recently approved by LAFCO as Dublin's sphere of influence. biix of Hous ing Type The guiding policy noted above (D.G.P. section 6.3) also states that the City's goal is to provide housing of varied types,-sizes, and prices. Discussion concerning housing type points out that the current mix. of housing is 91~ single=family and 9~ multi-family. Accounting.for planned housing units, the mix changes to 76$ single-family and 24$ ' multi-family. , Under the proposed D.G.P., the mix of housing~type would be 81$ single-.~~•- . - ~ family and 19o multi-family. The BAC proposal would produce a mi.x `. . -. of 64$ single-family and 36o multi-family. ~ " . . . . , . . ' . . ' . • ' ~ . ' - . , . ~ , y ~ ~ I . . Having a mix of housing types enables residents to choose a home "~ . ~= ~ ~ commensurate with family size, lifestyle, and income.: 'A variety of ~~~~'~:°'``,~="`=~ ~ housing types meets the needs of young families desiring ~to purchase ~~°•' ~~'-;'.==`~:~ • their first home; renters not yet.able or not wanting to purchase a home; seniors who prefer less space; working couples.who like the '. low_maintenance of condominium living; and growing and prospering families wishing to trade-up.. - 3 - ~ • Affordabili The bottom line of all arguments in support of housing is that a sufficient supply of a variety of housing types tends to keep home prices down. Land uses as proposed in the D.G.P. would increase the price of homes by limiting the supply while increasing the demand through employment growth. Further, a preponderence of single-family homes at low to medium densities.shuts out housing opportunities for residents unable to afford such homes. Placing more homes on an acre lowers the unit costs of production and thus the price of the homes.~ Homes can be smaller and rental ~ .. housing becomes a possibility. Also,-tYie.quality_design`and construc- -' . ~ ~ -~_tion practices available today allows homes built at higher=densities~='. •~ ... to be attactive,'well-built, and complemented by open space.',-, ~ '~-. ~ - The lands east of Tassajera Road are relatively flat,~•increasing ~ ~ . . the likelihood of affordable homes. "Topographical•constraints found ~ - in other areas add to the costs of production, particularly to the costs of providing infrastructure such as water and sewer. ~ D.G.P. policy limits residential development in the extended planning area to that which will have utilities and public services "provided , at urban standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and -- businesses" (section 2.1.4). Without adequate numbers of housing units in this area, it is unlikely that infrastructure costs will permit the production~of affordable homes. - Cor,ununity Vitality ' Good land use planning requires a sensitivity to the quality of life ~ desired by residents. It is unlikely that Dublin residents desire traffic congestion and air pollution resulting from an increase - -in commuter traffic. It is desireable, however, to plan for a community '~ in which people can both live and work, thus enhancing.conmmunity spirit. '~ It is important to have a community in which the young people want to and are able to remain_ For this to happen, there must be employment oppqrtunities and affordable housing. The extended planni.ng: area has-~~';~~: ~==~ -- ~ the potential to become a viable and vital micro-communitykwithin the ~•- City,of Dublin. With sufficient.residents, this'area,could support •-• . - ~neighborhood commercial activity and municipal-services",'"such~as . ~.= ' . , public safety and parks and zecreation. ; Given :,the 'location, °.~retail ` ' . businesses could also serve.the employment centers"and.~freeway,travelers:~:~•~ .. - .~ . r,-, - - ; . ..; ,;: . _ • ;.. ' The_Bay Area Council believes it is in the best interest of the ~~ '- ~ ';citizeris of~Aublin to plan for appropriate residential development `-in~the extended planning area. , - 4 - Dublin General Plan~ . _ . ~ ~ .. . ~~ ,. ``'t r~~ ~i . .~ ~ ' ' ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~~ o ~~~~~~ ' ~,~, ar . . V"A FREEWAY' ~r ~~. r Z x .~a ~~ o ~ ,, ~ ~ ' ~^~ ~. ~ z~~~~~;n , ~ . -. - s ~~t? a: µ~.ii j'~ ' . . . . ~; '~ . i ~~~~ ~:~: ~ .~~' \ ~ , . ~ ~~~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~.;~ p ~ 3 . f. ~ ~ •~~., , ' . . , a :: tar.~.:, cr.:i Mv~:~~ -r-~ ~ I~ ~ . ' ~~~~ ' ~u ~ ~ tvY~ ~~w~v~ iaaa .. r. a . ~ TiMwnp M~ y g.i.x'~ O~'~, ~ 3 \Q o,~ ~ ' ~. P a.~w. w. ~.n.eaw~.. o.M.. ~~ c~ " F ~ ~'~ S:``'r;::`~''s . z ' :. • . ~!'~,a„~8i~ fi ~ ~ ~..:_ ~ ji~~~~~~~~~ ~F~~~~~/ a~{j~ ~e ~~: ~ ' _ < s '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~4K .. ~ ~~ ~ ~j , ~. ` ~~ ~ i, . > ~N S ~, ~ . . ~`X~:: - . . ,~ . ' , ~~ . . . ~ ~~, • . . ~J:; . . . ~ ~ . O .t . T ~~ ~ . I ~: t ~- ~~k :S~ . . ~ ~ _ . . .. . ~ ~ . , 0 ti,;,'r ~, y Mh ~ __ ` 1 . . ~ , . j' . L '~' ~ , . .. , ' . ~ . . ' . ~ . . . ; T}~ - ~~ ~ ' ~ ..~: { ~ , . ' - , F _."a ~,+<.+_ ~ . .:,. ;. . . . ~• ~7 ~ ,;: ~ _ Exiended Planning Area ~ Rural Residenqal ' ~ . ~, ~::' Single Family Residentlal . ti, l, ' 9uslness Park/Industrtal: Low Coverege w ~;. ,, : Buslness Perk/Industrial ~_ . , , ~ PUbUC Lend4 . . , , . ~ ~ ~~~ $~~ ' ' J , ~ . . . ' . i . ~ ~ High-medium Fesidential ~ Low-medium Residential DlnynoyDyotl,UrDan and Rogional Plannors ,• . • ~ .. . . . ~ ~ PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ~~'~'~~~ ~'~" 3551 ARDEN ROAD • HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 •(415) 887•0449 R. C. KISBEY DIST0.ICT MANAGER . February 23, 1984 Mr: Laurence L. Tong ~ Planning Director ~ City of Dublin P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 , Re: Draft EIR for Dublin General Plan Dear Mr. Tong: ~ Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Dublin General Plan. We have looked at the various aspects of the EIR and have no additional comments at this time. We would appreciate a copy of the Final General Plan when it is completed and approved by the City. ' _ ~ " ~ Sincerely, - ~' i~~ °-~~`"``,s..v . • M. Carotenuto ~ District Marketing Supervisor ~ MC:11 ~ ~ :RECEIVEf~ ~ FEB 23 i984 , DUBLIN PLANNING ;k . , ~ • • '~~. u. v~ ~ i BAY AREA AIR C~UALITY t~/IANAGE1401ENT DISTRICT i ~of Mt March 1, 1984 ALAMEDA COUNTY Joseph P. Bort Fred F. Cooper ~. N. "Judge" Landis (Chairperson) FrankH.Ogawa Laurence L. Tong CONTRA COSTA COUNTY P 1 an n i ng D i re ctor Thomas J. Corcoran C 1 t~/ of D ub 1 i n (Secretary) Sunne Wright McPeak P, Q. BOX 2340 MARIN COUNTY DUb ~ 111~ CA 94568 . : - --. AI Aramburu - , r,o,PACOUr,rr Dear Mr. Tong: ` - Harold I. Moskowite _ SANFRANCISCOCOUN7Y ~. ~1e hdVe received copies of the City of Dublin General Plan and Har G. Britt ~ ca~o~`~~chs~~~e~ '~` .the Technical Supplement and Draft Environmental Impact Report. SAN MATEO COUNTY GusJ.Nicolopulos We believe that the City of Dublin ~and its consultants should be K.JacquelineSpeier COtlgl"dtU~dted f01" including air quality in the Conservation SANTACLARACOUNTY Element/Environmental Resources Management Section. The action seems Rod Diridon (Vice Chairperson) part i cu 1 ar 1y appropr i ate f or a newly i ncorporated ci ty i n an area t a Ralph P. Doetsch, Sr. RobertaH.Hughan is sensitive to exceedance of air quality _standar s. Susanne Wilson so~a,NOCOUNrY The Te~hnical supplement and the DEIR rightly point out that it JohnF.Cunningham____ 1S difficult for any one city to control air pollution problems, -JSONOMACOUNTY especially when they emanate principally from motor vehic.le~ traffic. Helen B. Rudee Stl ~ ~ th21"2 are measures that can be taken to assure that the local contribution to pollution is minimized. Locally initiated transporta- tion system management measure,s, along with continuing local pressure to implement regional transportation improvements, would seem critical to Dublin, given its location at the crossroads of major corridors in a rapidly developing subregion. In fact;~the threat of exceeding carbon monoxide standards is not adequately handled in the documents. Our projections, based on Caltrans monitoring data, indicate that carbon monoxide background levels are, ~ ~ and wi11 remain, relatively high near the intersection of I-580 and ;:.°~; .... ~ I-680. Eight-hour average background levels have~been.recorded as high - as 8 ppm in 1981 at Rampart Drive, and are projected?;to, be 6.6 ppm ,,in .~,: . ~ ~ ~.1987.~ .Thus moderate levels of locally added carbon ~monoxide °could ~ ~ ~ • elevate the total concentrations above the 9 ppm standard :~` ~ ° ' ' -~. ~It might be beneficial to Dublin~if a thorough'search were made ~ of the various transportation projection studies and resultant air quality estimates for the Tri-Valley area. If the threat of carbon monoxide exceedances is not adequately mitigated by the measures already in the Dublin Plan, we recommend that additional measures be formulated. These should 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 andozoneproblems. RECEIVED; MAR 5 19$4 ~ DUBLIN PLAidNiNG 939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 •(415) 771-6000 • .. . Mr. Tong -2- March 1, 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 Irwin Mussen, the Senior Planner in our office. -- Sincerely, _.--. i~~~~~ Milton Feldstein Air Pollution Control Officer MF:ey Enclosure cc: A. Geraghty, ARB S. 0'Hare, MTC i, ~ ~ BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANA6EMENT DISTRICT .~: ~` PLANNING DIVISION - ~ LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUIDE TO PROJECT MITIGATION AND OTHER IMPROVEMENT ~ MEASURES FOR AIR QUALITY ._ i I. GENERAL COMMENTS II. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION TABLE ONE AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES BY TYPE QF PROJECT TABLE TWO PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES BY AIR QUALITY PROBLEM SITUATION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE CATEGORIES Land Use Policies Physical Facilities ~ Transportation-Related Management Actions Siting/Design Requirements III. NON PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES INTRODUCTION TABLE THREE NON-PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPRQVEMENT MEASURES BY LOCAL PLANNING FUNCTION DESCRIPTION~OF NON-PROJECT IMPROVEMENT MEASURES ° . General.Plans . Development Ordinances - Area P1ans and Programs ~ Transportation Programs . -- ~ REFERENCES APPENDIX ,. • ~ BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANA6EMENT DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUIDE TO PROJECT MITIGATION AND OTHER IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR AIR QUALITY __ ~ ~<.f I. GENERAL COMMENTS ~ Th4i s document i s i ntended as a gu i de for 1 ocal government pl anners and , other. local officials in the San Francisco,Bay Area. ;:~.It concerns_the actions _ :.that cit.ies and counties can take both to mitigate air:~quality impacts of `-~.development projects they approve,~and_to improve air quality through_non- - project.local actions. In preparing this guide,~ the District reviewed a number of sources including local, regional, state ~and federal government .._publ ications. (Some.of these are cited below under References. )~=;Since the - ~ guide.i.s directed toward Bay Area local officials, ~~the Distr;ict has tried to :.select measures of greatest applicability and potentialfor.this user group. . ' - ~ , :..~ , . ."~ With few exceptions, the me~asures liste~d and descri~bed below .serve-to ~~mitigate or_: avoid air pol lution from' motor .~vehicles ~;rather;:than .from - industrial ~sources., (Emissions- from~- stationary_~sources;~~~'including industrial process are controlled directly through :the BAAQMD permit, .;inspection and enforcement procedure.) - These suggested:measures.are•not : technological~.in nature; they are related,to land use and transportation planning, regulation and management. Their purpose is to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and pollutant emissions per vehicle mile; and ~ thereby to reduce the emission of automobile-related air pollutants on both a regional and localized basis. The principal automotive pollutants ~of concern are carbon monoxide (CO), reactive-hydrocarbons.(HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), the latter two of which combine in the presence of._sunlight and high temperature to form.photochemical oxidant ~(smog). v; K -, . . . .: ~ { _ .. .. .. _ . The ability of a locality to implement these measures stems in`,1ar'ge part from its regulatory powers over private land use,. but can also involve projects or programs undertaken directly by the local government itself. Where a local action is discretionary in nature (e.g. a zoning change or ~ ~ conditiorral use), the necessity for mitigation measures can be based on the required environmental impact analysis and documentation. - . .. The purpose of this guide is to recommend air quality=re~l+ated actions ~ ~~ deemed appropriate in various situations, not to specify the precise form in which these actions should be framed by cities and counties: Local planners and municipal attorneys will have to determine the availability and feasibility of specific legal tools in each jurisdiction. However, the authors believe most if not all of the measures described here are within the realm of serious consideration by local governments. . • . . •. II. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES FOR AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION It should be noted at the outset that wherever possible, air quality _: quantitative analysis should precede consideration of mitigation measures. ; Such analysis can be done using the District's Guidelines or ~another =f suitable methodology. Furthermore, the mitigation measures themselves ~ should be subjected to quantitative analysis where this is~feasible. LL(See the U.S. Dept. of Transportation and Ventura County documents cited under REFERf NCES for attempts to quantify mitigation measures--in a generalized .. fashion. ) _. - _ _ ~ , _.. i;:; ~ :~ . _ ~.. ~, .: ~ . .= - The recormnendat i ons i n th i s sect i on are contai ned i n~two Tab 1 es and an ~:~explanatory text which follows the Tables. ~ ~ ~-~ - ~-, ~:.;= _~.. ~ TABLE ONE sets forth the main types of development project (across the top of the page) and the categories of mitigation.measures (down the left hand side). These categories are grouped under four. headings: Land Use Policies; Physical Facilities; Transportation-Related Management Actions; and Siting/Design Requirements. By reading down each column, one can find the mitigation categories most appropriate for each type of project: Local planners can then evaluate these categories in detail for their suitability in a particular case, and can formulate specific. mitigation measures within each category. TABLE TWO relates the same mitigation categories to the three broad_ . problem situations for which mitigation should be considered; these situations are defined at the bottom of the Table. By reading down the three columns, one can find the mitigation categories relevant to each air quality problem situation. By using Tables One and Two in conjunction, the planner can determine not only which kinds of mitigations to consider for a given type of project, but also how each kind of mitigation helps to alleviate a particular air pollution problem situation. The TEXT following the Tables contains a short description of each mitigation cate ory and its importance from an air quality standpoint,~ together with ~in many cases) some specific mitigation measures for corisideration; Bay Area examples are cited for some specific measures.: Users of tfie Tables should not take them as ~conclusive judgments of a measure's applicability or lack thereof in a particular case. The "x-marks" indicate those applications considered most likely by the authors, but other uses of the mitigation categories are possible. 3 ~ ~ ~, ,:"~1ixed Use" u, • ~.. ~' Alternate ~ o •Land Use a N Orientation = to.Transit 0 Z J Special Use Conditions Bicycle and ,,, :Pedestrian ~ Facilities. f- ~ ; Landscaping U Q `` Transit Improve- ~ m?rts ~r~d " Amenities ~ ~ ~ , a Street Improve- ~ ments 'Ridesharing z Incentives ao w ~-• a ~ Traffic Flow ~ ~ Improvement ~z ~ ~ Alternative a ~ Work Schedule ~ Q ~- Z ~ Transit Incentives • Site Plan ... .... . ~ Changes ~ Building N Redesign W 0 z Parking ~ Redesign ... `~' Buffer Stri p TABLE ONE AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES BY TYPE OF PROJECT LOW-DENSITY HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL 5 ~ i DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE CATEGORIES. LAND USE POLICIES "Mixed Use". A large residential, commercial or office project may be deemed to generate excessive and unnecessary trips and vehicle miles traveled _,(VMT) if the residents, shoppers of employees have little alternative to use -= : of- the automobile for their daily functions. Due to the "cold start" =:s: phenomenon of vehicle pollution, a major objective for such a project should be to eliminate auto trips, not just shorten them.* Modification of the project to include a mixture of uses, together with proper site design, can - reduce private vehicle trips.in f avor of~walking,.bicycling, or local ~shuttle. _ . ~ ; , .. . , ~. . ,., . . _ ~ Specific mitigation measures.include: ~ , .. . ~ . 4.~.. - . ~ .. o Neighborhood shopping and other day-to-day personal serviceswithin a residential project, wi.thout additional parkingfor such service uses. ~ ~,_~ o Major.open space and recreational facilities within aYresidential ' . ` _ project. . . ~ , ~ ~ ..~.~: , ~ . - ~ o Provision of employee services withi.n. walking ~distance of ~ ~ employment, including banking, child care,"eating~and similar . ~ , facilities. . . _ ~ . :n Alternate Land Use. Where a proposed project would cause aviolation of air ~ quality standards or emit noxious odors or toxic emissions;.or would include sensitive receiptors likely to be exposed to excessive pol,lution -- and where other mitigation measures are not feasible or sufficient--the locality can seek to substitute an alternate land use which would avoid.the air quality problem. Recent Bay Area examples of potentially incompatible projects include several housing developments proposed near industrial waste dumps, wastewater treatment plants, and other such industrial uses (contact the BAAQMD Planning Division for additional details.) `~ ~Orientation to Transit. A~large~ project located~.near;`major transit_. faci 1 ities shou d be expected to support and enhance the transit option. To this end, the locality could require the developer to build to~an appropriate density (not too low); to furnish land for transit support facilities; or to ~. ~ design the project for mazimum transit access by foot or bicycle. ~An example ~~.. is the Larkspur Landing development, near the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal in :: . : - .,,- ... , *Most vehicle emissionsf rom cold-start trips occur during engine warm-up and the f i rst mi 1 e of travel ; there are al so substanti al "hot soak" hydrocarbon emissions after trip completion. Thus trip length is becoming arelatively smaller factor in total trip emissions. (See chart in Appendix~6.) 7 . . . . . a~ ; . . • ~ o Enforcement of street design standards, including landscapedstrips between sidewalk and street, night lighting, safe islands in the center of major arterials, automatic or pedestrian-activated "Walk" signals, and adequate "Walk" times. o In new subdivisions and planned developments, safe pedestrian walkways providing direct links between streets and to major _ destinations such as bus stops, schools, parks, and shopping =- centers. ~ _: . ~ o In center city`redevelopment projects, emphasis on pedestrial circulation as well as limitations on automobile circulation. . 'Landscaping: For residential and other sensitive receptor projects in high pollution areas, the locality can require special attention to the provision and design of~'landscaping.~ Vegetation can be effective in removing particulates and reducing oxidant levels near the point of receptor impact. (Landscaping is not effective in providing relief from high carbon monoxide levels.) Since the South Bay area has both high particulate background and high oxidant levels, that area is especially appropriate for selective heavy landscaping treatment. Transit Improvements and Amenities. Projects generating substantial auto trips and VMT in a non-attainment area could be required to provide or to finance physical facilities and equipment in support of transit ridership. - Expensive transit improvements can be reasonably required only in very large projects, such as a major redevelopment efforts. On the other hand, transit "amenities", while often low in cost and relatively easy to provide, are extremely important for increasing transitusage. Insome cases, off-street parking requirements in local ordinances can be lowered in conjunction with the provision of transit improvements/amenities. Spec.ific mitigation measures include: o Employer-sponsored subscription buses ("club buses") tosupplement or substitute for public transit service. ~(United Airlines, PG&E)_ o Provision of shuttle bus service from an employment center to main transit lines'(Oakland's "Pill Hill", Alta Bates Hospital), or during lunch hours to provide employees with access to shopping and restaurants. . o Required minibus, jitney or other para-transit service within a major subdivision, "New Town" development, university campus or other ~large institution, or between several business/plant locations of the same employer. ~ ~ o Improvement and possible relocation of an existing transit stop or station to serve both new and existing surrounding development. 9 ~ ~ o Provision of fuel on-site to car and van pool vehicles, with possible priority allocation during fuel shortages. (ROLM in Santa Clara) o Employer corr~nitment to promote ridesharing. through various educational and training media (could also include promotion of transit, bicycling and walking to work.) This commitment and the preceding measures will be most effective if a definite trip- _. reduction target is set, a plan to reduce single-occupant vehicle - travel is developed and approved by the locality, and a full- or .~~ part-time transportation coordinator is designated by the ~ employer.- . . . Traffic Flow Improvement. Where auto traffic resulting from a project is projected to cause a violation of the carbon monoxide standard or other.air .- qual ity problem, the effects may be mitigated through the use of techniques to ~ , smooth and speed traffic flow, resulting in reduced emissions. While these actions are generally carried out by the local public works department, the _ developer may be assessed ~ro rata for their cost (which should usually be low . compared to capital-intensive construction such as a majorstreet widening.) The projected effectiveness of these measures should be based on a CO analysis, in which the likelihood and extent of additional "induced" traffic should be evaluated. ' - ~ Specific mitigation measures include: - _ --~. " ~o Provision of demand-responsive traffic signals, with signal splits and phase lengths automatically adjusted to traffic demand on a _ real-time basis. - ~ o Intersection re-channelization.. o Minor intersection reconstruction to eliminate jogs and offsets which produce signal timing problems. . o Correction of minor physical deficiencies of existing roads, such as ` ~ inadequate lane widths, surfaces, drainage, etc. ~°-: ~ _ o Provision of left and right turn bays at key intersections. o Prohibition of on-street parking on selected streets affected by , , project traffic. Alternative Work Schedule.~~ Where project size and other_specified local criteria are met, staggered work hours, compressed work week or other alternative scheduling device can be considered as a mitigation measure. This kind of ineasure is especially appropriate where corrmute hours are. congested and transit is overcrowded. Flexibility in starting and quitting times results in stretching out the commute period, thereby alleviating congestion, increasing vehicle speeds an reducing emissions. However,care should be taken to avoid too much individual flexibility, which can make 11 ~ ~ thereby reduce pollutant emissions; redesign of building relationships to help disperse poll~tants; relocation of sensitive receptors to avoid harmful exposure to pollutants; or redesign for imp'roved transit access, bicycle or pedestrian use. ~ Specific mitigation measures include: - o Design of new developments to promote the use of public transit, e.g. -~r:; streets with bus turnouts, avoidance of long cul-de-sacs, streets =.s. of sufficient strength to handle buses. o Placement of new commercial establishments to front directly on the sidewalk with parking in the rear, for easier transit and pedestrian access. - - o Design with variation in building~set-backs and heights to generate air turbulence which, in turn, disperses CO and other pollutants (may require wind-tunnel tests of models). Building Redesign. May be required because of pollutant emissions from a project structure, e.g. a garage exhaust vent near housing units; because of potential exposure of sensitive receptors within the project to excessive pollution, e.g. housing units located next to a major roadway; or for other air quality-related reasons. Redesign may relate to: location and layout of housing units (both horizontally and vertically) within a building; location of exhaust vents and air intakes; ventilation and air conditioning systems; outer wall construction and openings; etc. Parkinq Redesign. Layout, entrances and exits of parking facilities may need redesign to avoid violations of air quality standards, especially for uses with concentrated traffic patterns such as parking garages, major employers, shopping centers, amusement and sports facilities. Specific mitigation measures include: o Require design of parking structures to provide adequate off-street storage for entering vehicles (to minimize on-street congestion) and to avoid internal back-up and idling of vehicles. o Require design of parking f acilities so they can be converted to other uses if values and habits change in the future. o Reduce number of off-street parking spaces provided (should be combined with mandatory measures to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage through improved transit, ridesharing or otherwise.) Buffer Strip. This is a special case of a site plan change. It may be applied either to an industrial project near housing or other sensitive receptors, or to a residentialproject adjoining aheavily traveled road. In either case, the objective is to leave an open buffer strip between the 13 ~ ~ III NON-PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES INTRODUCTION. The recommendations in this Sec,tion are contained in one Table and an - ; explanatory text. .: ~ . ;~ - TABLE THREE shows the four major divisions of air quality improvement .measures (across the top) and on the left hand side indicates the major local planning functions• pertinent to air quality improvement.-;;; _~~ ~-~. :~~ •~.-- ~. __ . - ~ . . . ' , - .~ ~ _ .. General Plans includes the preparation of~a :new~~or revised Ge~eral Plan for the community, either:in complete form or comprising one or more mandatory or optional "Elements" under • state 1aw. -- . , ~. Development Ordinances includes zoning, subdivision,and other _ -.:~local "police power" ordinances (or ordinance amendments) used , _-~ to control physical development ~in .the-:interests of .public _- - .- health, safety and welfare. Such ordinances ,often ,implement ~ particular General Plan policies. - _ ~ F~~ -,_-._ . -: ~ .. . ~ ~ .~_:. - Area Plans & Pro rams includes comprehensive,~. and fairly ~._ etailed development plans covering a limited section of the corr~nunity, e.g. a primarily residential neighborhood,~ a _, downtown area, or a balanced "New Community". -Such plans may , ~have formal status under state • law :.as~~Specific Plans ~or .- Redevelopment Plans; or they may be intended to provide .less ,. formal guidance_to developers and public agencies:_.-. : ~ ~ .. ~ . ~ . ~~ . . ' .. . ' . .. ~ . .~ .. . -.. ~ ":j~ .'.i.6`~=i : . J _ ~ Transportation Programs includes~ a_=variety~~of pol~icies, f acilities, actions and requirements which can be undertaken or =,.. ~ ~: supported by local governments. The scope of these programs may ~ _ ~- either be community-wide in scope or confined;to one or more • 1: neighborhoods or sub-areas. ~. . ,_., ~~,~~~ x •- - -. .. . . . ~ . . ~ • ~ : _ . . - ~ , . ~ w ~~:~_ ~Yt rw." ~ _ _.. ~£ i. ... " . :- . Table Three may most usefully be read in a~horizont~al:direction,~to determine which kinds of .air quality improvement~measures~,are' most ~. appropriate when a locality is doing a General Plan~"revision;~;for_:,example. - ~ . 4:y .. ~. . . . ' ' ' ~ . ~t .1j.~'t 1R-J•a s+ Cl.y'M. ,. ~~~ • . The TEXT fol lowing Table Three contains a short description of_each air quality improvement measure or category of ineasures•and~its significance. - Bay Area and other.examples are in some cases cited°.for.-:informational purposes. Note that in certain instances what appears to be a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance change, local area program, annexation or other "non-project" action is real ly for practical purposes a specific development 15 F ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF NON-PROJECT IMPROVEMENT MEASURES. GENERAL PLANS i LAND USE POLICIES . :; - . : 6rowth rate limitations: An effective ~local air quality strategy could involve a General Plan policy to limit the rate of growth _in the locality. This would bring about a generally proportionate decrease in the number of mobile sources, emissions of auto-related pollutants, and ambient concentrations of localized pollutants. Napa and Livermore are examples of cities where growth rate limits have been utilized:"~ For~local planning within the context of regional air quality planning, an appropriate objective • would be to stay within the population~and employment fiigures used.as;;the -•basis for the 1982 Air_Quality Plan update.-- _-. ~.- ; .- }...~ ~~. Jobs-Housin balance: To reduce automobile-generated air pollut~ion in the community as a who e, the General P1an should relate jobs and housing in terms of numbers and types of jobs vis-a-vis housing units;,appropriate to workers.`'The need for.this is underscored for:..example_~in northern Santa ~ Clara County, where there is a scarcity of.housing-in;relation to employment (in the Livermore Valley the situation is reversed).~ _For;specific sub- area~, jobs-housing balance could mean controlling the location as well as "the intensity and nature of jobs and housing ~in order=to minimize vehicle trips and VMT, and maximize transit usage, bicycling- and walking.,•For ~ example, plan poTicies can f avor the location of relatively high-density -; housing near employment centers, with housing units,appropriate_to the : workers in those centers. , - ~-ti a--- ~ - ~ ~° • . Compactii nf i 11 devel opment :;.The ~ General ... Pl an~~r ~~shoul d;?-promote . concentrated residential, commercial and industrial centers,:close-in;and ~~ contiguous to urban core areas.-.- Infill of underdeveloped and bypassed areas ~ should be encouraged; scattered .and leapfrog;.development_s hould; be -%:discouraged. An urban limit line can reinfiorce _these~~policies.--:On a regional basis, adoption of a compact development.strategy,could__reduce emissions 11% by the year 2000. - ~ " , . . - ~ . . ~~ . ~ .:.~ z,~.;: ..a,4. : .,: •i r .. . :.Sonoma County and Santa Clara County have adopted.a;form,-ofocompact/infill ~~ policy in their General Plans. A caveat here_is the poss.ibility of.,localized congestion and adverse air pollution impact ~as a-;~result.,of„ policies to concentrate development; :;this.. question deserves ,;analysis_.:andj may;,itself • require a mitigation strategy. ~ , , , _ , ,. . , :.T, a r .~ ~ c, .. , .- Land use-transit coordination: Plan policies~should promote~optimal relationship of trip origins and destinations (i.e. land~nses) to transit routes and stations, in terms of proximity, density of development and means of access. Examples would be policies favoring high-density housing as wel l 18 ~ . 7RANSPORTATION-RELATED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Parking policies: At the General Plan level, parking policies can address the extent to which parking "demand° should be accommodated in private developments, especially where adequate transit service exists in the area. Provision of over-abundant parking can counteract policies to ,..t.minimize auto use. Parking policies can also deal with the location of -; parking facilities.~in relation to high-density activity centers, e.g. ,~-~- downtown San Francisco. Parking policies for . joint ~.use of ^ parking f acilities and other more detailed matters may also._be adopted. ;,;_~, ..Transit service policies: Even where the local government=is'not. , itself . a transit provider, its `General. Plan 'should ;~if. possible~ ~contain -- transit.service policies which can influence the ``responsible-transit ~ agencies. Among the questions which can be addressed are'the provision of service to planned high-intensity land uses, criteria for the establishment of routes in terms,of maximum distance from homes and businesses, desirable frequencies of service, and coordination between local and regional transit 1 ~; ~ .. . ... .. .,_ .... _ .,. systems - . _ - ~ . ~ . , , . - ~ ' s.,,~ ~r, • "i:i s....'. . '. ,. ~ fi:~. ... - ., _ .... .. . ~._._._. _.. .,_.~ :;... ,.,..... ' ' ~ . ~ . . ' _ ., ~ .... .. ' . r. .. .- .. ... '- . ' -... ... ~. . ' .. _ . ., . : . SITIN6/DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ~ ' ` _` ° ' " ^~ {, . . . ~ F . .,. . .. .. . . .. _~.$1 4. , t _. i.t - ' +~Sensitive ~receptor location policy: :`Sensitivef`receptors~are~those f acilities most likely ta be used by the elderly;~~:children;~,the infirm, or persons .with particular. sensitivity to air pollutants."--The~°category ;ncludes hospitals, nursing ..and convalescent homes,`~~schools,~' parks, playgrounds, senior citizens' housing and family-oriented`housing:~-~The . principal policy_concerns are to minimize the.:localized impact,of carbon monoxide and lead from highway traffic; and to avoid or~`minimize the impact of industrial sources on.potential nearby receptors:: Adverse`~industrial impacts may relate not only to the so-called criteria poll,utants;~=(those_for which standards have been established) but also to nuisances and hazards such as odors and toxic emissions which may occur during'regular~oper~ations or during upset/breakdown conditions. . _ _ ~ ~y . F ,i ^d ~_ .~~. . . .. _ . . - .,~ ~ J . '~, Buffer area~ policy: The buffer area approach complements sensitive ~; receptor Tocati,on~policy by focusing on the physicalrareas separating.such receptorsfrom pollution sources.. Buffers are mapped or otherwisespat~ally defined strips or large areas, specified either in advance,of~~devel.opment or -in response to a development proposal. ,'Being kept,free`of `develFopment, ,these . buffers al low for dispersion of gaseous and part.icul_ate emis`sions before they reach sensitive receptors~or inhabited areas:~: Examples:~'are~~a~buffer'_strip along a highway and a buffer area surrounding~~an ~industri~al project:'~•~~SThe General Plan can include criteria for the depth.and size of buffers, especially for highways. For instance a 100-200 foot~separation between road and receptor could have a significant effect on CO levels at the.latter. However, decisions on the specifics of industrial buffer areas often require a case-by-case or, at least, type-by-type approach. - --~. ,- 20 i ~ • . their local subdivision ordinances for bicycle pathways, pedestrian ways and transit-related facilities to promote redueed auto usage. Bicycle storage requirements: Under the police power authority to impose development conditions, localities may adopt an ordinance requiring major developments to provide safe and convenient bicycle storage f acilities for corrpnuters and others who choose to use bicycle transportation in lieu of -: automobi les. The extent of such faci 1 ities could be related to the amount of •~:`~ L required off-street parking for autos. Palo Alto has ~adopted a zoning --s regulation of this kind. , - _~ -- .. ~ - - _ . , ~ ,~;.- , ,l _ , . . . _TRANSPORTATION-RELATED MANAGEMENT ~ACTIONS .,t.., , ,_ ; M~~_,,~ _ ,., - :ti.~,3.s , . _ _ . .. : . . _ . . .. . : . .. .. , . , - ~: ~ t, :::.. ,. . ~. , .. ., . ,-_ „ . . .: : _ ~„~. . t..~, ~-•~ ._ ,. w ~ r ~,. ~., ~ _,... , . ~.ParkingMregulations :Off-street,parking regulations can be adopted ~- ~. as part of the zoning ordinance or as a separate ordinance: :~ In.speci.fying the required amounts of off-street parking for private and public:developments, _ ' the locality should attempt to reduce these amounts.where,nearby transit ~ - service is availabTe and adequate. Other areas where park.in=g policies for .: air qual ity improvement . can ~ be .implemented .. through ~.lo'calt~-regulations inc.lude: . the location of parking lots and garages;, joint'use"of; parking facilities; ~regulation of parking rates to discourage.ve}i,icle~usage;`>and ~.restriction of -on-street parking at_congested:'locat_ions.:;and~;during,peak traffic hours. ~ San Francisco with its C-3 zoning regul~ations~:is a notable example of the implementation of parking policies. Sacramento andPortland, Oregon have made significant efforts to use parking as an air quality tool. .. '~ry__ ~ Street closinq_ ordinance Such ordinances~~can b~e used to.implement changes.,in vehicular and pedestrian circulation to.improve~_localized.air =-quality (and to: achieve other: goals of.the community):~', For._example, a downtown auto-free zone or pedestrian mall often requires_street;closings to ~.-become effective. Traf,fic diverters can channel traffic-=and pollutants-- away from some .streets, : though caution is .required. .lest~i.traff.ic .and. air quality conditions deteriorate too much on the streets~:to which'.~autos:are diverted. This subject is closely governed by state-`law,:whicti should be consulted. . ~. ~ "Ridesharing" ordinance: This~ is a~~new type of ordinance adopted by some localities. ~The ordinance can require assurance:from developers and .. employers of ineasures to promote and support ridesharing (car~and.van_pools) and reduce vehicle travel, e.g. provision of information~and `services; ._ _, assignment ~ of a transportation coordinator; , preferentia.l ;;parki.ng ~,for _:- rideshare vehicles; sponsorship and support ~of a_van sy'stem;`;an~d~,~so:on.~.;:yThe . ordinance should provide for:the setting af:a trip.-reduction'~target:and ~ should require each affected developer or employer,to prepare. a plan show~ng . , ~ how the ridesharing program will.be implemented; ,this~planFwould~then be reviewed and accepted by the' local ity. , . ,;; ~ f _,~ _ ;s: ,,~ ~ ~ Criteria should be~ spelled out ~for: _.~.when fsuch~Ymeasures~ ~wi*11 be required; which measures will, be required under what circumstanCes; what 22 ~ ~ Mixed land uses: The mixed use concept involves "complementary" uses, and the more specific the level of planning the better one can judge just how complementary--i.e. traffic-reducing-=the proposed uses will in fact be. An area plan is intermediate in specificity between a General_Plan and a • project plan. Therefore, the description and mapping of mixed-u"se areas in an area plan should go beyond the policy level to specify the uses involved in terms of building type, density range etc. On the other hand, an area plan _.would probably not contain a precise site plan, exact densities, price/rent ~--:: levels and other such details usually found in a project plan. .~ ~ Phased development: In rapidly growing -areas ~-=of -the -cort~nu~nity, phasing of :development can be an important consideration_in minimizing ~: ,pollution.~-;,For,example, devel.opment can be staged to:match the capacity of ~ ar .• :~ the road network at any given:time.:.~--In.this way vehicul:ar;congestion--and . -: excessive pollutant emissions produced by congestion--can.be`reduced.~:y5uch an approach has been taken in the Evergreen area of San Jose. :_The ability to phase an area plan for air quality purposes.deperids in part..~on how.the plan wilT be implemented. _~ Where a single agency_or developer;;controls the land, : as in the case of a Redevelopment Plan:and some Specif.ic,Plan.s;~_there.is a ~ greater abi 1 ity to phase development successful ly. , - w .~i ;,.~; ; ..s ,~ _ , - - :.. ,. .. ~ _: _ , r .., . . . . _ , . _ . ~. .. . •- - _ .. ~ . _. .,.. ,~ _ . _ , .. ,. . ....v. .~_~.' s~: _ w. , ~ . - _ ~. : r . . . . .. , , . :3 . _ ~~~r+~:. _ - . . _ ~s ~ :~. PHYSICAL FA~CILITIES . ~..... .. r .-. :. ~. _~ .~ _,~ ~. -x . .. ,t , S~ecial transit systems: .. As part of an area plan, :.special transit fae~ilities such as shuttle bus, ;paratransit or °a ."people-mover". may be m .. included. ,Such ~ a. system could .~serve .,local circulation needs,~within a - downtown or other concentrated area, or could be supplemental to the regional transit system, e.g. a shuttle bus to BART.:_,In a very large.project:the developer rather than the public could be expected'to.provide_the special : _ transit system. An example of a special transit facility;is;the`UC shuttle to . the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. . - - ~:,~;:_ , _- _ . .. . . . _ . . . ., ,- . : Area b~ikeway pl~an: "At.i~-the area~~~_planning~ .l.evel,~~bicyclei~~planning should be specific as to the location and characteristics of the system. ;• ~Key --destinations should be connected, ~there .should be,~cle~ar.,rlinkages .to .the community-wide system, and if,possible, implementation;'should be provided. through developer commitment, Redevelopment funding or'other~means:" Also, at the detailed level of bicycle planning it should be noted that separ_ated _ bike paths are not always financially or physically feasible,.~~~:~'.However, care - must be exercised to avoid placing a bike path next to aYfreeway or heavily - . traveled ~arterial for_,a substantial_. distance,-a,(in,;;the ~~absence :of,.an _ , .. . , ~.<.: intervening ~ buffer strip) `s.ince .exposure~ to ~:high,4 carbon ~3,monoxide . concentrations reduces the blood's ability to carry oxyge'n_at;~the same,time that exerci se i s i ncreas i ng the body' s..~_oxygen _demand ;_~ },~.: 3.: t,`,. _.. Pedestri a~n mal l:± A mal l i s~~sometimes, proposed for.~the ~downtown retai l core. By closing or partially closing) one or more streets,~~auto traffic is reduced or eliminated in a particular area, and thus exposure of shoppers and other pedestriarrs to high pollution levels {carbon monoxide) is minimized. 24 • ~ ~ TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS LAND USE POLICIES - ~ Transit-land use coordination: Just as land use planning should be coordinated with existing and planned transit facilities, so the provision of - r transit should be closely linked to the location and trip-generating `~:-;. character.of local land uses. This principle,~'fundamental to transit ~~ planning, is basically a matter of matching supply of transit to demand and maximizing the efficiency of the transit system.~ Local government policies should provide for keeping transit agencies fully informed of current land use data and anticipated future developments;' in order to serve ai.r.,quality as ._.. well as .other.community goals. `.~~ ~ ^ ' ``` ° ~. ~ . t .. - -y .. . ~~ ' . , ~ . ~ .. , - ., '- F •_ . PHYSICAL FACILITIES ~` ~ "° ~ ' ~ _ Transit extensions: Local governments, unless they own and manage the local transit system, have no direct responsibility.for.extending~transit services and facilities. Where they do run their own system (e.g. San Francisco Muni,.Santa Clara County).they are directly involved in transit ~ planning as well as necessary funding for_.new extensions:_.~..In other cases, ~ such as A.C. Transit and Golden Gate Bridge District service`areas, the~local ~_,government role, though limited, can be useful in encouraging and persuading '`~ transit agencies to consider transit extensions based on land use studies and .. , ~. ~1.~nc.„ ~ - . _ ... . - . . . ... . - ~ Transit amenities: This term is used to signify auxiliary passenger ~facil~ities which assist and encourage transit usage:~~ Examples include ,~ passenger staging areas, waiting . shelters,~"~=`"benches;~~'~windscreens, . _ landscaping, telephones, drinking fountains etc. Such facilities are ':.relatively low in cost.and easy to provide, but .important:for._increasing the ,~.~attractiveness "of -transit to the public and ~thereby=reducing ~vehicular ' pol lution. ~~; Many of,these ~amenities can be provided either by public agencies (transit 'agencies~:or local governments) =.or by 'private developers and employers--often as project mitigation_measures ~'~~ '~ ° ' ~y , ~ ~~~ ~ F -~~ r~ ~~ ~ . . _ _ . , ._ . .. _ . _ ~,_. .~ . . ., . - ~`~~Bus%carpool~ lanesi The'idea behind an exclusive bus/carpool.~lan'e is , ~ to increase the average speed of multiple-occupancy vehicles ~and therefore ~: their relative attractiveness to thepublic."-=~By getting people out of.their , ` single-occupancy. cars; total ~trips,' VMT ~and emissions ~should be ;reduced.'::. ,. "` The planning and construction of a new bus/carpool lane is usually the:charge:, ~„ . .. .~'~~ of the state Dept. of Transportation (CALTRANS).`"~`However;~a~locality can be .. ~ `~ influential in supporting and speeding the completion of suchea proj~ect:T=" For example, Marin County has included amajor buslcarpool lane'extension as a key element of its General Plan update and has actively worked with CALTRANS to µr. implement the proposal. : ~ - . _ . `--w -- '-4' - - - 26 • • to reduce auto congestion. A local government program can encourage and facilitate coordinated action on flexible work hours by public and private employers generally or within a given area; e.g. a downtown or industrial park. While flexible hours can serve to enhance transit viability where transit is overcrowded during normal rush hours, in other situations such alternatives could adversely affect the scheduling and viability of the transit system. -_ - Each employer must evaluate the feasibility of a flexible scheduling. `~=; alternative with respect to its own internal operations and requirements. The concept is sometimes implemented in terms of a"window" of starting and quitting times, i.e. an employee can start work any time between 6 and 9 AM and leave work accordingly. (However, too much discretion given to_each individual employee can impair the feasibi lity of ridesharing efforts. )~The - compressed work week alternative (4 days, extended hours each day} reduces total work trips and VMT as well as congestion, and thus~has a beneficial regional as well as local air quality effect. This technique~has~~great potential effectiveness; according to a U.S. Dept._of Transportation study (cited under REFERENCES) it could~bring about a 6~`'overall emissions reduction if comprehensively implemented. ° ' ° ~ ~ -~~ ~~~ .- . . . _~..,,.,.,.<~... : . _.:,,. ... ~..- _ s _.. -~/ -"`~~ :::~~Pricinq actions:y-;-In some cases; local governments are in a position to control or at least to'influence pricing actions:`'°Transit~fares can be reduced (or even eliminated) in order to increase transit'usage:~-The "Shoppers Shuttle"~in some downtown areas is an example.,~Conversely, the ~ cost of off-street parking and the level of highway tolls can be raised in order to discourage automobile usage. While pricing actions are complex and multi-faceted, the air quality effects should be considered. _ -~ •.SITING/DESIGN REQUIREMENTS -". . . ,• , Excess condemnation: Where a street or highway is~to be built, an ~_ extra strip beside the roadway may be acquired for public purposes, provided °~"that -such taking.complies with legal requirements:,`. ,Public ~purposesTmay include passive and active recreation, visual improvement;`=noise abatement, and air quality enhancement, i.e. buffering adjacent land uses from excessive carbon monoxide and lead concentrations. Park-Presidio Boulevard in San Francisco illustrates the kind of development possible where mul~iple purposes are considered in highway planning. .(The concept of excess condemnation for a buffer zone can also be applied to a sewage treatment plant with regard to odor impacts.) -_ 28 ~. , ~ ~ APPENDIX A DUST CONTROL REQUIREMENTS -_; I. During clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: a. Water trucks or sprinkler systems to be used in sufficient quantities to prevent dust raised from leaving the site. b. The entire area of disturbed soil to be wet down, sufficient to _- create a crust, after each day's activities cease. II. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed: _ a. The entire area of disturbed soil is to be treated to prevent wind ~ pick up of the soil. This may be accomplished by: 1. Seeding and watering until grass cover is grown. 2. Spreading soil binders. 3. Wetting the area down, sufficient to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings as necessary to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. ~ 4. Other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control District. III. During Contruction: a. Water trucks or sprinkler systems to be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust raised from leaving the site. 1. As a mi nimum, this wi T1 include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 2. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. ~_ • b. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., should be paved assoon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. IV. Activation of Increased Dust Control Measures: The contract of builder shal l designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shal l be provided to the Air Pollution Control District. Source: Santa Barbara County Air Quality Attainment Plan, 1979. 30 .;~' , APPENDIX B .~:~,~:.;,,.. HYDROCARBON EMI~SION$ • 7 MII,E TRIP loo HOT SOAK CYCLE - ~ 90 , ` 1796 OF EMISSIONS O ... ~ ~ 80 . ~ ~ 7~ 0 1985 AUTO WITH ~ ~ 60 CATALYTIC CONVERTER , ° ~ Speed: 25 mph 50 • a ~ Temperature: 50° F x 40 ~ ,,... O COLD START CYCLE • . . . , y 30 60~ OF EMISSIONS IN ~ ro LESS THAN 1 MILE ~ ~ 20 . o~ u ~ ~ o~ 1 p _ . a . 0 0 1 2 3 , 4 ~ Miles #rom Ori~in So urcP: California Air~Resources Board .~tc.le+ i '. . i+lifornia ~ Me'morandurn To . Terry Roberts; Manager State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth St. Sacramento, CA 95814 From . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 4 Environmental Analysis.Br. Business and Transportation Agenry Date: M a, r c.h 2, 1 9 8 4 File : Ala-680-21 .0 ~ Ala-580-20.7/21.4. SCH #8401 1002 AL680011 Subject: DEIR - Dublin General Plan ( 2 Volumes) Vol. 1 - Plan Policies Vol. 2- Technical Supplement DEIR Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced documents and forwards the following comments: 1. Regarding Volume 1, page 17, Item 5..1 Zntroduction: Zncremental traffic demands on I-580 and T-680 and several of their interchanges will be caused by develop- ments in c.ommunities adjoining Dublin and developments in Dublin itself. Except for a reference to the re- financing of certain improvements to Dougherty Road (under 5.1.H., page 18), no mention of cost sharing for other potentially needed traffic mitigation measures was found. This introductory paragraph also states that "the free- way to freeway interchange wilT be rebuilt." A proj.ect, to rebuild the I-580/I-680 interchange is not in Caltrans" January 1984 Status of Projects, nor in.the 1983 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STZP). 2. Regarding Volume 1, °1983 and 2005 Dai~y Projected Traffic Volumes," following page.l: The map in this section shows traffic volume increments on the local arterial network, the lane requirements needed to mitigate their impacts, and propo.sed new or changed ramp configurations (e.g. on I-680 at Alcosta Boulevard interchange, north of Dublin Boulevard, and at the I-580 interchange}, It does not show the projected traffic demand volumes that these proposed facilit„~,es would mitigate. Also, no discussion of the financi~i:g=`;'.~---_.: ._,__ .._ mechanisms for such improvements is inc.luded. ~' ~:.. ', ~ ( `; ``' ~~_'_ __:.~j : ' .. ~.; ~;`; ~ ~: nn . . . ~ . ' L ~ J ~~I:~~y, . ' . ' ~ ' •t ~. . - . _ . ~ j'_ - ~ . - .:;:. • ~ ° ~ ~ 4;~::~~ ~ a.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~,~- ~ ~~~ ~ ,r :~, . ^~ ;~~~j ~ ~',~ {'j~ ~' " w.~ TED C. FAIRFIELD ~ Consulting Ciuil Engineer March 2, 1984 Mr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong: ~ . Subsequent to our February 13th meeting, concerning Dublin's proposed land _ use designations .in its Eastern Extended Planning Area, I wrote.to Mr. Ambrose to suggest some modifications to the proposed general plan text. My letter also advised the City that the Chang Su-0 Lin family has retained a ~ geotechnical firm..to review its properties in the Tassajara area, based upon their belief that_the geologic and topographic reasons which apparently underly the proposed open space designations in that area have in fact been overstated or misconstrued. That review has now been completed and is summarized in a report by Merrill & Seeley, Inc., entitled ."Geologic Evaluation of Development Potential and Draft General Plan Policy for Parts of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area -- Dublin, California." I think that your review of the report will cause you to agree that the Lins' initial concerns and concl.usions were well founded. We hope to be given the opportunity to present our r2quests and copies of this report to the Planning Commission at its March 5th public hearing. In ihe meantime, a copy of the report is attached for your own review, in hopes . that__ even this short period of advance review will prove mutually beneficial. If you develop any questions from your initial reading of the report, we would .appreciate a cal`l from you on Monday (either to Marc 'Seeley or myself), in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. We plan to bring sufficient copies of the report to the meeting to enable each commissioner to.have one. Thanks for your continuing cooperation and assistance. Very:truly yours, ~ ~ TED C. FAIRFIE rcF:cn ~ RfCEIV.Ep: Enc. cc: Jim Tong Iv1A~ ~ 198~ '" Marc Seeley DUBLIN PLANNING cc/w-enc: Richard Ambrose Mayor Peter Snyder P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. • Pleasanton, California 94566 •(415) 462-1455 . ~: ~~~ - c~_ . ~;~. - , ._ - ~. ~ ~' _ ~.,~~ 1 ;, ; # : , _. ~~~~"~~~~8$~~ ~4'°a'~~~¢90~'°~c"'P41~o~P~ ~OB'L'~~Y~~-90t'9 March 8, 1984 W.I.: 902-90-O1 Commissioners Alameda County ~ JOSEPN ? 90P.i VALANCE G~LL Contra Costa County ROBERT I. SCHRODER - Vice Cna~r STEVE W'tiR ~ Merin County ROBERTB.STOCKWELL Napa County WI~LIAM l. CHE`N Santa Clara County ROD DIRI.r,ON ROY 'c. LA`/E San Francisco - City and Counly DORIS W K~=.HN OUEMi IN L, KOPP - Chair Mr. Laurence Tong City of Dublin Planning Department P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Draft EIR for Dublin General Plan Dear Mr. Tong: This letter transmits MTC staff comments on the Draft EIR and General Plan. 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: Housing Units Jobs Jobs per Housing Un'it San Mateo County ~ ~aNE~-~=a Traffic, Scenario 2A 97,000 145,000 1.49 PFLEVGRcGGR10 Traffi~c, Scenario 26 119,000. 242,000 2.03 ABAG Projections '83 90,000 132,200 1.47 SolanoCounty Planned Jobs ~ 90,000 201 ,000 2.23 `NILLIAh1JEVKINS S°"°'"e`°~"`Y The implications of more jobs and less Fiousing than was assumed in 6ViLLIAM R. LUCIUS ~~ the traff i c secti on i n TJ KM' s Scenari o 2A~ shoul d be di scussed i n~ ASgo~~e~;a~o~ the traffic section, in terms of congestion on freeways and arteri- BayAreaGovernments als. Maintaining a jobs/housing balance should~~be listed as a F'rLPH C. BOLIN (neanS of mi ti gati ng traffi c congesti on. __ . S. F. Bay ConservaUOn and ' . ~ . - DevelopmentCammission 2~ The discuss~ion of the proposed BART Extension~to Dublin, on page EARLP.MIILS 2-23, does not indicate a time frame for imp~lementing BART service; 5~e~eB~~;^e8g, but, the analysis of traffic congestion assumes that by 2005, 5% Transportation and „a~,,~9A9e~~Y of peak peri od tri ps wi 11 'use BART. In vi ew of competi ti on wi thi n ~ at the the Bay Area for rail fund~s, and-the shortage of rail funds VACANCY state and national levels, the assumption that BART will be provid- U.S.Dept.otTransportation ing rail service to Dublin by 2005 may be optimistic. In order to ^nO6ERiE.UAYEP. present a"worst case analysis," the EIR should indicate the effect Execullve5tafl of not having a BART extension on local and~ regional roads. Executive Director ~4«.~":c~~o~H~:> 3) The Draft EIR lists BART, local bus, and the SP Transportation Cor- Depuly Executive Director - r~ dOY~ as mi ti gati on measures , but i ndi cates that those measures are not "wi thi n the i ndependent di screti on of the Ci ty of Dubl i n" ( see YJI~LI:~ti! r~_~~, . page 1 of the DEIR). This discussion of mitigations on pages 1 and 10 should be expanded to include the following: R E C E I Y E D I.~ jR ~~ i984 Hotel Claremont . Berkeley, California 94705 •(415) 849-3223 ~ DUBLIN PLANNING Page 2: Letter from G~evich to Tong, Draft EIR for l,lin... o include 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 ineasures 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- ate the use of benefit assessment districts around BART and LRT stations, develop- ment fees earmarked for transit, and other local revenue generating mechanisms-as. means of providing local funds for transit projects. Provision of such funding is within the "independent discretion" of the City, and would significantly im- prove the likelihood of transit being provided, MTC appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft EIR, and looks forward to receiv- ing a copy of the Final EIR. ~ Very truly yours, a~~ ~jL~~°`'~~ Jeff Georgevich, Environmental Review Officer JG:r cc: ABAG Clearinghouse Att. SUGGESTE~AM4~UTE ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM F~tdEW DEYELOPMENT '• AS A FUNCTION OF CUMULATIVE EMPrOYMENT Cumulative Employm ent A B C D (50-100) (560-200) (200-500) (5~U+) 1. Post transit 1. Preferentidl park- l. Carpool/Yanpool 1. Designate a information on in9 for carpools/ n~atching pro9rae~. Transporta- fares and sched- vsnpools. (R) tion Coordlna- ules in tentral tor position location(s).(T) with-in com- Pa nY • 2. Post inforniatton 2. Onsite ticket sales 2. Mnual survey of 2. Develop on carpool end for transit. (T) employee conmute plan for vanpool cost patterns.(1) access to reg- savings. (R) (R), (M) . ional transit ._ services.(3) I1), (M) 3. Participate in 3.~ Cortnxite altenatives 3. Mnual distribu- 3. Evaluate the . RIDES campaigns. information packet tion of informa- role of suDsi- (R) for ner+ employees. tion to all . die.s (trans~t. (R), (T) employees on ride- carpool, van- sharin9 possiDili- pool) in ~ ties and transit achievin9 i nfortnation. 1 ocal ri de- . sharing goals goals (2). (T), (R) 4. Participate in a 4. Transit amenities 4. Local incentives 4. Emergency local Transporta- (shelters, bus program-awards. Dacku for P tation CoorCinato r turnouts~ sider+alks, reco9nition. poss- carpool/van- Association. etc.).(T) ible suDsidies pool users etc. (2) 5. Bicycle storage, showers and lockers for bicyclists anC walkers/3o99ers. , 6. Eval uate ':. ` ~~~ ~ feasibility of -. :~ . . flex-ti~ae program. ~ FOOTNOTES: ~ . . :, , . ,. .- :,., .. . ' (1) To be processed by others and made available :. to cities, transit districts, ~nd ~idesharing agencies. ( 2) Program to De suDn+i tted for 1 ocal revi ew pri or to pro~ect approval ; amount of :: subsidies. if any, to be determined prior to local approral. (3~ For residential developarents. shuttles to re gional transit should be considered. ., ~gencies that can provl4e re~a~or assistmnce: (?) • Transit district, (R)=RIDES or local ridesharl~g agency. (M)^~1'TC. _:_ The chart is progressive; Column B includes all items listed-;i-n Column A, etc. . ~ . -24- \ ~ _~~ :_~~ , , ~ ~ , ~ e - C-P F ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INVESTMENT CORPORATION INVESTMENT PROPERTIES & REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT March 9, 1984 Mr. William Tenery,.Chairman ~_ -Dublin Planning Commission " ° j ~ ~ ' ~ ~~3~,~~s;. ,. _ ~ 6500 Dublin Blvd. ` - ~ ~i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~A 1 -'{ : .` + a~ r~ ,~ .-~~` y ~~, y.r w,~~z, ' Dublin; CA .'~94568 ~ ' ~ `' ~` ~ °``~'~ ~ , ' ; ,'. , ,,r ~ ~ ' '. =..: `~ , ~ RE ; General Plan for _ ~3 ,• , , G ~ ; ~ ~~ "~ : ; > Cit of Dublin ; + y ~ '~ ~ ~''` '4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~~ . :~~ 3 '.~ ~:~~ !.- ,~.~ ~ " ..~~ ,~j 'S C ~' 31~ y.:. ro kr ~ : ~iY9.*~ .'Fe t-0~ 4f~~ ` .. ~ .~~ ..•Dear~~Mr. Teneryc ~. . i ~ ^~-• r , . ~ . . ~ . :.. . .. ,, _ ,,, . : . :`,.. I'm writing pursuant to your request at last Tuesday's Planning Co~ssiont: .~ ,_~ - meeting wherein you .'',asked for input 'on the~ new Dublin General Plan ;.from the ; ~.- ~~_citizens and aiso :the affected landowners.' ~ ~. ' ~ : ... . ° ~ .~ ,~ - e: . , `I'm -one~ of several :owners of the 153 :acre:parcel (Fallonr:Investors). known ,.'..~ : . .- ~~ ~as APN: 99B-3036=1~and I represent the owner/option:holder of..the 159 acres :_ - (Jordon Property) directly North of the.Fallon Investors parcel known as~:: ~. . .. _,. , : APN: 99B-3036-7 and 99B-3036-8 (as shown on attached.Exhibit "A") .t:~ `` -~. . ..,, ~ > :.;= ,: ~ :. , . • _ : We feel that Dublin's~future will~be best'.served ~rith some~additional'~expansion ~ area for their industrial/business base. - Certainly a key ingredient_for this _ ~ -, ~.type of.growth is.:the.availability :of relatively level~land.,: Since.Dublin ;>. -. ,' ; '~~'cannot grow to the'South or to the North, that only.':leaves East or West.:and ..~. ' + .~,as you know,_the land West of Dublin is quite hilly:`.This.then leaves`the ~. . ~.;, land East of Dublin as it's prime industrial/business :growth area ,.;=.Many y; ._ ;... -~:~ _` corporations -,such. as San Ramon's new Chevron. and Pacific ~Bell facilities.,have ,: ,.. :~ their own security services which should put less:,strain"=on the City.'.s budget ::; ~3 ,; _ ~ ~ '~ ` to provi:de these types ,of. services~ to .those areas ;I believe `the'~lands. ~East ^.° _ -i of Tassajara and North of .I-580 offer~~even greater`sites for•such~`corporation n. '~ `~ headquarters with superior ingress `and ;egress and freeway_:;identity;which.~in :='. 3 :: ~ ,~ tz.me should ,become the ,source of pride for all of the ~City of ~Dublin ~~ ~,`', ~~ t. ::. . -. : , - • ..-', . .« .. .._-i . .. " , ` ~ .. ~` s ~,u'rs ..'. ~~y.« ~" ,t. -t r ., ' . , . .. _ _,. i: ; . . . ' . .~ .. _ . ,. ' , r.,_ .,^ We oppose.any residential designation within 3,500 to 4,j000tfeet~,Nor`th,~of ~ , - ~~ I-580 `and ~.would visualize some. clustering'yof residences ina~the;,valleys ~of the 1 ° ~• ` ~`upper foothills ~such , that the ~upper rldgelines would remainin~oT1 en space ~ ~~ `` . ~ ~ ~, ~.. ~„~ .. c _ .. a,~:. .~ i ,0. i n " i~T ra tw~-a,~ '1-n Y ., ~.~~: i.;i -'-'.: M. ~; ~..u ~ ..;~, . .. .' ~~-~...+ ~ . ;,' ` ~' .~_,~, W ~w?+.~ ~5 ,~; +itx'`h... -~ : ':~n . ;i ~~ ~_;. We '.appreciate ,your corisideration on this ~reques~t and will ~be ~available rat next~ ~. t ..r t• r ^~ ' ;~, ~~Tuesday's Planning Commission~meeting to field .questions;.from~any of youL~;~~ '~` ^~k; ,. - ,. . , . .,, .. ,:. ,f.. : - ...... ,:.... " ~. .: ,_ ... ~ , • r., _ -. , , f ~tr 4 ~., a'~.:4~' '~ '# ~.~. r~,y . : n •'r~'. .'}. T" ~~ '~ - ,~,_~ , .. . . . -. . .:: ,; . Thank You~ ~ `' w ~ . . , • , f + . , t ,= - , ~. `Sincerely, - ' , . ~ . , .FERRERI INVESTMENT CORP. .. " . . ~ ,- . John P..Ferreri,:'- President ' . .. JPF:lu ` : _ _ ~. . RECEIVED . .: . . _ . . _ . .. . -.. , . ., , _ . Enc. . . . . . - - =x ~ . : ~ cc: Mr. Richard Ambrose/City Manager , ` ` y : ~~~' MAR ~ i984. . , 7950 Dublir, Btvd., SuiTE .106, DubliN, CA 9456~3 ~ 41 5/828 401 1 f DUBLIN ,PLANNfNG ;,: , . ' - . ,4 < ~ dC.~ 4~. ` '.:~. ~ _ . -. . . . . - .. . . . . . . . . . . .. v ~,~.7' 1 ~. . . .~. , ... . . ..w ..~. 95t e. .. ~~ [ n ~ ~l~:f , f. ... . _. . „ " ' ' . 1: f ~ ~ ,~ ' , ~1 ,~~ : l. it ,,~~ :~ ~ `:;~ ':~ ~`,i u~~t: ~ ~'7 ' ~; ~ ^wl7t.; ~: ~c; f~.,''i H~,~ ~ ., i - t~y ' ~ ~~ts ~• ~~~,:•:~N•~t- ~ ~.+1~'.~~~~Y . ti:,." ..4`'>' +.`~,',ll'i : .r~ ; , ': k : ~~'~". ~ _ • • `` ~'_`~~_._~~~,_---. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' f ~- - ~+~ ; ~iarch 12, 1984 Dear Sirs; Une bumblebee is not life threatening nor too annoying. But multiplied tenfold or more, that's anotrer story. One person on a diet of beans, re.pugnant, but not over- ~;owering. Multiplied tenfold or u:ore, that too, is another _ story. One car is not too life threatening, it's buzzing annoying. But multiplied tenfold or more, again another story. One car's pollutant output, repugnant but not over- powering. Multiplied tenfold or more, tr.at again is another story. Intolerable and life trseatening. By increasing local traffic, with the'addition of out of area traffic in a general plan that is over zealous in it's housing density and placements. Densitys that are far, far too high and placements t~:at have no rhyme or reason, other than as stated a mix of housing. The environ- mental welfare and quality of life of Dublin and it's citizens will slowly but surely be strangled off. The projected traffic flows on nain city and residential streets will be intolerable. t~ condition aggravated by high densitys and environmentaly :~rong placeraents. The projected traffic flow on parts of Silvergate.Drivet' ' for instance, _a residential street, is for 8~Z cars .per ' minute. Cn Peppertree Road, 2 cars per minute. Not aiaay .'. other residential flow f igures were projected, but they..~ . -. would be equally high. West Dublin Blvd. is projected to have a traffic flow of 20}z cars per minute. We are talking bumper to bumper traffic on residential through' streets during the busy hours. ~ . RECE{VED I,~~R 16 i984 . ~ DUBLIN PLANNING • • . . riy concern, and I tk~ink the concern of all of us, is that by the densit,ys and placements outlined in the plan, we will make Dublin a city undesireable to live in._ That future renters and homebuyers alike will by-pass Dublin for a more desireable place. That existing residents and their children will have to do the same for their own environmental welfare. The proposed Barratt project with it's higl: density - de.sigh and placement is but another knot in the noose - strangling off the quality of life in Dublin. , , A concerned citizen, ` `~i~'-.~•~~:.~~: ~'~~~~~~"'`( - Charles E. i~iinshall, . 115~~ Ladera Court, Dublin, Ca., 94568, (415) 828-2384. . . ~ ~,: I S,C , CC - U" ("`' ~7 ~a, v~--6 . ~ i • ~~ - ~t~ ~P ~ ~ "STATE O} CA~IFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govcrnor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ~~ ~ CC =~C- ~ 1400 TENTH STREET • :•~,j~;,; • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 ''f_i.iA~~ March 13, 1984 Mr. Laurence L. Tong City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd., Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 - . , ~~ " . . S~J~~°..SCH# 84011002, Dublin General Plan Dear Mr. Tong: _ ~e 5tate Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft E~viroranental Im~ct Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review geriod is clos~d and the co~ ments o~ the i.ndividual agency(ies) is(are) attached. If you would like to discuss their cancerns and reccamnencaations, please contact the staff frcen the a~progriate agency(ies). When preg~ring the f inal EIR. you must include all ~nts and respons~es (CD~1 Gaidelines, Section 15132). The ~ertif ied EIR must be considered in the decision- making pro~ess for `he project. In addition- we wrge you to respond directly to the co:ncnenting agency(ies) by writing to then, including the State Clearinghouse nc~ber on all corresFondence. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitiga:ion of.sic~ificant . effects, the lead agency ~.st make written findings for , each significant. effect . and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for e,ach unmitigated significant effect (CDaA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093) .'. ' ' .. " . . . .. ~ ' . ._ . . ~~ ' . ... ~_ . .d r . ' ' If the project requires discretionary approval fram any state agency.~~:the.Notice or Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources. as we,ll ~as •with the -~ County Clerk. Please contact Price Walker at (916) 445-0613_if you,have any questions about the envirormental reviesa process. - _ .- ~ , .. Sincerely, . , . .:. . J John B. Ohanian Chief Deputy Director cc: R¢sources Agency R E C E I V E D a~t.achment 1:1:~;:R,1 f; 1~~4 . DUBLlN PiAFVNING r , S1TTy?F~~i~' ~~~JCiLl~i'i~~~r-~R ' , ~ i~~L~l~Ti~.i~ 1.~~~'~?:'~~ 1 1 ! r:'c°_.~ ~1dr^1P!T t~C`•i^S"1=•-: t!~iiZ~'.L~~: ~+~ '^;r~~e ir~c:r;;~aGi~A: `~]fl1ii: n.3:i:Jlrr `~~g-~:$a :- ,=.rt~ 1 t_~3..1 ~ ~ ~ ''s74 j_ ~~;:! t"J i S 3i} 3ii_?.:~r'~_ r?~- 'l:~_ . . ~~~ _ J^ .c_'r 3 ~tL_ '~~ _ T ' :- L. . t~ ~~ p ' ~r.~ ,t r :~ - ~ ~ • T.-• :i:,~t:7~1~_, d :... D`,~2.;I?,j~::~~?f)P~;'=' f=~~L~ri_t~+~ :~:- - - f~--i - -~ - li ..i~' i. 1 ~ _ _ ' ' . ~ T '!~j- 1.3,y 1~~~ ~~ ttl;ft'_ ~lti~ '~~T7t;ryur'-LLV' ~~ i:ifltl'_~ ~i~nnir'•j i~~ u~~1~i_^. ~ '~= ~ a.~dr¢» U~~? in' ~~~.~~=~are n~~3~ ay inc: I~!cfi~y more n~~.:~i.:t:~ an•~ ~n.r~~T^~tlf~;~ 1 csf±'~S ii: rnts~ ;:E'6J t=,~_.^,~f 3i P13i .. ti~ t1Z=~2 ~'i:~t. ~sir: CX~~:^.G~.~~ i l~nni;iq ~Y~3 1I! L~tID~.7.:1' ~?~'33rC~Si 5~~?{~r~ 1' '~ ~ i E=t7~~ ~? '=iii?e=!~ iti2- .'!11X~ 'iE::~3.ty ~'lc}1131?'~•.".S. . Hc5~Z~1: ri~ ~_ i n,_ ~. .. j . ~i:~ 3r~3 n~r~^ c}: th~ i~rL~L~~~<~ ~ubliri ~c_ru~ev3i'.~: _:;~~r•~i~?: -tfr ^~7L:,31n~ * - --t>>y,y;j %~ ~~ ?~ri _ !_ ~ iiPil =5 ~t c7i~C7r[.3~~ ~ alit~ ~ ""'- _ ' ift_7l„ j t; r, L J t..~ v u'- _ ~ iltJl~`~`~ r `rs''~.j~^I= ~.,~j:`_s i C:C?L~i~uaTt~i=ii~~.~ ~ :j±d [ t.F_'L' Lli~~~~ ~ c7f:.:.+ ~ _~..~.~1,/ - ~ ~ . t T'~ ~',-ZJy 'i ~ c~a±i:l*~~ =' t1~~_'ie:s r.i:1T:i 2~ Z+~~s1.C~~i~'•.=~ ~id3'? L? :`•'t . .+~;.~r-`m.2,=-= `~'- - - - ~ ~Y ~ : ~?ii rt~~~n£=`_: ~ 3dt=~ `_~ ~R~ rn _~T~*=:dL1:.:~ `1~ ri?~ ~tJ~~~=r~v -----~rr Tn !3F;'r' _ ~ m~~ f-y~' :iC:C=~: r'L~I~= _}"~~ ~.~ 1~i. E_3i: ~~~L~rLr= u L~vi~~"_'1=13i %;~``-~ --- ~Y- =--- - - ' - ' _ iJ.~~1j~} ~ d 1. }'~.,:~Ia` ~~ ~;.~ ~;'l'.Y~fi i4~.'~i~i:i.~ y..]~`{!_a~:l--~„+ t_~sL'~L..^'.1;ilt~ `_^`v~il.i i , ~ ~ .. ~ r , ; ~-~ ~r.3 ~-}r.~,~~ciai stLt:? I=2i~~^~;`~r ~rttt~ j3.3Y~3i :~LP.~'?~.=s 3~~_~ u_1~.~~3.=... , ~i?~~~CfiS. r ~yn, 7~ i,~• T~' T ~ Clt:~l~?IQL?'~:~itt ~ TFI ~+.i? . _ _~ ~y^7?~ T?;~+ t':iX-i~~I1C:t~.- - ~ S.:~fiL iji._ _L~_c~l ~,` ~ ~~ ~ ` ~ -~n± T11~,3 ~~~c3D~1?'::3::IO~ i2ii~~= r; 7.~.r.~.~ .'_~2~ ~+~1t..Ly ._.^c:21~}if=_~ il~ ~ Sc>,.._~'.~ . . s+ -- f Y.^1 [_1 c_i i~ {~J~.;~ ~IL~W iC,.}`i %~15111+~ ~Jr~~~i1C~1Y1ij ~i:tY3 ~..2 i i= t3.T1 .~"i=='it~ ~ t L_ c:> 4' ~~ _ ~ ~ •? ,-3 .~ 3~ r ~ ;a~y?~~~5_ i'~i_~~i1G:1P.~ L:t`l:~=L:i+j . is~~?<~=~ :~le};i::i:1'-3 .=C' T=;~=`-'C='~- Il`: ~ 7 c~li _ ~ ~ :.? ~ ~`~'.~..° C T~r?a a}=,':G? tL:ifi ~~1= ~u±rE:F`iF ;~ . ilt_ ~r ?Jti'.:; ~ lA 5 lOi~ t_t~tY'tuY ~ _ •.t -~`- ~ ;~ ~T ~.; , t~~ ~ .~ .;_..._=j~.t~d aiT pc:zit~t~or.. i,n, r~^.•~:t;~ ~=, =1=~ ~ y~- RECEIVED ~,4I~R 13 i984. DUBIIN PLANNING. ; s ~ ~ T2'1:~ t_l~I:~ri?; ::C)s~1tlc.il 3is~.Cit'3t3 t~73t` ~.~C Pl.itl:!'_t2'-i ~-r1~'~'~-'~:5aI0I1 ~=`JP.11cj~~ I'2~!t7ZT1.^.'y' r7C ^?3:^'~3tCC 31~r*? L?~=Z'1+=i.1'~Zl =?"'=?ii .=P~ ~-ii?F31 ti'`1~1%1 tc7 ._~1it~W ~r!?;C{~~-~1`i-:1Ct~iC.*_~ 'r.~~.~3r:3t :~-.L ~?f tCtii.(:~...t.i.i5 +~r?E~E~.G~S~ ~~tir ~d~~?~~ ^R ~Z141±JIi~~-I'ii31 ~~~C:P:7I1~58~ :Ti.:~r=2i3~1'~; ..=1sci3.L1~i =~ ,:~r.c; c?vY~`:~ l I ~,+s3 i i ~~ i1t =;_C: F}i'i3Jt=t_L, l~f :~34vi:.y tfic ~l3~:i~i: c;' ~O'T"1ZS~1QA utl~ E:i~_~ L=}'.::r'ii LG 35~fi5S ~1~'tl r3rC?i ~7r Z~:.F;~ Fi3~ It~ Cr-~ ~i3~.i~ti31 {:x3.~.r_iY~i3 ~ r3~i'~r.Y ~.tiail t:;i :c~ll:i i i f~~.ciy r31,Z ~1~D? ~eveiorm~rt r~ga~4l~~~ cf its ~;a?u~ ~a ~~ ~~~tinity ~rili: ~~ni~. - a~ai~icn~1 h~usir:g ~C? ~C ~131i~ i:I ~~~~~.Ifitti. fi._5~/ S~3[it_::~~.~.' .iiiLie2t1ii~~~ i~~ ~'-~?~ iOr ~rJ~t~rLldi ~=~'i,^_~5 iOr r~-ident5 1Z ~3~s''isf Zj,'•' e"'_.31~.~YII ~iann i;ic; ~: ~=;~ ~nci t}.r~ ~;'~rr.ti~ 1 ~t~r iaiYu i~~ i~~i~ti ~r~~~:n~ ~~~. .~iY{7~.`+~32t7. $t~.R'~' ~`3.'~..it7i_: ~~3P_ ~3i ~i2 ~1~~ ~CC~~~~.LT1Cf~eZt? eZ ~il~'.S~!` ~ i ? ~'~.^. `.~T {~"T';`T's ~ ;';~ F` ~ .C'.I:Y'^'Y,_::+~ ~~'1.?t. 3 ~=~2 ~ 3i ur?c~ iV1~s= '•7 ~•__,_ ~ t`~_~ ~$.; ~'_ ...<,~. : C3jC;ild`S~ Lt~ 3~C3 '...1' ~ ~e~?2u ~i.i~vG:~~:~n,~l.^.'~ ~..~ 'T'355d~~rt3 1:t~e?t-t_'?-t~??~E~ ~t.".'r~ ~?.~~~'~~ ~~'r ~F;~'1r~' '^:~,*,~-:tr`rC1~:. ;3:3~'. ~1:i? T=v=~~I~i~~^~ ~3i rJ°.~}%_tte~~ }. c-~y"... ~f_:T:i~~d'L ~~.3I: ~rO~''1j?~ z~ t+r.~- ~rs?~!:i5}1_°, c:~~[~YtiIY'al t~ ~~ 3: d~`G 171~ Cl ~~ ~ 5 ~1~~'~r? ~]3o0c~ O:1 r..!SITCr~Y 'Z~`' ~ r. - =^S~T~t~ !_'~~=~j_`3~'~..i~it ~= Clir 1R=~~.:~ ~Si~i CC?~IC:~`-Lli='. "a' :~, Ci=Z~2is= L"_~:e~il ='1~;1 i :%i :3 ~'•ti-t±'4=~ C:'--'I~S~I€.t711'LI '~:i:.~L-~'S fSl~ ~l~Pu.131 j ~_~L•~'ei~~~[J:i ~Ci 5=~'_i:~L.3~n?=i`~~1j ,3~Li~PSS L'•Ll.~?IIf~S i1~~?t~ ~:JZ i~7r~ ~is~~;~asY7~ 3A~ ~ CCS~~~~Z11YLE=rJlt~~::: :i~C~ ~y~ 1=E f f'l~~.~~s~Cl:.' gi~ ~Zlill_Tl~ trl.? ~1~1~ .L.Z~~.lt?YY' - , fl~ ~Si~ E'_'~.~~ :Lt~.~ T.~1~+~a~`liii'-~ ai¢na , . ~ ., . ' ~rm~•f~ r f r~; ~~ ±r• ~~`z -nw }.~ '\ T _ i. L:~i..~:~_~ ~.~.:iil ~'~a _ :i~ ~. f~~ 1.~....~ ~> i.a li1j~ i'~ i~Z?~~'~ B~L~ltt ~_~:c~, ~~T~F_`.~ =~rJ;i . : - ~ ~ ~ ;-( ~ e ~ - . ~ ~~n,vi. r~~~'~~l"~`~ ~' ~ 2~°-.h~e~G"~ P9 a -~ - ~c.. = P~ Valley Christian Center 11883 Dublin Boulevard • Dublin, California 94568 March.IS, 1984 Mr. William Tenery DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Va11ey Christian Center/ Dublin General P1an - Meetings 3/5/84,:3/13/84 Dear Mr. Tenery On March 5, I984 I attended the Planning Commission Public Hearing. I requested that Item I2 on Page 9 of the City of Dublin General Plan, Volume I PZan Policies be written in as follows: "use of land to include Senior Citizens, Residential, Religious Retreat Center, and Cemetery.". Mr. Blayney, the Planning Consultant was told to enter this in the docu- ments. I also asked if it would be zoned "public" or "semi-public." I did not receive an answer on this. On March 13, 1984 I aqain attended the Public Hearing. Mr. Blayney reviewed Page 9 of the General P1an Policies and described Item 12 as being.Senior Citizens and Residential, leaving out any reference to the Religious Retreat Center and Cemetery. , Due to all the commotion and confusion on that particular evening, I did not get a chance to clarifr~ these points at that meeting. Therefore, I would like to request again that you please enter the Religious Retreat.: Center and Cemetery with the Senior Citizen and Residential on Page 9,:'. Item 12 of the General Plan and state whether it is going to be zoned•~% ', public or aemi-public. Please send me a revised copy when these items .~ have been entered. . , . - ° -. f - . Thank you once again for your consideration and your time.'~~I commend you_ for your service to the City of Dublin. ., `". :. °-._ ~ Sincerely, VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER, INC. ~~~~~~ David Finzel Assistant to the Senior Pastor. DF/dg cc: Dr. Ward Tanneberg ~ f~-~C~Q~ ! i ' ~tECEfVEU ~ ~,ti',~ 1 ~; "i984 ~ DUBLIN PLANNING . March 16, 1984 Dear Sirs; I would like to put some suggestions before the Planning Commission and the City Council. ' As.cited in the general plan outlines, traffic is the - primary cause of noise and air pollution near its source and elsewhere. Medium-high density.will contribute more to that pollution through increased~traf:fic flows.,' '. Since "The objectives of the plan is to proteo.t the - environment of the residents and to respect.the privacy and scale of residential developemehts nearby.":and , "The guiding policy of the extended planning area is to favorably consider residential developement proposals of single family residential density on moderate slopes.", I suggest that the medium density classification on the Nielson property west of the ~ilvergate tract and north of the Briar Hill tract be re-classified to single family residential. I would also suggest that the Donlon School site be . re-c~assified all single family residence. The only way in or out.of these areas is on residential streets such as Silvergate Drive, Hansen Drive~ or their ; feeder streets. Traffic increased on these streets by,.,,;~, ..• - medium-density overpopulation would do great environmental - . harm to the residents .along those streets and 'elsewhere ~in, - . the same general area. , . ' As you we11 know,' the, consensus .;of . opinion~by ~:the ~~~;~~~~~ ,._:~ citizens of Aublin is that they would like to preserv~ their. '~D.U$L3N,. I~RITAGEf!; , The majority do not want Dublin to .be a jammed together, high density, small starter home community. Therefore, I would suggest since the Dublin City Council and the Planning Commission are representatives ~of~the ~.~_' ',..~. ~. Citizens of Dublin, the 8ouncil and commission yield to the desires and environmental needs of the people they ~ i . represent and not the developers, by re-classi~ing medium and high density classifications on the proposed general plan to single family residence classification except where the medium and high density is needed to bu£~er commercial areas. And those zones be limited to actual buffer strip zones in a quanity necessary to meet any minimum state requirements for this type.housing. . That the single-family residence classification have _.. a limit set of no less thaf~ 1600 square feet, and be - ar.chitectually compatible with any existing developement nearby. Sites in the pZan designated "open space" be~re-desig- ' nated future consideration single-family residential or commercial with buffer zone housing on a.~site specific basis with geological and engineering back-up required for any allowed developement. ' One last suggestion is that the proposed 680 off-ramp ~ be deleted from the general plan as it would.be det~imental to the existing downtown area, and would harm rather than aid traffic flows in that area. Respectfully yours, . i . ~'~ f . ~ . c~' ~~-.v ~ ~~ ~7 7~ ~. ~ Charles E. Minshall, ~ 11577.Ladera Court, _ • ', Dublin, California, , . - 94568 .. . ~ . I ~ ~_ TED C. FAIRFIELD Consulting Ciuil Engineer ~ March 19, 1984 CITY COUNCIL City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 ~ Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Councilmembers: ~ cc -- ~~-~ti~: ~~1~,.~;;..~~,. ~ ~~ [~e : 6-n I am writing to you in advance of your scheduled~'Genera+l Plan - ~ hearings in hopes of providing you with an early opportunity to study some of our concerns and our suggested remedies, so that you can become better prepared to take what you may deem to be the appropriate actions during the course of the hearings. First, let me explain which properties I am representing, and~ for whom. Please refer to the admittedly "rough" colored map, which was originally extracted from a LAFCO report. The eastern portion of that map, colored in orange, comprises an 807± acre ranch owned by myself and two other local residents. While this property is outside Du.blin's sphere of influence, as designated by LAFCO, it is within Dublin's proposed Extended Planning Area. The western, yellow area, comprises approximately 760 acres of Dublin's sphere of influence and is owned by the Chang Su-0 Lin family. It was on behalf of the Lins that I spoke at the LAFCO hearings, in favor of extending Dublin's proposed sphere of influence nor.therly, to the county line. Our concerns with Dublin's proposed general plan are almost entirely limited to the specific effects of it on this eastern portion of the Extended Planning Area. If we had to synopsize those concerns in one short statemert,.we would suggest to you-that, whilerthe :information :. which has been supplied to you concerning the lands in~.this area is :-, _ very preliminary and conceptual, the conclusions which are•proposed to be adopted in the general. plan are in fact very~:.;specific ~and..:: finite and, from our perspective, negative.~. •.~_. ° :_ . . . : ., These concerns were initially expressed to your ~= staff -y;~in .:early ;: ~. February and were the subject of a meeting between ourselves and the . City Manager, Mayor and Planning Oirector on February 13th. I followed up on that meeting with a letter dated February 14th, to the City Manager, a copy of which is enclosed. That letter still, even ~ after having the benefit of subsequent data from our geotechnical consultant's report, pretty well outlines our concerns, and I urge you to read it carefully. ~ _ . RECE~~ED , . , ~ 1~1 NR 2 ~ t98~ . P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. • Pleasanton, California 94566 •(415) 4~8~,~~l.ANN~NG . ' • • Page Two . CITY COUNCIL : March 19, 1984 As anticipated in the February 14th letter, we did cause Merrill & Seeley to do a detailed analysis of the seismic and slope restraints in the eastern Extended Planning Area, focusing on the Lin property,° and we submitted this study to the City for its information on March. 2nd. We have also made presentations, expressing our concerns and - suggesting some solutions, at the March 5th and March 13th Planning Commission hearings, and we likewise anticipate making such a presentation at the Council's hearing. " .. In hopes that you will be better able to understand and.respond to the issues, I am enclosing ~ copy of the Merrill & Seeley report for ` each of you ~to study and to reach your own conclusions:. Our:~ - suggestions can be summarized as follows: -. - .~ ~. fIPFN' SPA('F The open space designation has been applied, almost in blanket form; to the Eastern Extended Planning Area. It is our conclusion that this designation has been used in lieu of a"holding area" or "study area" designation, and that a decision to doom most of that land to permanent open space is not warranted by the available facts. If you agree, then we urge you to add language to the open space element (as proposed in my February 14th letter), making it clear that one of the primary functions of an open space designation is to serve as a "holding" designation, pending subsequent property-by-property reviews. ~ Of course, we would really prefer that the open space designation be greatly reduced in scope and.that it be replaced for the most part ., with more positive designations, such as low or medium density residential. We believe that the facts and the circumstances warrant this more definitive departure from the recommendations contained in the draft plan,.but that the above described "holding ar.ea" action could be an effective interim compromise. - ,, ., ,~ 30% SLOPE ~ _ ;.~ _, .. . ~ '~'d" , . It i s cl ear that we and our consul tants • do not - agree` with ~~your .~ ~'~ ~: :: ,. consultants as to which lands should properly:fall within -the >~=t:~.~ =~' proposed "30% slope" classification. This is demonstrated by` thE~.'.::= :. Merrill & Seeley study. ' In other words we feel that the extent of the 30q slope area, as. designated on the proposed general plan, is substantially overstated. (At the March 19th Planning Commission meeting, your own geologic consultant acknowledged that the 30~ slope area shown on the proposed plan includes much area having flatter slopes; that. the slopes have been "averaged" -for convenience.) This wouldn't 6e, so inherently crucial, if it weren't paralleled in the general plan by an absolute prohibition of development in such areas (such as in~item 7.2F, which prohibits development on slopes over 30~). . page Three CITY COUNCIL March 19, 1984 ~. • . We feel that some action should be taken to resolve this conflict, whether a more limited application of the 30% slope designation, or a less prohibitive restraint on such areas; or preferably, both. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CONSTRAINTS A glance at your proposed plan's map on this subject will rapidly demonstrate to you that the vast majority of the eastern Extended ~ Planning Area is deemed to be forever "doomed" by one of the geologic concerns, whether excessive slope or purported landslide problems.. - Likewise, a review of the Merrill & Seeley report should cause you to . question the broad extent of such a designation and to reduce it in .. ~ terms of area and restrictiveness, and further to rely more upon future area-by-area or property-by-property studies to determine the potential for development. Certainly you must agree that much land throughout the Bay Area, having equal or greater "geotechnical problems" has been and is being successfully developed. To hold firm with the present plan would be to unreasonably deprive both the land owners and the City of Dublin of a very desirable development potential. Finally, I would also point out that the text of the proposed plan contains a number of very explicit, unbendable prohibitions on certain actions. I question the wisdom and the politics of ever saying "never" in such a document unless the Council is absolutely certain that, in every future case, it is willing to literally abide by these proscriptions. I point out a few examples of this concern: l.. ITEM 2.1.4B The second ridgelands. "ridgeland"? rolling hil ".......will something of policy says that grading will not disfigure the What constitutes "disfigure" and what_ constitutes a Unless you are intending to ban all grading on every , I suggest amending this statement..so :as to read, not unduly disfigure the major ~scenic ridgelines," or a similar nature. . ~- ~ _. 2. ITEM 3.3D ~ ' - .. _ "Do not permit structures........." Perhaps -this could more reasonably be stated by, "Minimize the number of structures which...:..." 3. ITEM 7.TA Perhaps a few introductory words, .such as, "Where not in confTic't ' with flood control requirements, riparian vegetation` should be protected....." 4. ITEM 7.2F , . ~ ~ ' .. ' , Page Four , CITY COUNCIL . March 19, 1984 A suggestion would be to reverse the thrust of this, so as to "allow development on slopes in excess of 30% (or perhaps even 25°1) only upon demonstration to the City's satisfaction, that said development will meet the City's grading and seismic safety criteria." 5. ITEM 8.2.2C " p~~roh~ibit removal of woodlands." (How many trees comprise a ~ - woodland?~ Perhaps this could better be stated by changing the word "prohibit" to "restrict"? ~ -. ~~ I hope that this letter and the accompanying data adequately express our concerns and suggestions. We will be glad to try to answer any questions which you may have, either in advance of or at your public hearing. ~ Very truly yours, ~ - TED C. FAIRFIE TCF:ch , Enc. cc: Richard C. Ambrose / Laurence L. Tongi/ ~ D~~rL I~i Pi_Al~f~a:C 1uu CO,~Ii+11:~:, I ura DLi~~IN CA. . r~'-1-.c.1Ga DEAR COl*1I~II5~.TUNENS . . ~ ~. ~~Cc--~~- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i,-~,.-%~~= -~~ ~ ~~r, ~.t,,1 i, ~ (; J 1> a9;[~-~~~,CS~ 2 / fil~' AI~D LARu` I A1~ Ii~ GGREEi~IEI~aT WITH THE CONCFpTS T{~AT ARt . P~tOPOSED. THE FOL.LOI~IIN~ CO;r1t~1ENTS AR~ MY. RERSONRL VIEWS AND Rr~E SUBMiTTED FOR YOUR CONSiDERATIi71~f. ~~'1-IESE COh1ME1~fTS Ai~t ESPECIALL`( - . D I RECTED : TOWA RD .'::THE FOLLOW I NG L I ST ~.OF : REh1ARliS "I N:.THE ~° PROPOSED -.~ . . GE~lERAL . PLAi~.. , .. _ - __. . .. ~ ~.~ 1: 1 F~~ AR•E~ " ". . ._ , , __ : . , _ .. .. , . , . ' . . ' c. 1. c A, BRC ` ~ -. . , . . . PAGE ~ . l.~a 1 • J F1~ ~CC4 ' ~ . . . • 6. 1 6.~ A . -'Ei. ~F . Ay ~y Ey F~ ~7R~ . , . . , IT ° IS mY ~EELIhJG TFiRT DUE~LIN SHOULD Ai~AP I A R~7LICY OF STRIUIPdG ~OR EXt;r'•_L`PuC~ Ii~ TN~ l"O1"flL CITY PLAiV; CF?EATIr.~G R STAt~:Ls~i~~ THAT FOLKS WILL A~aIRE TO E~E A PART Ot=. W~ SHOULD DEVELOP TyuSE P,EM~IN? f~C ~RE~S + 0 SO TNA ~ TH~Y IVOT Ol~+_Y STAND ON TNEIR OWhI MERIT E~ts? ~~St7 CuiYiPLIh'iEI~T Aiv~ ENHANCE T~ic 4';;i (i~ Af~l~ AESTHET I CS . OF EX I ST I~•IG D~ VELQPED ARFAS. THE I DCA OF P~C'r: I I`dG I~CRE PEOALE INTO Si'rIALLFR A~EAS FLIcS II~I THE FACE CI= ~'Ht~SE WHQ CHGSc DUBLIi~! 1=0R I i S TE:~TLiRC Rh~aD CHRRRCT~.r Il~l THE PAST. G:E SHOIJLD STR I Uc TO MA j NTA I i`~I (~f~li7 EI~iHH~:CE DUR EX i 5T I I~IG STAh1DARDS AN~ NOT ~ PA55IVELY SUE~i~IT TO TNE PRC~~iJRES OF OJTSIDE "EXPER7S" G1Nt7 WOU~.U TELL US WHAT WE i~US i DQ OR WHr~T .IS ~EST FQR L'S. THEY WILL SOulV . ENOUGH BE GONE, LE~VING TH~IR MISTAKES BENII~D FOR US TO LI~E W I TH. WE HF~VE F~~! ~E~L I GAT 1 ui~ TO IluS~JRE THE G?UA~.I TY OF L IFE THf~T _ THE P~Q~LE ~~ D~tEjLIlr; c~JOY Ai~',~ F-iAVE WORl;ED SO HflRD TD A,~HIEVE. . . . . . . _ - ;' - . ~ ~ r~; WIi"H ':'TNESE -THOUGHTS If~! MI~lD `I. WOULD .L~IN.E `~:TO :~,TAKE ,`:EXCEPTIDh! • TO THE PROPOSED PLA~I ~Di? TNE DOLA~! SIi'E. ~ THE '~PROPDSAL. DDES NOT , BLEhID _ AND , FLOW ,WITH TH~ EX ISTING DEVE~.OPi~{Ei~IT >,AND :I{~! -fY{F~ ° OF?INI01~4 . ,~ . _ ' "' WOULD HAVE : AIV ADVER~E EFFECT DIV THE VALUE ,GFY-.THE SURROUNDIl~G : AREr~. ~.'~ '~~ SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINuS Q~'~! A PAR.WZTH 7HQSE ALREADY~IN SILVERGATE.: DR CAfV`fON CREEK 410ULL~ E~ETTER S~.RVE THE Ir~it~IEDIAT~ :F~R`A Ah~~t ~ p~QVIDE `' ~ FOR THE AESTHETIG Fli'~:17 CHARt~CTER VRLUES ~THAT ARE SO 'Ii~P~~t~TAIVT ~ TO ~ MAihlTA11~1Il~lG STABILITIr` Ii~; THC NEIGHEsO~'~-1t70D. ~ ~ ~-,~~~ ~ s~~~ C I V I L E N G I N E E R S March 19, 1984 Mr. Larry Tong Director of Planning ' City of Dublin ` Dublin, CA 94566 Dear Mr. Tong: C~ = '~ ` .1,, . ._ ... ~i~ , ~: ~ ~.:; ~~ ~~ • -~ , . " ~ ~ h I~ - ~r~" 2610 CENTRALAVENUE UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94587 PHONE 41 5-489-2433 We are representing Mr. Louie J. Pappas regarding the property located Northerly of Highway 580 and on the Easterly side of Fallon Road, said property is also known by the Assessor's Parcel No. as 99B-303G-8. I:z reviewing ~he propose~ General Plan we are somewhat concerned by the generalities inherent and tiope that the Planning Cor~nission during its deliberations can verify a r~ore precise use of the 160 acres concerned. It is our desire that said ~roperty be shown on the proposed General Plan as Business Park/Industrial Low Coverage in its entirety. Fron ttie proposed General Plan included in the Proposed Draft Copy dated February, 1984, it appears that such nay be the case; however, to avoid any confusion or misunderstand.ing in the future, we would hope to have this verified at this tine.~ t9e hope our request does not create any undue harc7ships but feel that any efforts made at this time will more than compensate for problems_in the future. - Very truly yours, • t~ACKAY & SOP~PS ,. C~,~.~. ~? ~ J es C. Kaiser K/hn enclosure OFFICES IN • SAN JOSE • CONCORD • UNION GTY • SACRAMENTO • SANTA ROSA ~ FAi~F'i~LD ,. A sSQ~'S RtAP u.,..:~..w~ C:oti r~ 1. {~y ~.S 3038 ~~n~oar ~ t2 S.,R.IE~Portba Ssclbe+ 34) . ~~ - Pbl of 1!w Sd~1o i~ifo Ra+t!-o i~ ver.tr)ro~.xM r~ ~~ . . • ~~ ~Cc,~G 1~.~ ~ ~~.[/tnn-cC ----_ '. ~4rr,~ ~' ~ ~ _ ~ ; l }p46 ~_ 3016 .,; .:J:..-: :°. . . _ 'R 1 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _' ~ . - . .._ _ . •~... ` , . l :sI'r.M; ~~ . _ :' , _ . ~. ~.~.,w,.~ ~~,T ~ ~ ~ ~'~. _; w .. • `~-~ '~ 5 '; ~ t , ~ ~j ; - r !",. ~{ . , - ~ . ~ 1 f~ ~ ~ 1' ~! /~ ~ _ ~~ J.. ~ - _ , ~=~ _ . ~ ~,~ _ . . ~..~ G . ~~v . . ~J. .. ~ : • i 302t ~. Iv ~ ~~1~ - ~°r ~ ~ J~O . ~rura~ ~ 128~ ~ ~za :~: F'• . ' -. j S s -- - ~ ~ - u« ... ... • j..,---„r-< ;,.,- . . 1' `1 , ` _ ,...._ ~ .. ~ //, _ ~"~,,~'.. /~~ ~: ~ _ ; . . .~ . _~ ~ . ,~.~ r t • _ , t I ~ ~ =,: I3~ `.~`. ~ ~~ F _ '~ - , ' ~ . - . . . - ~ ~ .r~ . I v} ' f ;.. _ - _ _ r . • <i; . . j j~ ~ ~ . .~ , ~ ~'~ . . . ~ , ~ ~ . , ~ .~ ~ . r.. _. .h ....~ ~ ~~ • • M. IN •~~ xL•11~~R-8[ ~+ ~ . ..._._ R ~~ 13iM - .---~~~~V ~ - .~' ~ _ •- --- - _ . ,+I~y. .~rJr •. . ~M~ql . , 390~ `\ / " / 3 TS0 ~ ~ ~)lSQ ~ ' . , . . ' ~~ ~ , ,~ ~ ~ y.. ~~(Tl ~~ ~~ '~~~, I1,~ - ,~-_ .. -' . ~ ~~ ' ~`-~'~l'.-t ~~+'J=,.; ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ l`~ F~(~'~C~ ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD 0 LIVEFiMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 ~ (415) 443-9300 March 21, 1984 Mr. Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. Tong: Reference is made to the February 1984 proposed General Plan and Draft Environ- mental Impact Report which were referred to our office for review and.comment. We wish to make the following comments: Volume 1: Plan Policies: l. General Plan Map, 5ection 3.3, 5.4, and 7.1--Other than for Alamo Creek above SPRR, no flood control facilities are designated as "Open Space: Stream Corridor." If it is the City's desire, flood control _ri~ht of way can ----- -- - --- be made available to the _City to develop for_recreation trails and/o.r b~ir::e ,__ ~ ~ ---_...--- _ ___ _..._.._.-- ---__ - -- __ _ _. __ ._ _.. _ _ _ _ _ paths under a License Agreement with Alameda County F1ood~Control and Water Coiiservation District, Zone 7. 2. Section 4.4--The potential water supply shortage which may occur in the 1990's may be mitigated by improvements to the State Water Project facilities (water supplier to Zone 7) and water conservation. The.City may wish to include another guiding policy which encoura.ges_the___de.velopment_of_the _--- State Water Project,_to provide promised water amounts in an environmentally -.-_,__~...__.._..------.___._--._ _.__..---___.___ --.-_. _.--._._~_....-_._- _ ~'sound manner and the development_..of.__good_water use__habits to eliminate waste. Ten copies of our waterV.conservation brochure are enclosed for your use and distribution to various city offices for display with other reading material. Volume 2: Technical Supplement: 3. Section 2.3.4, third paragraph--The reservoir .referred to is already under construction as a joint project between DSRSD and Zone 7. 4. Section 4.1.1, Surface Water, second paragraph--No dischar~es of wastewater treatment plants to valley streams occurs any longer. Flows for groundwater recharge are provided from time to time in some watercourses from the South Bay Aqueduct, however. REC'EIVE~ ~.~;°i~ ~i n IJB~ DUBIIId PL~i~9N!fir+C ~ ~ Mr. Laurence Tong City of Dublin Page 2 u March 21, 1984 5. Section 4.1.1, Flood Hazards and Control, second paragraph-- Although Zone 7 has responsibility for providing flood control services, the Zone has only been authorized to develop and operate the larger streams and arroyos. The basic flood control system in Dublin was 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 maintenance of those arroyos is becoming a critical problem. Voter approved assessments may be essential soon for the Zone to continue to maintain the level of flood pro- tection that now exists. Volume 2: Draft EIR: 6. Section 3.2--Neither here nor in the Technical Supplement are existing flood hazards, their increase due to increased urbanization of the watershed, or their means of mitigation adeguately discussed. Flood hazard areas exist both within the City and downstream of it which could be worsened by the proposed development. Several of the flood control channels within the City and all of those downstream of it are operated by the Zone, and increased capacity may be needed in both the Zone's and the City's drainage systems. It is not clear how the implementing policies in Section 8.2.2 of the Plan Poli- cies will prevent these impacts. 7. Section 3.2, Mitigation--If the ordinances referred to have not already been enacted, their efficacy in mitigating the potentially significant impacts of erosion and sedimentation can only be speculated upon. A weak ordi- nance, or an underfunded one, or an ordinance with inadequate enforcement could easily provide inadequate mitigation. Strong ordinances such as the County Grading Ordinance or ABAG's model Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, strictly and competently enforced would provide adequate mitigation. Failure to adequately mitigate these impacts, would have adverse effects on water quality and flood hazards downstream of the City as well as within it. 8. Section 3.8, Mitigation--No mitigation for the potential 'adverse impact of.taxing the capacity of the water supply system is mentioned here (re: last paragraph under Utilities) although possible migitation is mentioned in Plan Policies Section 4.4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your documents. If you have any questions, please call me or Vince Wong at your convenience. . Very truly yours, G~~N~~~_ Mun J. General Manager MJM : ~1W : bkm cc: DS III IAC Enc. ,.. ....~ . ~ , March 30, 1984 . ~ . . . ~ Mr. Pete Snyder - : . . . . _ _. . _ ~ . - ,.. . , - ,: Mayor of Dublin ` .: . :~, -11497 Silvergate Drive - . . Dublin, CA 94568 ~ ~ - . ~ - . . .. _ ~ ~ Re: City of Dublin General Plan - .February,.:Y984. Draft `.:::;.~:. . . -~ , ; .. - .~:.: ~ . . : _.- ,. - - _ , _ , , , . t Y _ . . ' Dear Fete . : . . . . - : The draft of the Dublin General~Plan represents a~tremendous .:~~ ~~. . commitment of time and energy by the Cit.y staff,.the planning -.~.~ ,: ; . '~°- --~ ~-~ commission and the City Council. It is . a comprehensive and~ -~~~ •~ ---~°°~~---- ~~ ~ ~rational plan which, with a few modifications,~will be a.very ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~: practical and workable plan. Ron Nahas-and~I have-participated-.. ~•~~ - in se~~Axa~ pl~,n~ing commission and City Council meetings and have .~- ~ _, stated many of our concerns previously. we believe that the following are issues.which should still be addressed by the City ~ Council: ~ ,.~. ,-. 1. The planning commission's recommendation for a 20-acre ~_. - ~ regional park to be located on the.property east of ~ ~:: ~~-- ~ Dougherty Hills or on the Dolan school site seems to be - :. impractical. The need for one 20-acre park east of Dougherty ~ Hills_is very questionable and the possibility of~such a ~ "~:' space allocation being required makes the planning of.this .~. ~ property impossible. We could not begin a comprehensive land ,- use plan on the property east of the Dougherty Hills given -~• ~ the uncertainty that 25~ to 300 of.the~developable.land might _.,: -.. ~. ~: be required as.a park. The existing Parks,-and Recreation;::-- , _~ - : Ordinance, though dependent upon the -number of _units approved - _ . •. - ~ ~ on the property east of Dougherty Hills,~~could result ~in the _.. -_ , dedication of approximately 5 acres.for a public park. This _ .; ..,. . . ;;:- . . _ , is consistent with the recommendation of:the:General Plan,.-, ~ draft, and would provide an adequate ,public ~park,.facility.: ~~ 2. Paragraphs E and J of Section 6.4 (Summary of Housing Program - Strategies) are counterproductive to the goal of creating . ... _ . more rental projects: Paragraph E requires a certain per- ~~-~~~`~~~ centage of units in "large multifamily projects" to be ~. rented for a specified period of time. Virtually all of the private financing currently available for rental projects. . requires that new rental projects be constructed as condomir_- • ~ ,,..,.-. mt-,; ~. ~..~.,,,; ~.~.,,o.,+ ; c +n nrn+on+ +},n l cnrlar - c i nvE?ctment _.. ' '_ ~_ from the threat of potential regulatory policies such as ~ rent control. To restrict the protection that a condo- - minium map provides the lender will lessen the sources of ' - private financing available for the construction of rental . . ~ - pro j ects . . . . ~ : =~ .~ ~~Paragraph J requires evidence that a developer_has made.an _.. ' ' effort to seek public financial assistance for the purpose ~ ~.~ of including below market rate units in proposed projects. ~~ ~ - This policy would be virtually impossib3e to implement. How ~ . -- . would the City or the developer even determine potential' ,~ ~~ ~.. . : availability of programs when such availability might .change ' several times during the period involved in processing a ~~ '~ - ~' project through the City? Would you ask a developer to ~~ ~ ~~~. spend thousands of dollars and take several~months to apply '-==- --- for the insignificant number of Section 8 subsidies that are . ~ ~. ~ to be allocated over the entire State of~California? In ~. . addition to being impossible to implement, this particular . .~ . _. - policy would create uncertainty in the.approval process~and.. _ ~ would discourage the development of lower cost housing within ~ the City of Dublin. 3. Pursuant to Paragraph B of Section 8.2.2 (Flooding) an : ~" implementing policy would require.the dedication of "broad .-.. ~ stream corridors" as a condition of subdivision approval. ~.~_ I believe that the controlled use and development of stream ~ - corridors would provide sufficient protection against the . hazards of flooding without requiring dedication as a, - -- - ~ - . condition of subdivision approval. -- - --. ----- - - - ~ ~ 4. Paragraph B of Section 2.1.? (Neighborhood Diversity) ~ requires a minimum of 200 of the units approved east of ~ . , ~ , Dougherty ~Hills to be single family detached. - -~9e totally : ~ _-- ~•-. .~ agree with the goal of creating a range of product types ... . --. ,. : , ~. with varyirig. densities, but we .do not believe that an --:_ - •. ~ arbitrary percentage of detached single family is a beneficial ~ ~ planning tool. The propert,y east of Dougherty Hills requires ~ ~- a comprehensive master plan, which could respond to the ~ -~ ~~~ ~ desire for a mix of product types and would be subject~to ~ the PD review process, The arbitrary requirement of 20% . single family detached units could easily handicap the _ ~ development of this comprehensive General Plan. - ----~-~ ~. ~5. The Table titled "Development Policies for Residential ~ Sites" in Section 2.1.2 designates Site Number 8,.located .. , west of Dougherty Road and south of t~mador.Valley Boulevard .~ • ~ for two acres of inedium high density totalling 50,units, ~~ ~ ~ The balance of this site, which consists of approximately 2 4, ..~ acres, has been designated for commercial. We believe that. ; it would~be appropriate-to.designate the~entire.4 acres as a planned development parcel which would allow either medium high density on all 4 acres or commerci~,l on_a11 4 acres, or ~:. .:;. ,: ~ a..combination of the two uses. By designating the west half ~-= ~` ~"` ~ of 'this property as residential and the east half as commercial, the viability of either use may be seriously - ... -.. compromised. ~ - . _ . . _ Sincer ly, - . - . .. , ~_ ~j - ~ . . ` f f ` /~~"~ ~ V. Mark Rafa li .._ . . VMRJmmm cc: Mr. Fred Drena ~ - Mr. Pete Hegarty . _ ... . Ms. Linda Jeffery _. : Mr. Paul Moffatt Mr. Larry Tong - . : . _ . _