HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9.1 Staff Responses to Comments on Eastern Dublin Draft Specific PlanAGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 16, 1992
SUBJECT: Staff Responses to Comments on the Eastern Dublin Draft
Specific Plan - Part II
PREPARED BY: `� , Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Pacific Teal Development, 7/31/92
2. Letter from East Bay Regional Park District, 10/15/92
3. Letter from Greenbelt Alliance, 10/15/92
4. Letter from Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann &
Inderbitzen, 10/16/92
5. Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District, 10/15/92
6. Letter from City of Livermore, 10/15/92
7. Letter from Pacific -Teal Development, 10/10/92
8. Letter from Yara Yara Rancho, 1/27/92
9. Comments by John Anderson, submitted at the October
12, 1992 Planning Commission meeting
10. Letter from PARC, 10/15/92
11. Letter from Greg Anderson, 10/5/92
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff presentation
2. Discuss responses and related issues
3. Provide direction to Staff per the Commission Action
sections contained in the agenda statement
4. Continue meeting to November 17, 1992 if needed, to
further discuss Specific Plan issues
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACI{GROUND:
This is Part II of the comments on the Draft Specific Plan and Staff responses.
Part I was addressed in the Planning Commission Agenda Statement dated October
29, 1992.
ISSFFS:
The following section contains Staff responses to written comments received on the
Draft Specific Plan. Each comment is paraphrased and is followed by a staff
recommendation/ explanation. The numbers in the left hand column refer the
reader to the actual wording of the comment in the attached letters. Required
action by the Planning Commission is indicated by bold typeface. Comments that
are primarily editorial in nature are placed at the end of each letter section.
1
1. Letter from Pacific -Teal Development. (on behalf of TMI) dated July 31.
1992
1-1 Comment: The alignment of Dublin Boulevard through TMI's property should
remain flexible to account for topography and the distance of planned land
uses on the north and south sides of the road.
Staff Recommendation: Staff acknowledges the comment. The alignment for
Dublin Boulevard in the Draft Specific Plan is not intended to represent an
engineered drawing of the road location. For planning purposes, the road has
been set back 1/4 mile from the freeway. The final alignment will consider
the creation of developable parcels and visual and grading concerns
associated with a portion of the "signature hills" found on the property.
Commission Action Required: No action required at this time.
1-2 Comment: The amount of Industrial Park land use designated for the TMI
property has been arbitrarily placed and is of insufficient size to reasonably
market. This use should be replaced with general commercial.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the land use designation
as presently shown in Figure 4.1 of the Draft Specific Plan.
The Draft Specific Plan currently designates about 3.5 million square feet of
general commercial. This is substantially more commercial development than
is expected to be absorbed over the next 20 years. Designating additional
lands general commercial is not warranted at this time.
The amount of acreage designated industrial park on the TMI property is
approximately 20 acres, which, according to the Study's fiscal consultant, is
of sufficient size to accommodate a marketable development project. If the
desire is to construct a large-scale industrial park, the applicant would need
to work with the adjacent landowner to the east, whose property is
designated industrial park.
The demarcation for the industrial park usage was based on a desire to
balance the types of uses at the Fallon interchange for traffic generation
management. Retail commercial generates substantially more traffic than
industrial; the desire was to avoid creating unacceptable service levels. The
anticipated service level after mitigation in Year 2010 at Fallon/I-580 is LOS
D, which meets City intersection standards.
Com mission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the land use designation, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by
Staff.
Remaining Comments That Are Primarily Editorial
1-3 Comment: Two acreage figures for the TMI property appear in the Draft
Specific Plan - 135.62 and 149.1. The correct acreage is 135.62.
Staff Recommendation: Staff will revise the text accordingly.
2
Commission Action Required: None required.
2. Letter from East Bay Regional Parks District. dated October 15. 1992,
2-1 Comment: The District questions the viability of using rural residential lands
as open space.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Staff believes the Draft Specific Plan provides sufficient direction for
maintaining rural residential areas as primarily open space. Page 61 states
that rural residential has very limited development potential. Policy 6-2
directs that development be located so that large open space areas are
preserved.
Page 62 provides for obtaining access easements across rural residential lands
that remain in private ownership. The Plan stresses public rather than
private management and/or ownership of such lands. The Plan also
references the possibility for transferring development rights from rural
residential areas to other residential development areas (Policy 6-7, page 62).
It should be noted that East Bay Regional Parks District only recently
became actively involved in eastern Dublin. Prior to the recent expansion of
the District's boundaries, eastern Dublin was outside the District's
jurisdiction. Now that the District is actively involved, the City and the
District can work together on the issue of open space ownership,
management and maintenance.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to leave
the text unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2-2 Comment: The Specific Plan should clarify the purpose and function of open
space lands and discuss ownership, operation and maintenance of open space
areas. Large contiguous areas should be dedicated as public open space as
mitigation for the loss of open space due to development.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Staff believes that the Draft Specific Plan adequately addresses these issues.
Section 6.2 of the Draft Specific Plan discusses the purpose of open space
and ownership/management options. Mitigation for the loss of open space is
not reasonable, given that no public lands are being lost as a result of
development in eastern Dublin. The land that is proposed for development is
under private ownership. The Plan does stress that public ownership of open
space lands is highly desirable.
Commission Action Required:, Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to leave
the text unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
3
2-3 Comment: The Specific Plan land use map should differentiate the types of
open space by ownership - private, public, regional public, locally -owned
public.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the map (Figure 4.1) as
it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
It is premature to designate ownership of open space. Ownership, of open
space, as well as maintenance, management and specific uses will be
reviewed and approved as part of the discretionary permit process.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the map, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2-4 Comment: In the northeast corner of the Plan, an area of single family
residential is shown protruding into an adjacent rural residential area. This
would fragment the largest area designated for open space uses.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission consideration
of the following options:
a. Redesignate the property as rural residential, which is the current
County designation.
b. Designate the property as open space.
c. Add a policy that permits the use of Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR's) in single family areas adjacent to rural residential or open space
areas.
Staff agrees that this development finger is problematic, given the goals and
objectives of the Plan regarding resource protection. Designation of the
property as open space would require purchase of the land by a public entity.
The City is not prepared to take on this type of financial burden which
means some other agency would have to purchase the land. The addition of
a policy supporting TDR's for certain single family areas would give the City
another tool for protecting and enhancing open space areas.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the land use map and/or text, or leave it unchanged.
2-5 Comment: Development is shown on both sides of Tassajara Creek, which
conflicts with Policies 6-13, 6-14 and Programs 6F, 6G. The District
recommends that development be restricted to the eastern side of the creek.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Policy 6-13 recommends that human activities, such as trails, be limited to
one side of the creek. The intent is to keep one side of the creek
relatively free of frequent human passersby. The phrase "human activities"
is not meant to include development. Any development occurring adjacent to
the creek would require adequate setbacks both for homes and for trails.
4
Policy 6-14 recommends avoiding development that backs onto the creek,
which would guide how projects should be oriented with respect to stream
corridors. Development on both sides of the creek would not conflict with
this policy.
Programs 6F and 6G require a stream corridor restoration program and
dedication of land along streams. These programs are intended to enhance
the stream corridor and ensure that development respects the sensitivity of
this area. Development on both sides of the creek would not conflict with
this policy.
Commission Action Reauired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2-8 Comment: There should be additional discussion of the relationship between
the General Plan Increment area and the Specific Plan area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
When the land use plan was developed for eastern Dublin, the entire planning
area was considered (Specific Plan area and General Plan Increment area).
Once the land uses were determined for the whole area, more detailed
planning was conducted for the Specific Plan area. Future connections to
the General Plan Increment area would be examined when a specific plan
study is initiated for this portion of eastern Dublin.
Commission Action Reauired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2-9 Comment: The Plan should discuss, in more detail, the placement of road
extensions as they affect open space, trails and wildlife corridors.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
This issue is sufficiently covered on pages 62 and 66 of the Draft Specific
Plan. In addition, there are numerous policies which govern the preservation
of wildlife habitat areas (Policies 6-1 through 6-13, Policies 6-15 6-23)
Policy 6-19 specifically addresses the provision of underpasses for wildlife
corridors.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2-10 Comment: The Plan should show connections to existing and proposed
regional open space, trails and staging areas.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
5
The Plan discusses the proposed Tassajara Creek Regional Trail and provides
for a trail corridor through the Specific Plan area (page 54). The Plan also
shows trail connections leading beyond the plan area to indicate future
connections with areawide trail systems (Figure 6.1).
EBRPD recently submitted a map which compiles the District's proposed trail
system and the trail concepts developed by Livermore Recreation District.
Some of the trail systems traverse the eastern Dublin area. The City will
work with EBRPD to ensure adequate trail connections between eastern
Dublin and adjacent lands.
Com mission Action Reauired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
Remaining Com ments That Are Primarily Editorial
2-6 Comment: The District recommends that any stream management program
be acceptable to the District.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying Program 6F to include
review of the stream management program by East Bay Regional Parks
District.
2-7 Comment: The term "fair share" in Policy 4-29 should be clarified relative
to what developers will be required to contribute to parks, open space and
trails.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying Policy 4-29 to include
reference to Figure 4.1 - Land Use Map which designates parks and open
space that need to be reserved for the specific plan area.
2-11 Comment: The Plan should be amended to address the need for additional
staging areas.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adding a program under Section
4.7 (Recreation) to require the City to work with the District regarding
provision of additional staging areas.
2-12 Comment: The City should consider restricting homes to one side of the
street where roadways interface with habitat or open space areas.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adding a policy to Section 6.2
(Open Space) to encourage single -loaded streets in areas adjacent to open
space or rural residential areas.
2-13 Comment: The Plan should include policies which restrict the placement of
infrastructure on lands dedicated for public open space.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adding a policy to Chapter 9
(Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage) which requires placement of infrastructure
consistent with policies in the Resource Management chapter.
6
2-14 Comment: The Plan should include a requirement for open space and
vegetation management plans.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adding language to Program 6B
(page 63) that the City should work with the District to develop guidelines
for management and uses in open space areas.
Com mission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recommended by Staff, for comments 2-6, 2-7, and 2-11
through 2-14.
3. Letter from Greenbelt Alliance. dated October 15, 1992,
3-1 Comment: The Plan has not demonstrated consistency with a number of
proposed plans and proposed roadway projects.
Staff Recommendation: Staff' recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
There is no legal requirement to discuss specific plan consistency with other
subregional or regional plans within the specific plan document. The issue of
project consistency with relevant plans was addressed in the Draft EIR for
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan on pages 3.1-15 to 22.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
3-2 Comment: The plan has not demonstrated that the project is financially
feasible.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Chapter 10 of the Draft Specific Plan discusses the financial aspects of the
project. Based on the fiscal studies performed for the study, the project
will provide more revenues than it will require in expenditures, after an
initial short fall in the first years (page 143). These studies also indicate
that based on a 20-year analysis of cash flows, eastern Dublin would not be
a fiscal drain on the existing City. Several tables are provided in the
document which demonstrate that the project would meet the basic criteria
for bonding eligibility (Tables 10-3 and 10-4). Appendix 7 provides several
tables that illustrate cash flow projections for the project. These tables
have recently been updated to reflect the revised tax sharing agreement
between the City and the County of Alameda. The revised tables will be
included into the final Specific Plan.
The discussion in the Draft Specific Plan is intended to establish a basic
planning framework for future financing of the project. While the letter
raises many good questions about financing, they cannot be answered at this
time because the project has not advanced that far into the implementation
phase. Site specific funding details would be worked out as part of pre-
7
application discussions with prospective developers and through the project
approval process for specific development applications.
Com mission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff.
3-3 Comment: The Plan must incorporate a funding program that is consistent
with Zone 7's "Draft Policy Statement on Actions When Demand Exceeds
Supply."
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Actual water costs for eastern Dublin would be determined prior to submittal
of a development application for the Specific Plan area. Potential
developers will need to work with both Zone 7 and DSRSD regarding the
extension and costs for extending services to eastern Dublin.
DSRSD is the agency responsible for setting resident and commercial user
water rates. The District has assured the City, via public testimony at both
the eastern and western Dublin hearings, that water rates will not be raised
for existing users to pay for increased water costs for new development
areas such as eastern and western Dublin.
It should be noted that Policy 9G in the Specific Plan (page 126) requires a
"will serve" letter prior to grading permit approval. Thus no development
will occur in eastern Dublin unless adequate water supplies are available.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
3-4 Comment: The Specific Plan must identify a funding strategy illustrating
how the Mello Roos Bonds will be retired if the water is not available.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
As stated above, there will be no development in eastern Dublin unless
adequate water supplies are available. The Specific Plan sets out a broad
financing strategy. The actual funding methods used will vary depending on
the timing of development, availability of funds, the market, and other
factors. A Mello -Roos district is only one such method of funding
improvements.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
3-5 Comment: The Plan must demonstrate that new jobs will be created that
provide the necessary income to afford homes funded by Mello -Roos bonds.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
8
Before Mello -Roos bonds would be issued, certain criteria must be met. One
of those is the debt service -to -value ratio which evaluates the relationship
between the costs for the bonds and the market value of the homes. If the
debt service -to -value ratio is too high, the project would not be eligible for
bonding.
The Specific Plan provides an array of employment opportunities that would
generate a wide range of incomes including lower, middle, upper -middle and
high income jobs. If the market projections at the time of bonding do not
appear favorable (i.e., the cost of housing would be too high for the target
market to bear), the homes would likely not be built.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff.
3-7 Comment: The Plan has not demonstrated that development costs can be
financed without exceeding the two percent of assessed value criteria.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Tables 10-3 and 10-4 in the Specific Plan demonstrate that the project would
meet this criteria with the exception of one year in the early stages of the
project. (Refer to Table 10-3, line "Debt Service as % of Value (Res); and
Table 10-4, line "Yearly Assessment as % of Value.)
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
3-8 Comment: The Plan has unrealistically assumed that Caltrans will pay for
various freeway improvements (Specific Plan, page 149). The Plan must
identify costs and financing for these improvements.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Page 149 of the Specific Plan contains a Program (third bullet) that states
the City and Caltrans should coordinate efforts to fund necessary freeway
improvements and collect developers' share of costs. This statement does
not assume Caltrans will fund freeway improvements. Freeway costs and
possible funding sources are illustrated in Tables 10-1 and 10-2.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
Remaining Comments That Are Primarily Editorial
3-6 Comment: What is the funding mechanism for the portion of school
construction costs not covered by school impact fees.
Staff Response: Table 10-1 in the Specific Plan (page 150) shows that other
sources of funding school improvements could be Mello -Roos or Assessment
Districts.
9
3-9 Comment: The Plan has not demonstrated that services can be provided and
therefore violates the Cortese Knox Reorganization Act.
Staff Response: The Plan identifies what services are needed, who would
provide them, and how they would be provided. The determination as to
whether adequate services can be provided to eastern Dublin is the
responsibility of Alameda County LAFCO. As of November 2, 1992, the
County LAFCO will consider the SOI boundary for eastern Dublin in May,
1993.
3-10 Comment: An alternative should be identified that requires substantially less
infrastructure, is transit oriented, creates a permanent urban boundary,
directs jobs and housing development to vacant industrial lands in western
Alameda County and includes revenue sharing between jurisdictions.
Staff Response: Five different land use alternatives were considered for the
eastern Dublin area during the plan formulation phase of the project. One
of the options was a lower density land use option. However, in order to
support transit and other community amenities, a certain level of
development is required. For this and other reasons, the lower density land
use option was not selected for further study and environmental analysis.
It should be noted that the eastern Dublin Draft EIR identified an alternative
which would result in substantially less growth (Alternative 1 - the No
Project Alternative). The relative impacts of this alternative were described,
per CEQA requirements in the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR, dated
August 1992.
Commission Action Required: None required for the above items.
4. Letter from Hallgrimson. McNichols. McCann & Inderbitzen. dated October
16. 1992
4-1 Comment: Revise Policy 4-5 (page 27) to state that development should only
be avoided or minimized in environmentally constrained or sensitive areas
which show as open space and rural residential in Figure 4.1.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The intent of this policy was to cluster development in the least
environmentally sensitive area of any development site, not just in areas
designated rural residential (no development would be allowed in open space
areas).
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-2 Comment: Revise Program 4D (page 27) to add the words "visually
prominent" before the phrase "natural and topographic landscape features...."
10
Staff Reeom mendation: Staff recom mends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The addition of the suggested phrase could exclude protection of important
natural or topographic features which are not visually prominent. The intent
of the program is to provide for review of these types of issues at a project
level of detail to avoid destroying valuable features not currently identified
by the plan.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-5 Comment: Delete Policy 4-26 (page 30).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the policy as follows:
Maintain sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to jobs
(employment -generating uses) in the eastern Dublin area.
The intent of this policy is to ensure that both residential and non-residential
uses can develop in eastern Dublin. The policy does not require that such
development occur concurrently, only that the Plan could build out in a way
that provides, in a timely manner, necessary services for residents and
necessary housing for workers. Maintaining a "balance" between the two uses
would benefit the City by providing employment and housing opportunities
within eastern Dublin so that local workers or residents would not have to go
outside Dublin to meet these needs.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-7 Comment: Revise Program 40 (page 32) to add the words "where necessary"
and "shown on the Plan" (see letter for exact rewording).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Program 40 to only add
the words "where necessary" before the phrase "to accommodate the
development of...."
The trail locations in the Plan are conceptual and East Bay Regional Parks
District (EBRPD) has requested consideration of another staging area in
eastern Dublin that is not shown in the Plan. Exact locations for trails and
staging areas will be coordinated with EBRPD and outdoor groups as part of
the Specific Plan implementation process. To confine these locations to
those currently shown in the Plan could preclude the establishment of
im portant recreational facilities and linkages.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recommended by Staff.
4-9 Comment: Revise Program 5A (page 52) to change the dimensions required
for certain types of roads. (See attached letter for exact rewording).
11
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The road dimensions identified in Program 5A were tailored for each type
road in order to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes and speeds.
Alteration of the dimensions would cause these roads to operate below their
design capacity and could pose safety concerns for motorists.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-12 Comment: Revise Program 5F (page 56) to require TSM programs for
employers with 500, instead of 50, employees.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The City recently adopted an ordinance which mandates TSM programs for
employers with 100 or more employees, decreasing to employers with 50 or
more employees in the third year. Increase the minimum number of
employees to 500 would violate this ordinance. Also, it would eliminate the
need for most employers to establish TSM programs, as only very large,
corporate -type businesses would retain 500 or more employees.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-15 Comment: Revise Policy 6-10 (page 64) to modify the requirement for 3:1
replacement of riparian habitat and delete reference to the Army Corps of
Engineer's "no net loss policy".
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Policy 6-10 to replace
the reference to the Corp's "no net loss policy" with the words "current
policy" but retain the remainder of the text as it presently appears in the
Draft Specific Plan.
The requested change would make the 3:1 replacement requirement dependent
upon the value of the habitat removed. Staff believes this erodes the intent
of the policy which is to preserve riparian habitat to the greatest degree
possible. Also, the ultimate decision on habitat replacement is made by Fish
and Game and the Corps of Engineers who have their own criteria for
evaluating habitat loss.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recommended by Staff.
4-16 Comment: Revise Policy 6-11 (page 64) to reference Figure 4.1, restrict
revegetation of stream corridors and have the City select the appropriate
revegetation professionals. (See attached letter for exact rewording).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Policy 6-11 to 1) include
the words "shown as open space in Figure 4.1;" and 2) delete reference to
12
the Department of Fish and Game. Staff recommends retaining the
remainder of the text as it presently appears in the text.
The comment also requested the addition of verbiage which would limit
rehabilitation of stream corridors to those areas disturbed by development.
The intent of the policy is to enhance the entire stream corridor, not
isolated segments. These stream corridors will provide important wildlife
habitats as well as visual and recreational amenities for local residents.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recommended by Staff.
4-17 Comment: Revise Policy 6-14 (page 65) to delete the requirement to avoid
development that backs onto stream corridors. (See attached letter for
exact rewording.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the policy to add the
words "or minimizing" after the words "by avoiding."
The policy does not prohibit all development from backing up to creeks, but
it does strongly encourage other design orientations. The purpose of the
policy is to avoid creating a "walled effect" along creek corridors and to
enhance safety by having more public portions of the house visible to the
creek. This could be accomplished by building orientation or by having
single -loaded streets along creek corridors.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recom mended by Staff.
4-18 Comment: Revise Policy 6-17 (page 66) to replace reference to special
status species with the term "rare and endangered species."
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Rare and endangered species are included in the larger category termed
"special status species." Both the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the State Department of Fish and Game have indicated considerable concern
with preservation of those species not technically listed as rare and
endangered but could become so if current trends continue. These species
are listed as species of special concern and are identified in the Draft EIR
for Eastern Dublin. Several species in this category appear on the site and
should be protected.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-19 Comment: Revise Policy 6-19 (page 66) to require roadway underpasses in
open space areas only where wildlife travel corridors currently exist.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the policy to add the
words "or other means of access" after the word "underpasses."
13
Development could alter existing wildlife travel patterns, thereby creating
the need for new travel corridors. Unless adequate passage under or across
roadways through open space areas is provided, animals could become land
locked and unable to adequately forage for food and find suitable shelter.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recommended by Staff.
4-26 Comment: Revise Policy 6-29 (page 69) to add the word "generally." (See
letter for exact rewording.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Insertion of the word "generally" erodes the intent of the policy which is to
preserve clear and full views of the ridgelines which form the backdrop to
eastern Dublin. Puncturing this backdrop with structures built in the
foreground hills would erode its function as a natural, scenic background to
the urban development occurring below.
Com mission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-27 Comment: Revise Policy 6-30 (page 70) to add verbiage which would allow
some obstruction of scenic ridgetops. (See letter for exact rewording.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the policy as follows:
Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so
that views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually
sensitive ridgelands - no development") are generally maintained when
viewed from the scenic corridors.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recom mended by Staff.
4-28 Comment: Delete Policies 6-33, 6-34 and 6-35 (page 70) and replace with
revised policy language. (See attached letter for exact rewording.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining these three polices as
they presently appear in the Draft Specific Plan with the exception of Policy
6-33. The first sentence of this policy should be deleted, to avoid
redundancy with the other two policies. (The second sentence of this policy
should be retained as is.)
These policies provide essential guidance regarding grading in hillside areas.
Without this overall guidance, grading applications would be evaluated on a
case by case basis with no consistent standards to determine if the grading
is desirable or acceptable.
Because development placed on hillsides in eastern Dublin will frequently be
visible to the existing surrounding community, it will make a very strong
statement about the quality of development in Dublin. It needs to be very
14
sensitively designed so that a high quality impression is imparted to the
surrounding area.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text as recommended by Staff.
4-38 Comment: Revise Program 7A (page 116) to restrict design review to only
the Town Center, Village Centers and Gateway subareas and to combine
design review with other parts of the review process.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Design review is intended for all development areas to ensure consistency
with applicable Specific Plan guidelines. Staff also believes that design
review should continue to be included as part of the site development review
(SDR) permit process. This will ensure adequate time is given to this
important aspect of project development in eastern Dublin.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
4-39 Comment: Revise Program 7C (page 116) to require the City to develop a
Master Streetscape Plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recom mends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Implementation of this program would occur in tandem with submittal of an
application for development in the Town Center. The applicant would work
with the City in developing a streetscape plan but it is not intended that the
City formulate such a plan.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff.
4-43 Comment: Revise Program 8G (page 121) to make the City the agency
which determines when the second fire station is needed in eastern Dublin.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Staff believes that it is DRFA is the appropriate agency to make this
determination. DRFA and the City will coordinate regarding the timing and
location for this station.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
15
Remaining Comments That Are Primarily Editorial_
4-3 Comment: Delete Program 4F (page 28). (This program requires an
inclusionary housing program for eastern Dublin.)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the program but deleting
reference to eastern Dublin. The City's housing element specifies that such
a program should be developed for the entire City.
4-4 Comment: Revise Program 4G (page 28) to delete the words "within eastern
Dublin."
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the program as suggested.
4-6 Comment: Revise Program 4N (page 32) regarding what lands will be given
credit as parkland (see letter for exact rewording).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested (see
letter for exact wording.)
4-8 Comment: Revise Policy 5-3 (page 50) to add the words "within the Specific
Plan area."
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-10 Comment: Revise Policy 5-20 (page 55) to encourage on -street parking on
collector and local residential streets only.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining Policy 5-20 as it
presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan, except to delete the word "all"
before the word collector.
4-11 Comment: Revise Program 5C (page 54) to replace the 300 foot buffer
requirement for the Tassajara Creek Trail with a requirement for 100 feet
from top of bank.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-13 Comment: Revise Program 6A (page 63) to delete reference to Fish and
Game, Zone 7, etc.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
4-14 Comment: Revise Policy 6-9 (page 64) to add the words "shown as open
space on Figure 4.1" and delete the requirement to consult with Fish and
Game and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan except to add "as shown on Figure 4.1"
after the words "natural stream corridors."
16
4-20 Comment: Revise Figure 6.3 to show accurate delineation of the Golden
Eagle Protection Zone.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Figure 6.3 to reflect the
most recent buffer zone for the eagle.
4-21 Comment: Revise Program 6E (page 65) to delete reference to specific
reviewing agencies (Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game)
and insert wording indicating review by appropriate agencies. (See letter for
exact wording)
Staff Recom mendation: Staff recom mends revising the text as suggested.
4-22 Comment: Revise Program 6G (page 65) to add reference to Figure 4.1.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-23 Comment: Revise Program 6L (page 67) to add the word "absence."
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-24 Comment: Revise Program 6M (page 67) to specify the size of transmission
line that should be undergrounded.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
4-25 Comment: Revise Program 6S (page 71) to add the words "visually
significant portions." (See letter for exact rewording) (This program refers
to techniques for hillside preservation).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the program to add the
words "visually prominent portions." Staff believes the word "prominent"
more clearly defines what is significant.
4-29 Comment: Revise Policy 6-36 (page 70) to delete reference to multi -level
foundations.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
4-30 Comment: Revise Policy 6-39 (page 70) to add reference to Figure 4.1.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-31 Comment: Revise Section 7.1.1, bullet #7 under "Parking" (page 80) to add
berms as an additional technique to define the edge of parking lots.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested,
except add the word "landscaped" before berms.
4-32 Comment: Revise Section 7.2.2 under "Tassajara Village" (page 94) to add
language that further explains Figure 7.28 is for illustrative purposes only.
17
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested,
except delete the words "it is emphasized that" (see attached letter for
exact rewording).
4-33 Comment: Revise Section 7.2.2, bullet #2 under "Open Space and Public
Facilities" (page 94) to add language which minimizes channelization rather
than prohibits it.
Staff Recom mendation: Staff recom mends revising the text as suggested.
4-34 Comment: Revise Section 7.2.3, bullet #2 under "Open Space and Public
Facilities" (page 94) to add the words "to the extent practicable." (See
attached letter for exact rewording)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text to clarify that
buildings in the neighborhood residential area south of the Transit Spine
should be sited so they are not visible from areas south of the open space
preserve which fronts I-580.
4-35 Comment: Revise section 7.3 Foothill Residential (page 99) as follows:
Under section "Form": a) delete first bullet
b) add reference to Figures 4.1 and 6.2 to third
bullet
Under section "Building Siting":
c) modify first bullet to restrict clustering to
rural residential areas only
d) delete second bullet
e) modify third bullet to change setback to 5 feet
Under section "Grading": f) delete first bullet
g) modify third bullet to add "where practicable"
Under section "Open Space and Public Facilities":
h) modify second bullet to add reference to
Figures 4.1 and 6.2
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following changes:
Under section "Form": a) do not delete first bullet; insert word
"generally" to allow some flexibility
b) add reference to third bullet as suggested
Under section "Building Siting":
c) do not modify first bullet to restrict clustering
to rural residential areas only; this guideline is
intended to apply to all residential areas
d) do not delete second bullet but add the words
"where feasible" to allow some flexibility
e) modify third bullet as suggested
18
Under section "Grading": f) delete first bullet as suggested
g) modify third bullet to add "where feasible";
Staff believes this term will link the caveat to
fiscal or engineering constraints, rather than
individual developer preferences
Under section "Open Space and Public Facilities":
h) modify second bullet as suggested
4-36 Comment: Revise Section 7.5.1 "Pedestrian/Bike Paths," bullet #1 under
"Design" (page 105) to reduce specified widths.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan. These widths are required by Caltrans.
4-37 Comment: Revise Section 7.5.2 "Streets" as follows:
Under section "Fallon Parkway": (page 105)
a) bullet #5: delete the word "wide" add the
words "and for grade transitions at ROW line"
b) bullet # 7: delete inclusion of pedestrian/bike
trail
Under section "Tassajara Road": (page 105)
c) bullet #2: delete and add wording to signalize
intersections based on
existing and projected
traffic flows
Under section "Residential Streets": (page 112)
d) bullet #2: reduce widths
e) revise Figure 7.49 to conform to reduced widths per comment (d)
Under section "Village Special Entry Streets - Fallon Village," (page 116)
f) bullet #1: delete width and replace with
"variable." Delete requirement for a
sidewalk.
g) revise Figure 7.54 to conform to changes in comment (f)
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as follows:
Under section "Fallon Parkway": (page 105)
a) bullet #5: retain wording as presently appears
in the Specific Plan
b) bullet #7: retain wording as presently appears
in the Specific Plan
19
Under section "Tassajara Road": (page 105)
c) bullet #2: replace "all intersection signalized"
with "Signalize intersections based on current
and projected traffic flows and Caltrans
Traffic Signal Warrant Standards."
Under section "Residential Streets": (page 112)
d) bullet #2: reduce widths as suggested
e) revise Figure 7.49 to conform to reduced widths per comment d)
Under section "Village Special Entry Streets - Fallon Village," (page 116)
f) bullet #1: Retain 28' width. Delete 6'
requirement for sidewalks and replace with
language requiring adequate setbacks for a
sidewalk or trail.
g) revise Figure 7.54 to conform to changes in comment f)
4-40 Comment: Revise Policy 8-2 (page 119) to change when adequate classroom
space needs to be available.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested (see
attached letter for exact wording).
4-41 Comment: Revise Policy 8-3 (page 119) to require full mitigation of school
impacts per State standards.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the policy as follows:
Ensure adequate school facilities are available prior to development in
eastern Dublin.
4-42 Comment: Revise Policy 8-5 (page 121) to require completion of fire station
construction prior to initial development in the planning area
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested (see
attached letter for exact wording.)
4-43 Comment: Revise Program 8G (page 121) to require the City, rather than
DRFA determination of when the second fire station site would need to be
acquired.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
4-44 Comment: Revise Program 8H (page 121) as follows:
a) Add a requirement for City approval of DRFA recommendations; delete
reference to DRFA design standards
b) bullet #3: add language to allow other methods for maintaining the
buffer zone
20
c) bullet #5: replace compliance with DRFA street standards with
compliance with City standards
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested
except do not delete reference to DRFA design standards (comment a); and
require compliance with both DRFA and City street standards (comment c).
4-45 Comment: Revise Policy 9-2 (page 126) to delete reference to coordinating
DSRSD water system expansion with Zone 7 expansion.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested.
4-46 Comment: Revise Program 9-R (page 129), bullet #5, to add language
specifying that applicable NPDES standards be used in assessing the effects
of development on water quality.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text to say
"consistent with applicable standards."
4-47 Comment: Delete Program 9-T (page 129) which requires a Water Quality
investigation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends removing Program 9-T. Program
9R adequately covers the requirement for water erosion studies.
4-48 Comment: Revise Section 10.3.1 "DRFA Fire Impact Fees" (page 145) to
delete third sentence regarding cost for fire stations and replace with
wording that specifies the cost per station.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text as suggested (see
attached letter for exact rewording.)
Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
incorporate the above text modifications as recom mended by Staff, or revise
Staff recommendations as desired by the Commission.
5. Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District. dated October 15. 1992
Note: Most of the comments in this letter address supplemental information
on sewer or water service. Staff concurs with most of the comments and
will add appropriate statements to the Specific Plan to include the
information outlined in the comments. The information clarifies such items
as service water boundaries, provision of recycled water on the site, new
policies recently adopted by DSRSD, and so forth.
Staff does have concerns with the following comments, which are outlined
below for the Commission's consideration. The numbering system used to
identify the comments is that used by DSRSD in their letter.
1. Chapter 4. Comment 1: The Specific Plan should include the requirements
of SB 109 which mandates set asides for water and wastewater services for
affordable housing.
21
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Implementing the requirements of SB 109 will be the responsibility of
DSRSD. The City has no jurisdiction over the capacity set asides for water
or wastewater services. Staff therefore believes that it is not necessary to
include these requirements in the Specific Plan.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
2. Chapter 9. Comment 22: The Specific Plan should identify areas to be used
for wastewater storage as part of the TWA Alternative North 3 project.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text to indicate the
possible need for locating wastewater storage facilities in eastern Dublin.
It would be premature to locate storage sites as TWA plans are not finalized
and these locations might change.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recommended by Staff.
3. Chapter 9, Comment 34: A table similar to Table 9.1 should be developed
for recycled water service.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Table 9.1 to add a third
bullet under "Phasing - Developer" which state "secure permits in conjunction
with DSRSD for recycled water."
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recommended by Staff.
4. Chapter 10. Comment 1: The Specific Plan should identify DSRSD utility
fees and Zone 7 water connection fees. Also TWA financing alternatives
should be identified.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising the text to include
reference to DSRSD and Zone 7 fees and reference to potential fees for the
TWA project.
The Specific Plan should not include a detailed discussion of TWA financing
alternatives since a preferred option has not yet been selected. Reference
to the possibility for fees for this project should be sufficient at this time.
Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recom mended by Staff.
5. Chapter 10. Comment 4: Language should be added to the action program
regarding how Utility Impact Fees can be secured.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
22
Staff believes this additional information is not necessary. The most
suitable/feasible method of financing these fees will be used at the
appropriate time, depending on the market, availability of funding, and so
forth.
Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
6. Anoendix 6. Comments 10: The text should be updated to reflect recent
capacity requests for the TWA project.
Staff Recommendation:. Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The comment suggests that the section dealing with wastewater export
through the TWA system be updated once certain figures are known. It is
not necessary for the City to delay approval of the Specific Plan to await
this information. There are sufficient safeguards in the Specific Plan to
ensure that adequate water supply is secured before grading or construction
begins.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
6. Letter from City of Livermore. dated October 15. 1992.
6-1 Comment: The City of Dublin should consider a reduction in the future
development of Doolan Canyon.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Doolan Canyon lies outside the Specific Plan area. A lower density
alternative for the entire Eastern Dublin Study Area was considered in the
Draft EIR.
Commission Action Required: None required.
6-2 Comment: The City of Dublin should consider uses that do not conflict with
aircraft operations from Livermore Airport.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan land uses do not conflict with the currently approved
Airport Protection Zone. The City has carefully studied the recent report
issued by the Livermore Airport which details an expanded airport protection
zone. It is Staff's position that the proposed protection zone is not
warranted based on the technical studies provided in the report. Therefore
Staff does not recommend any changes to the Specific Plan land use plan at
this time.
23
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff.
6-3 Comment: The General Plan/Specific Plan should ensure that
commercial/industrial development along Dublin Boulevard extension is
designed to accommodate high traffic volumes along this thoroughfare.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan specifies that access to major arterial streets such as
Dublin Boulevard will only be permitted at signalized intersections or at
selected controlled locations with the approval of the Public Works Director
(page 51).
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
7. Letter from Pacific -Teal Development. dated October 10. 1992
7-1 Com ment: Development in eastern Dublin should include consideration of
Fiberopt ies.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends revising Chapter 5, section 5.7
"Transportation Systems Management" to add a reference to the use of
Fiberopties to reduce daily commuting to work and to encourage more "work
at home" situations.
Com mission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
8. Letter from Yara Yara Rancho. dated January 27. 1992
8-1 Comment: The junior high school should not be located on the Yara Yara
property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
Refer to Response to Comment 1-1 in the October 29 Agenda Statement for
discussion of location of schools.
Com mission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff.
9. Comment by John Anderson. submitted at the October 12. 1992 Planning'
Com mission Meeting
9-2 Comment: The Tassajara Village Center violates the Specific Plan Policy 4-5
to cluster development in the least constrained portions of the plan area.
Staff Reeom mendation: Staff recom mends retaining the text as it presently
appears in the Draft Specific Plan.
24
Development in this location is not intended to be overlaid on the creek and
associated vegetation but rather blended into the existing environment. Per
other Specific Plan policies, adequate setbacks from the creek will be
required along with maximum protection of riparian vegetation. With careful
design, these natural features can be preserved and incorporated into the
fabric of the Village Center to create a unique shopping and living
environment.
Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff.
Remaining Comments That Are Primarily Editorial
9-1 Com meth What is the basis of the assumption that the project will reduce
traffic trips.
Staff Response: The Plan locates substantial amounts of housing within
walking distance of the Transit Spine; the Plan provides for residential as
well as commercial growth so that people can live and work within the area;
and the Plan provides for bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the area.
9-3 Comment: What is the impact of road noise on wildlife.
Staff Response: The impact will vary depending on the animal's tolerance to
urban noises. Some wildlife such as deer, raccoon and even some raptors
can adjust to living in close proximity to urban development.
9-4 Comment: The adequacy of the parking standards cannot be evaluated unless
quantified standards are included in the Plan.
Staff Response: The Specific Plan establishes overall guidance for parking.
Detailed parking requirements are established in the zoning ordinance. Site
specific parking requirements will be reviewed and approved by the City
Public Works and Planning Department.
9-6 Comment: Why is so much of the open space classified as rural residential.
Staff Response: The Specific Plan creates open space by one of three
designations: parks, open space (lands over 30 percent slopes with high
geotechnical constraints or visually sensitive), and rural residential. Rural
residential lands are generally located in areas with steeper slopes but there
is limited development potential. The Plan recognizes this limited
development potential but strives to maintain most of the rural residential
areas as open space by allowing development of only one unit per 100 acres.
9-7 Comment: Open space should be classified as non -developable prior to
project approval.
Staff Response: As discussed in Letter 2 (East Bay Regional Parks District),
ultimate management of open space areas will be determined as part of the
implementation process for the Specific Plan.
9-8 Comment: Where will the water supply come from.
25
Staff Response: Refer to DSRSD letter.
9-9 Comment: How will channel improvements to Tassajara Creek be done
without damaging wildlife habitats.
Staff Response: The Specific Plan contains numerous policies regarding
protection of stream corridors, vegetation preservation/enhancement and
wildlife protection. Any channel work would have to be done in accordance
with these policies.
9-10 Comment: Where will the detention facilities be located for storm drainage.
Staff Response: The location for these facilities will be determined at the
time of individual project design. They will be located according to Zone 7
standards and requirements.
Commission Action Reouired: None required for Comment 9-1 and 9-3
through 9-10.
10. Letter from PARC. dated October 15. 1992
The letter states the following issues. These issues have been addressed in
previous comments and no additional action is required by the Planning
Com mission.
Issues Stated in PARC Letter
a) lack of adequate funding for freeway construction (refer to Response 3-8)
b) lack of adequate water and sewage capacity (refer to DSRSD letter)
c) consideration of an alternative plan (refer to Response 3-10)
d) a comprehensive resource protection plan (refer to Section 6.3 in the
Specific Plan
e) use of reclaimed water (see DSRSD letter)
f) infrastructure costs (refer to Responses 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8)
g) the proposed airport protection zone (refer to Response 6-2)
11. Letter from Grev Anderson. dated October 5r 1992,
11-1 Comment: The area designated open space on the Anderson property should
be redesignated to residential uses (single or medium density).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the present open space
designation on that portion of the Anderson property. The text of the
Specific Plan should be modified to clarify the purpose of the foreground
hills and the potential to develop the backside of the hills as long as the
ridgeline is preserved.
Commission Action Required:, Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to
modify the text, as recommended by Staff.
26
PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST TO REWORD CERTAIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
At the October 21 and 29 Planning Commission meetings, Staff was requested to
bring back revised wording for several policies that Staff had recommended for
modifications. The revised wording is presented below for the Commission's
consideration.
General Plan Amendment Policy 3.1 B:
Consider development in areas over 30 percent slope, if the area to be developed is
1) is less than three acres in size; 2) is a minor portion of a larger developable
area; and 3) is surrounded by slopes less than 30 percent slope.
General Plan Amendment Policy 3.2 A:
Lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland
as long as the landowner(s) wish to pursue agricultural activities. The City
generally does not support the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, unless
some compelling public interest would be served.
The urban land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Map illustrate
ultimate (i.e. long-term) urban development potential and do not represent a call
for the cessation of agricultural activities. To pursue development of their
property, any development proposal must be consistent with the General Plan and
applicable Specific Plan policies for the site. A development application cannot be
approved until a property owner has notified the applicable agency of the intent to
cancel, or not renew, any prevailing Williamson Act Contract on the subject
property.
Commiion Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the
text, as recom mended by Staff, or make further changes as desired by the
Com mission.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hear Staff presentation
2. Discuss the Commission actions in the agenda statement; ask Staff questions
3. Direct Staff, by straw vote, on the various Commission Actions
4. Continue the meeting to November 17, 1992, if needed, to further discuss
Specific Plan issues.
s/ednovl6
27
nlf'skL�►�
. CJ n f ' ', -u --- i
VI 4,
cc,: Pc
ILL
LS
(3(0
54
Ms. Brenda Gillarde
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
PACIFIC TEAL DE VELOPMENT
A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANCY
July 31, 1992
SUBJECT: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Dear Brenda:
RECEIVED
AUG --31992
DUBLIN PLANNING
Pacific -Teal Development, on behalf of Teachers Management & Investment Corporation
(TMI), has completed a review of the Draft Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as it relates to
Dublintown, Ltd. which is managed by TMI. The following are our comments on issues
which we feel need to be addressed to date.
1. Alignment of Dublin Boulevard - According to a conversation with Wallace Roberts
& Todd (WRT), the alignment of Dublin Boulevard through TMI's property was
set based on the topography shown on the USGS Quad Sheet entitled Livermore,
Calif. We would like the ultimate alignment of Dublin Boulevard through TMI's
property to remain flexible in the Specific Plan due to current topography and the
approximate distance of planned land uses on the north and south sides of Dublin
Boulevard.
2. Industrial Park Land Use - According to the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1, attached)
in the Specific Plan, the above referenced land use has been arbitrarily placed on
the eastern edge of TMI's property south of Dublin Boulevard. We believe the
amount of this land use designated on TMI's property to be of insufficient size to
reasonably market under the Dublintown, Ltd. ownership. We request that the
General Commercial land use currently designated on TMI's property extend east
to encompass the entire boundary of the property south of Dublin Boulevard, thus
eliminating the Industrial Park land use.
3. Property Acreage - Upon review of the Specific Plan, a discrepancy in acreage of
TMI's property was found to exist in two areas of the document. As depicted in
the legend on Figure 2.4 (Ownership Patterns), the TMI property is listed to
contain 135.62 acres which is the correct amount. In Appendix 4 on page A4-6 I - 3
(Land Use Summary By Land Owner), TMI has been given 149.1 acres of land use
which is incorrect. Please address this discrepancy in the Final Specific Plan.
-7
ATTACHMENT
200 BAKER STREET • SUITE 202 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • [714j 641-3200 • FAX [714) 641-0615
Ms. Brenda Gillarde
July 31, 1992
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. We look forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) upon its release for 45-day public review which you have indicated will occur
sometime late in August. If you have any questions or comments on the enclosed
information, please feel free to contact me at (714) 641-3200.
Sincerely,
PACIFIC -TEAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
cc: William F. Diehl, TMI
October 15, 1992
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEIVED
OCT 15 1992
DUBLIN PLANNIt_LO
BOARD OF Dt RECTORS
James H. Duncan. President
Jocelyn Combs. Vice President
Ted Radke. Treasurer
0lrer Holmes. Secretary
Harlan Kessei
John O'Donnell
Carroll Williams
Pat O'Brien
General Manager
Subject: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment / Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Tong:
The East Bay Regional Park District's interest in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan relates to our Tassajara Creek Staging Area
and planned regional trail that will connect Tassajara Creek to
Sycamore Valley Open Space and eventually to Mt. Diablo State Park.
It is also important to note that the District is in the process of
annexing the 276 square -mile Murray Township area which includes
the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. As a part of the annexation
process, the District will undertake a cooperative planning effort
with the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) to
provide regional -scale park facilities and services for existing
and future residents of eastern Alameda County.
As part of our advanced planning efforts, the District will be
evaluating opportunities to provide regional parkland, open space
and trails in the areas of Eastern Alameda County, North Livermore,
Eastern Dublin and Southern Contra Costa County. The Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and adjacent large-scale development plans such as
the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and the North Livermore General
Plan Amendment will substantially increase both the region's
resident population and the demand for regional parkland and open
space. It is in this context that the District has reviewed and is
submitting the following comments on the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
Land Use / Resource Management
The Specific Plan specifies that privately -owned agricultural land,
referred to as "Rural Residential" would be permanently preserved
as visual and natural resource areas and open space. While large
lot zoning is a planning technique commonly used to preserve
agricultural land uses and to limit parcelization, it is not the
same as designating public open space for permanent protection.
Open Space is a generic term for various land uses, each of which
should be addressed in the Specific Plan.
2950 Peralta Oaks Court • P.O. Box 5381 •Oakland CA 94605 0381 •510.635.0135 • FAX 510.569.4319
The Specific Plan identifies the East Bay Regional Park District as
a potential steward of the undeveloped rural residential lands.
From an operations and management standpoint, however, it would be
difficult for a public agency such as East Bay Regional Park
District to take responsibility for small remnant parcels of open
space leftover after rural residential development.
As you may know, the District criteria for accepting open space
dedications include a minimum size of 200 acres as a manageable
grazing unit; logical configurations and management boundaries;
adequate buffer zones between open space and development; absence
of geologic hazards; access for emergency and maintenance vehicles;
and potential public access, trails and staging areas. As some of
the areas designated Rural Residential may not meet these criteria,
they would likely become the responsibility of homeowner's
associations which may be ill-equipped to provide ongoing operation
and maintenance functions or successfully carry out required
mitigation measures.
Further, the District is concerned that the Specific Plan contains
no mechanisms or requirements for regulating development on lands
designated Rural Residential. Without established design criteria
and requirements to regulate development in the rural residential
areas, development could effectively negate the character of the
open space making it difficult to establish the open space network
envisioned in the Specific Plan.
The District therefore recommends that the Specific Plan clarify
the purpose and function of open space as a land use and discuss
potential mechanisms for open space ownership, acquisition,
operation and maintenance, including dedication of large contiguous
areas of public open space as mitigation for the loss of open space
due to development and to meet the increased demand by existing and
future residents of the community for passive recreation.
The District requests that the Specific Plan Land Use map and text
be amended to clearly differentiate between private rural
residential land, private open space, regional public open space
and local public open space and that the purpose and function of
each be clearly stated.
The Land Use Plan designates an isolated area of single family
residential development which projects into the northeast corner of
the site, an area comprised of visually sensitive ridgelands and
designated as Sensitive Habitat Area and Golden Eagle Protection
Zone. The placement of residential development at this location'
would fragment the largest area designated for open space uses in
the Specific Plan and could preclude resource management policies
6-16 and 6-18 which call for dedication of high value habitat areas
as public open space and cluster development as a means of
maintaining contiguous areas of natural open space.
The District recommends that the City consider the effects that
such a fragmented land use plan could have on open space, natural
resources and public safety. The District strongly urges the City
to favor clustered development patterns and roadway alignments that
avoid fragmenting the open space into isolated, unmanageable areas.
The Land Use Map designates residential uses along both sides of
Tassajara Creek, in conflict with the Specific Plan resource
management policies 6-13, 6-14, Program 6F and 6G. The District
recommends that development be restricted to the eastern side of
the Creek with appropriate setbacks to protect the Tassajara Creek
corridor and to facilitate use of the corridor by wildlife.
The Specific Plan also identifies the East Bay Regional Park
District as the logical agency to manage the Tassajara Creek Trail
Corridor. The District therefore recommends that VON any plans for
stream corridor restoration and management be acceptable to the
District.
Specific Plan policy 4-29 requires the City to ensure that each new
development "provide its fair share of planned open space, parkland
and trail corridors." The District requests that the Specific Plan
clarify whether "fair share" refers to City park standards based on
Quimby Act requirements or to a development's contribution to
regional parks, open space and trails.
The General Plan Amendment indicates conceptual land uses for the
area outside the Specific Plan (General Plan Amendment Increment
Area) but there is little discussion, if any, concerning the
relationship between development, open space, trails and road
networks in the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment areas.
The District recommends that the Specific Plan more fully discuss
the relationship of these two areas with regard to coordinated open
space planning and management.
Traffic and Circulation
The proposed extensions of Fallon and Doolan Roads as shown in the
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment would bisect the largest
open space area within the Planning Area, eliminating identified
natural resources and habitat areas, including the golden eagle
nesting site and making Policy 6-20 infeasible. Fragmentation of
the site's northeast quadrant by a 4-6 lane arterial road also
raises concerns about ensuring safe pedestrian and equestrian
crossings for regional and local trails.
The District requests that the Specific Plan discuss in more'
detail, the planning and placement of road extensions as they
affect public open space, trails and wildlife corridors and
evaluate the potential for alternative road alignments and widths.
The Specific Plan should also place greater emphasis on grade -
separated crossings and wide "land bridges" at trail corridor and
roadway intersections to facilitate movement by wildlife and allow
pedestrian and equestrian access.
The Specific Plan network of trails or pedestrian paths shown in
Figure 5.3 shows trails leading off the map in the direction of the
General Plan Amendment area, with no destination or regional
connection to either the EBRPD or LARPD system. The District
recommends that the Specific Plan show these connections to the
General Plan Amendment area and to existing and proposed regional
open space, trails and staging areas around the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area.
The Specific Plan discusses one staging area, the District's
existing Tassajara Creek Staging Area, which has very limited
facilities and parking area. In order to implement a successful
public access program for trails and open space in the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area, the Specific Plan must be amended to address
the need for additional staging areas to serve the proposed
population in the SP/GPA and other nearby areas.
Where roadways interface with areas designated for habitat and open
space protection, the District urges the City to consider
restricting homes to one side of the street. The use of "single -
loaded" roads improves access for emergency vehicles, provides an
effective fire protection buffer and makes the open space visually
accessible the entire community.
Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage
The Conceptual Water Distribution System included in the Specific
Plan shows pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs proposed within
rural residential/open space, visually sensitive ridgelands and
wildlife habitat areas. The District recommends that the Specific
Plan include policies which carefully restrict the placement of
sewer, water and storm drainage facilities on lands dedicated for
public open space uses and that the location of such infrastructure
be included in the required site development/design review.
Implementation
The District urges that the Specific Plan Implementation Program
include as key implementing actions, the preparation of open space
and vegetation management plans. This is especially critical for
lands with a Rural Residential designation.
The Open Space Management Plan should cover the phasing of the open
space and trails in concert with the development of support
facilities and mechanisms to finance ongoing open space operation
and maintenance. The Plan should also identify agencies -
responsible for wildland fire protection and address fire
protection and prevention requirements for all open space / rural
residential acreage. Any plans for operating and managing open
space should be prepared in conjunction with public agencies which
may assume ownership and management responsibilities for open
space, including the East Bay Regional Park District.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,
Sincerely,
Andrea Mackenzie
Park Planner
•n
GREENBELT ALLIANCE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Bud. Johns* . •
preatdmt
. AndrewButlet"!
`Inch Cowan* .
..''I r sh MU1vey'
' Audrey Penn lodgers*
• VIce Presfdfents
. Jerry Tone"
R0Secrefary-Trepsurer •
'' 'L7av1 BOrtlbe?ger*
Roberta Borgonovo*
Richard Catalano
Don Dickenson
Volker Eisele*
George B1Iman*
John Erskine
• John Fioretta
Jahn ForPstor •
• Lester W, Gee
Don Gilmore
Robert V.:Hawn
• Robert'E. Johnson
• T. J, Kent, Jr. •
Bob Mang'
Maeve Mltchell
Mai E. Mitsui*
• AndrewNash •
• Nichols Stewart
' Ellen Straus • •
Dee Swnnhuyaer*
Laney Thornton
Barbara Winiarski
Renate Woodbury
Gary Zimmerman*
*Executtt>e Cominttttee
• • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
' T ny.Chman
'ADVISORY COsiViT A
Howard Allen
' Robert Augeburger
.• . Leslie S. Ayers
Lucy Blake
Joseph Bodovitz
lewia H. Butler
.1 Patricia Compton
1.01a Crozier -Halle
Mrs. Ralph K.1)avies
Laurence Dawson •
Rene di Rosa
. Kit Dove
- :Barbara Eastman
William D. Evers
Mort FleInhhacker •
•. June Foote
Eileen R. Growald
Alfred Heiler
I. Michael Heyman
James D. obbs
. Joseph C'. Houghtcling
Allan Jacobs
Huey Johnson
Robert Kirkwood
Melvin 8. Lane
Putnam Liverntnre •
Lawrence Livingston, Jr.
Pamela Lloyd
•Irwin Lockman •
Sylvia McLaughlin
'. TheodoreOw:nu-odaon
Neal R. Peirce
George A. Scars • .
.Mrs. William Siri
Wallace Stegner
TEL:1- 15-543-1093
Oct 15,`
P...E 0 p I. E P 0 R O P EN S PAC L
October 15, 1992
City of Dublin Planning Commission.
c/o City of Dublin planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Comments on East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Sge
14 : 51 No . 004 P.01
RECEIVED
OCT 15 1992
DUBLIN PLANNING•
Dear Commissioners:
The proposed East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
should be rejected.
The Draft Plan and supporting documents have not demonstrated that the
proposed plan and proposed road projects are consistent with:
-- the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State
Implementation Program (SIP);
-- the Circulation Element and Open Space Element of the Alameda County
General Plan;
.- the Alameda Congestion Management Agency Congestion Management
.2
Program;
- the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Transportation
Plan;
- the Zone 7, koniz Thrill Water Supply Re or1, February 1992;
- �Z�on„el•
��7, Draft Policy Statement on Actions When Dowd_ Bxcood
�i1�11i„i/+a.;
- the Cortese/Knox Reorganization Act.
*Gram_
jmiorej
•
MAIN OFFICE • 116 New Montgomery Suite 640, San Francisco CA 94105 • (415) 543-4291 AITACHMEHT.
evantra 1 14/2ThaAlsmeia Suite213, San )sae CA 95126 • (1nR)983-0539 •
GREENBELT ALLIANCE TEL
Oct 15 14:52 No.004 F.02
East Dublin Plan Page Two
The plan has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible:
1) Financing services for the project is dependent upon generating significant sales tax
revenues, Table III - 9. No documentation la provided to show sales tax projections are
realistic. Projected sales tax revenues are more than Pleasanton received in 1990, $8.6 million;
Livermore In 1990, $4.1 million;. and San Ramon in 1990, $6,0 million. There is no
documentation to support the assumption that sales tax revenues in the plan area will exceed the
sales tax revenues Dublin makes from its car existing car dealerships,
The analysis should identify all proposed commercial development and projected sales tax
revenue for in the entire MI -Valley to determine how much double counting is taking place on
sales tax revenues.
2) More than half the capital cost of infrastructure will be developer financed-: $262,427,000
('fable 10-1). The financial plan fails to *acknowledge that part of the developer share could.
come from an assessment district,
Dublin San Ramon Services District, for example is considering two options for financing
the sewer and water: one is to place an assessment on all property in the East Dublin Planning
Area; the other Is to require the first landowner that develops front the cost of sewer and water.
The financial plan must identify the landowners that will be asked to pay developer
infrastructure casts up front, what the cost will be, the amount of money that will be raised, and
identify how it will be raised, Is Alameda County expected to contribute $ 181,185,000 up
front for sewer and water fees? Will Alameda County be asked to float a bond to pay for
developer financed infrastructure?
If an assessment district is levied on property owners for developer financed infrastructure
fees, the finance plan must calculate the cost of financing these bonds. The finance plan must
also determine if developer fee assessment bonds, plus Mello Roos Districts for other
infrastructure, plus property taxes, will remain less than 2 percent of the value of the property.
The financing plan states total annual assessments should not exceed 2 percent of the 'value of
the home'. (p. 148) The financing plan has not demonstrated that this rule can be accomplished
with this project '
3) The plan assumes that fresh water is available for the project and that the cost -of fresh
water wilt remain the same as current hook-up fees. (Appendix 6, Table A-5) This assumption
is contradicted by Zone 7's reports and policles.
According to Zone 7's Lone Term Water Supply Report, February 1992, pp. B-9, there is
only enough water for meeting the needs of 174,000 people in the Zone 7 service area -- an
additional 40,000 people beyond the number of people now living in the valley. Zone 7's
current water supply is not sufficient to meet the needs of buiidout of adopted general plans 'in
the Zone 7 service area. Even if all households reduced their consumption by 10 percent per
capita and planned state water facilities are built, Zone 7 will not have water allocations to meet
the needs of buiidout of adopted general plans, and the proposed general plan amendments for
East Dublin, West Dublin, and North Livermore.
The Last Dublin Plan must recognize Zone 7's actual water allocation and incorporate a
funding program that is consistent with Zone 7's Draft Policy Statement on Actions When
Demand.&coeds Supply.
•3—z
GREENBELT RLLIRNCE TEL:1- 15-543-1093
Oct 15,. 14 : 52 No . 004 P.03
East Dublin Plan Page -Three
The Zone 7 draft policy states, "When the expected demand for water equals the sustainable
supply, Zone 7 will not approve deliveries of water above the sustainable supply."
Purthermore, wit is expected that future supplies will cost substantially more than existing
supplies; therefore, Zone 7 may enter separate contracts for future water supplies."
The East Dublin Plan must identify the new water supply for East Dublin, The finance
plan must identify the cost of securing, delivering, and treating the new water supply.
-4) Retiring Mello Roos bonds for other infrastructure for the East Dublin project asswnes that
water is available, and that new housing will besabsorbed fast enough to retire the bonds. The
Specific Plan must identify a funding strategy Illustrating how the Mello Roos Bonds will be ,
retired if the water is not available,
5) Retiring the infrastructure bonds assumes a high absorption rate for new housing and
significant sales tax revenues. The plan must demonstrate that new jobs are being created in
the Livermore Valley that will pay a salary that enables employees to make a down payment,
monthly mortgage payment, and Mello Roos payments, to absorb all the homes in the planning
areaplus West Dublin, North Livermore, Dougherty Valley and Thssajara. The plan must
document how the number of households that can afford $185,000 houses, plus Mello Roos
payments, will significantly increase during the next 20 years, given the fact that ABAG
protects most households will earn less than $55,000 a year.
6) The East Dublin Plan has determined school impact fees will finance 25 percent of the
eapaci needed for local school children (p. 146). What is the funding mechanism for the -
.romatn 7S percent?
7) The plan has not demonstrated that school construction and operational expenses; fire,
police, and local government service requirements; Dublin special district fees, and other
special district fees can be financed without exceeding 2 percent of the assessed value of the
houses.
8) The plan has unrealistically assumed that Caltrans will pay for freeway widening,
interchanges and flyovers (p, 149). There is no documentation to support this conclusion.
o The proposed new interchanges and freeway flyovers are not in the California
'Iansportation Commission's State Transportation Improvement Program.
o The projects are not in the Metropolitan'17ansportation Commission's Regional
Transportation Plan.
animft
GREENBELT ALLIRNCE TEL:1-415-543-1093 Oct 15,9.
14:54 hJa . 004 P.04
East Dublin Plan
Page Four
o The plan must identify the cost of construction and bond financing identify for widenpecific grading
building Interchanges at Fallon Road, and building flyovers;
commitments from each jurisdiction and how it will be financed; and identify Alameda
County transportation projects and Bay Area transportation projects that will forgo state
and federal funding to allocate scarce public funds to.Dublin's freeway improvements.
o The plan must identify how the freeway widening project can be found consistent with
the federal TIP and the State Implantation Plan.
9) The plan has not demonstrated that services can be provided and therefore violates the
Cortese Knox Reorganization Act.
An alternative plan should be identified that does not require construction of the Tri Valley
Wastewater Authority pipeline, does not require improvements to the freeway, and does not
require Zones to expand beyond its state water allocation. The plan should be transit oriented,
minimize the developed area and create a permanent urban boundary. The plan should contain
a program to work with Alameda County, Livermore and Pleasanton to direct job growth and
housing development to vacant industrial lands in western Alameda County; and includes a
program for revenue sharing between jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this plan.
Sincerely,
Mark Evanoff
Field Representative
3- IQ
Law Offices of
Hallgrimson, McNichols,
McCann & Inderbitzen
P.O. Box 10189
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400
Pleasanton, California 94588-0189
Telephone 510 460 3700
Facsimile 510 460 0969
File No.:
Reply To:
Pleasanton
October 16, 1992
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Stephen L.R. McNichols, Jr.
Steven L. Hallgrimson
William D. McCann
Eric Wong
Martin W. Inderbitzen
Howard S. Miller
Kevin W. Wheelwright
Harvey E. Levine
Steven M. Fleisher
Ronald I. Rainey
Nickolas P. Tooliatos II
Of Counsel:
Wm. H. Gale, Jr.
Michael E. Kyle
Mark L. Hirsch
Nancy L. Brandt
Celine Ellett Duke
William F. Burns
Lawrence R. Jensen
Phillip G. Vermont
Christopher D.A. Meidl
Pamela A. Lewis
Claudia J. Martin
Mark K. Smallhouse
Mark Makiewicz
RECEIVED
OCT 16 1992
DUBLIN PLANNING
RE: EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Dear Larry:
This letter and the attachments to it are by way of follow-up to
Ted Fairfield's correspondence of early September commenting on the
East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan documents, and a
conversation which you subsequently had with Rod Andrade. It is
my understanding that you suggested to Rod it would be helpful for
the City if we were to provide specific language changes to the
documents which we felt would be more consistent with both the
spirit and intent of the Specific Plan/General Plan documents and
our proposed development plans.
I have taken the liberty therefore to propose specific language
changes to various policies and programs which are offered for your
consideration. I believe that the language changes are consistent
with the spirit and intent of the documents and in many cases are
even more consistent than the Draft language. Through the course
of the ongoing planning effort in Eastern Dublin, members of our
development team have had numerous conversations with your staff
and field trips to properties in East Dublin to try to reach a
meeting of the minds on how the property might best be developed.
While we believe there is a mutual understanding regarding this
intent, we find some difficulty with the specific language in the
Plan documents. Therefore, the suggested changes.
lin\amendment.tng
San Jose Office: 40 S. Market Street, Suite 700, San Jose, California 95113-2303 Telephone 408 275 6600 Facsimile 408 275 0315
Page 2.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these suggestions.
Should you require specific clarification or amplification of the
suggestions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HALLGRIMSON, McNICHOLS
McCANN & INDERBITZEN
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
MWI\pc
Attachments
cc: Ted C. Fairfield
Richard Ambrose
lin\amendment, tnq
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PROPOSED REVISIONS
I. The land use map (Figure 2-B) should be modified so that the
category entitled "RR - Rural Residential" one dwelling unit per
100 acres is redesignated to RR/OS - rural residential open space
one dwelling unit per 100 acres.
The text at page 7 under the category "Residential: Rural
Residential (one unit per 100 gross residential acres)" should be
deleted. In its place should be substituted the following
language: "Rural Residential/Open Space: (one unit per 100 gross
residential acres)." The text should read as follows:
Rural Residential/Open Space lands are those areas shown
as Rural Residential/Open Space on the land use map
(Figure 2-B). This designation permits limited
development in areas that are intended to remain
predominately rural and open space in character due to
environmental or aesthetic constraints. The City shall
encourage the clustering of residential units on lots of
one half acre to five acres in size. The corresponding
open space portions of Rural Residential/Open Space land
may be either publically or privately owned. However,
the City is encouraged to pursue public ownership of the
open space portions. The open space areas may be used
for agricultural production and grazing, and both passive
and active recreational uses consistent with the public
health and safety and environmental concerns for the
area.
II. The text at page 9 under the category "Open Space" should be
deleted. In its place should be substituted the following
language:
"Open Space lands are those areas shown as open space on
the land use map (Figure 2-B) and other areas dedicated
as open space on subdivision maps. Open space shall
ultimately be publically owned. The intent of this
provision is to ensure the protection as public open
space those areas with special significance such as areas
with slopes over 30%; stream and drainage way protection
corridors; woodlands; and visually sensitive ridgelands.
The City may allow only open space uses on this land.
Equestrian, riding and hiking trails will be encouraged.'
Other types of recreational uses, agriculatural and
grazing may be permitted where appropriate."
III. A new policy should be added to each of the categories of Open
Space (3.1 for Preservation of Natural Resources and for Public
Health and Safety; 3.2 Agricultural Open Space; 3.3 Open Space for
Outdoor Recreation). The policy should read as follows:
Preserve open space areas for the protection of public
health and safety, the provision of recreational
opportunities, and the production of natural resources.
Explore methods of preserving open space including fee
purchase, conservation and scenic easements, transfer of
development rights, and special District financing.
IV. General drafting revision to the Draft General Plan Amendment
for Eastern Dublin is to combine Eastern Dublin policies with
Western Dublin policies where consistent. This revision is
possible in the following sections: 3.1, 3.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.2.3.
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Policy 4-5: Gencantratc ranidcntial development in the lcas
c.r(ironmcrtclly constraincd pertr. cno cif tha plan arca, and
c.nuLluLa pnci.t ac G ncthcd cf--redu ng Cr avoiding
impact f csnstrc.ircd or cnvironmentally s✓-citrlvc areas.
Program 4D: Place a Planned Development (PD) District overlay zone
on the entire planning area. The PD District overlay would require
all projects above a certain size (to be determined by staff) to
submit to a Planned Development review process. This will help
ensure that policies and underlying intent of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan are implemented, including the creation of compatible
mixed -use development, creation of an attractive, efficient and
safe environment, encouragement of innovative ,. development
solutions, efficient use of land and the preservation of
significant open space areas and'r natural and
topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of natural
land forms; . . .
Program 4F: delete entire program
Program 4G: Explore the possibility of establishing an in -lieu fee
to support the development of below -market -rate housing within
e-ac crr. D' blin.
Policy 4-26: delete entire policy
Program 4N: Calculate and assess in -lieu park fees based on the
City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit toward parkland
dedication requirements will only be given :...:.....:.:..::::
sloping areas sui able
ids
ractivc recreation uae.
level
Program 40: Require developers to dedicate public access easements
along ridgetops and stream corridors Wls e necesaary to accommodate
the development of the trials and staging :.:.:ar.:.:eassh:.:oai
:;;::;:,:;.:>:;::;;<:::::�;•:._:r;>�:><::>�Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level
of Service D or better as the average intersection level of service
Kiji;:.:i ; :::$.w.ii:•i:$::jj::{: .::}::::jisj:Y::.:L:jiff::{i?}\}:::Y,.$ii•::::: ; :j:•}: i4yj;Fj+•:/: ii: •i: ii:;
at all intersections t hin thG ::_ c :„< an:::; r during AM PM
and midday peak periods:
tin\docs\edsp1014.rdl
Program 5A: Major Arterial Streets: Item 8: Provide two left
:
turn b/..! 3--ai`id G..L 1,. k/'4.�'�: �:�c�'t
turris:::::a all intersections with major arterial and arteria
streets.
Arterial Streets: Item 4: Minimum curve radius:
with no superelevation.
Major Collector Streets: Item 4: Minimum curve radius: Sbf
with no superelevation.
Add New Item 7: On street parking is prohibited with the
exception of emergency parking.
Local Residential Streets: Item 3: Maximum grade: 5
percent (maximum grade up to 0 percent may be allowed under
special conditions and approved by City Engineer).
Item 5: Maximum length of cul-de-sac street:
wing no more then DS- dwclling
r1l�"rid.
em
600 feet
Policy 5-20: Encourage on -street parking on all collector and
local residential streets vray. Allow on -street parking on lower
volume arterial streets within commercial areas.
Program 5C: s;:a::::r<?<CJ «:; Trail construction
materials and methods sriall conform to tTie East Bay Regional Parks
District standards for trail construction. The trial shall be
construed for minimum visual impact. There should be a buffer with
an approximate minimum width of 300 feet between the trial end
............................:.::..
:'»tt nearby development.
Program 5F: The City shall establish a citywide Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program. The program would require
employers with -5-9 500 or more . . .
Program 6A: Review of open space plans by the City police and fire
departments and other applicable agencies -Fa.g. Dap"rtment cf Pic:
end Game, Zone, etc.) to ensure compatibility with their standards
and practices.
Policy 6-9: Natural stream corridors, <`wn
a ...............r...
ponds, springs, seeps, and wetland areas shall be preserve
wherever possible. Print to orektv: t ,e1 3f development applic ation3,
the Calif vt:n c. D✓pe ti: ont of Fisk and ate end the Army Corp3 of
Egir.ccrta mudt be con3ultcd to dctermir.a whether tkoy have
t the. wctcrcoursc or watland tree.
lin\does\edsp1014.rdi
2
a professions
and Came.
Policy 6-10: Riparian and wetland areas shall be incorporated into
greenbelt and open space areas as a means of preserving their
hydrologic and habitat value. Unavoidable loss of riparian habitat
due to development should be replaced with similar habitat en
to a 3:1 inkind basis de rxt. >u<a::
Loss of wetlands must be mitigate d......consistent.. wit
the COED "no nct loss" policy.
Policy 6-11: All stream corridors ''Q 'u 7 should be
revegetated with native
g plant species toenharicetheir natural
appearance and improve habitat values _ s o o
Revegetation must be implemented by
Califvr:r c Dar ertment of Fish
approve
Policy 6-14: knee-p'ablic enj-oyment and iiiib lity
cvrrido-rc by &voiding development that backs directly
art^rvx calri-d&r, and Ensure safe public access to stream
by providing frequent access points
each development area.
Policy 6-17: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in
the planning area will be avoided wherever possible. Mitigation
programs will be required as necessary to reduce or eliminate
impacts on .::... ...:....:..:::..:..:,.::.::::..
.......p...... s-pev al �rtrtus 3pccico-
-::::::::::: <-::;-::•:.:.F:S:_::::;:::f;:::4-:•;??;>:e;+>:�`:•;:•>:4i:-:-?:oix-::t-si::;-:•>:t;:'.y;-:r.:r.:...:.:.....;;.. ........... n..........,...: .::..::.:::.::r::::
f &treen
onto the
corridors
�7? within
Policy 6-19: Where roadways divide open space areas, underpasses
shall be provided to facilitate the movement of wildlife without
barriers IVII,, ccx. .. o ;:;: ; ; .; :: 1440 :»:0.440 ' .
Policy 6-20: Revise Figure 6.3 to show accurate delineation of
Golden Eagle Protection Zone.
Program 6E: The City shall require all project applicants to
submit a multi -parameter wetlands delineation to the COE for
verificat eh —a d juriodictional-eatablishren , and submit plans for
ro os p e p alternation to watercourses
s
to the DFG for th&f r •. • •w and &weer✓a . Applicants will
e required to submit these agencies' determinations, any required
permits, and approved mitigation plans as part of the final
development plan submittal.
Program 6G: The City should require dedication of land and
improvements (i.e. trails, revegetation, etc.) along both sides of
stream corridors s;Itrti"'_ as a condition of subdivision
o
approval . . .
Program 6L: The City shall require development applicants to
conduct a pre -construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat
modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify
lin\dots\edsp1014.rdt
3
the presence o s 3'r a of sensitive species, . . .
Program 6M: The City shall require placement of all transmission
lines >> za 1 underground to avoid the potential for raptor
electrocutions. If" undergrounding . . .
Policy 6S: Establish technique(s) for implementing the long term
preservation ofvisually—significant' ::::spoirtiona of hillsides.
Options to consider includes density transfers (through the
Planned Unit Development process) and homeowner association
maintenance; private ownership with public maintenance supported
by assessments on homeowners, or dedication of land to a public
agency, such as the East Bay Regional Parks District or the City
of Dublin, with maintenance being the responsibility of the agency
holding title to the land.
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline
that borders the planning area to the north and east, but will be
permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands if a backdrop of
natural ridgelines gee y remains visible when viewed from
designated scenic routes and appropriate measures are taken to
minimize visual impacts.
Policy 6-30: Structures shall not be located where they would
obstruct idea scenic views or appear to extend above
anc entified scenic ridge op (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from
designated scenic routes.
Policies 6-33, 6-34 and 6-35: delete and replace with:
Policy 6-35 (old 6-36): Building design shall conform to the
surrounding natural landforms as much as possible. Techniques such
as multi level founelatienc, rooflines which complement the
surrounding slopes and topography, and variations in vertical -
massing to avoid a monotonous or linear appearance shall be used.
In areas of steep topography, structures should be sited near the
street to minimize required grading.
lin\docs\edsp1014.rd1
4
Policy 6-39: Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors shown
.................................
:::...::..::..:..::...:.....
are visual features that have special scenic value for
e planning area. The visual character of these corridors should
be protected from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, . . .
7.1.1 • 7: Use low hedges, shrub masses, end walls b r to
screen parking lots from street views, as well as to give defined
edge to the lot.
7.2.2 Tassajara Village: Tassajara Village is sited at the
junction of Tassajara Road and Fallon parkway, next to Tassajara
Creek in a semi -circular valley bounded by gently sloping hills.
An historic schoolhouse stands on the plain between the creek and
Tassajara Road. Specific design guidelines for Tassajara Village
are intended to ensure that village development respects the local
setting and maintains a strong sense of place. An illustration of
the a development concept for Tassajara Village is shown in Figure
7.28.
4- 32,
Open Space and Public Facilities:
0 2: Incorporate Tassajara Creek as a natural backdrop to
the commercial area, giving the Village a distinctive image. De 4f1
net a trir�zc vi vulvc.'rt t :i eze nam a channels atiori and 3
7.2.3 Fallon Village: (second bullet under Open Space and Public
Facilities) Site buildings on the junior high school site to avoid
grading of the string of hills in the open space preserve to the
u' south. TytY�e»extent <�> practicable site buildings in the village
neighborhood south of the Transit Spine so that they are not
visible in view of the open space reserve from the south.
7.3 Foothill Residential:
Form: delete first bullet:
modify second bullet as follows: Maintain the cxi3ting
pattern of natural drainages showxt:::�n>T���.. ���<�4::>�a�d�:{r r.: tr
hillside area.
Building Siting: first bullet; cluster buildings
>a a to reduce necessary grading and preserve open
space
continuity. `
second bullet; delete
third bullet; under side setback, change 10 ft to 5 ft
sin\does\edsp1014.rd1
5
Grading:
first bullet; delete
third bullet; modify as follows:
, ,
terrace steep slopes; avoid high retaining wa s.
Plant spilling plants at the top • •
Open Space and Public Facilities:
Second bullet; modify as follows: Provide a minimum
building set back of 25 feet from the edge of dcsignatcd drainage
corridors
7.5.1 Pedestrian/Bike Paths: Combine pedestrian and bike trails
in natural areas into a single paved path. Separate bike
trails in natural areas are to be 4-1- wide.
7.5.2 Streets:
Fallon Parkway: Widc Variable width median to allow grade
difference between northbound and southbound lanes in steep areas
....................
• .....
20' minimum from curbline to ROW line. Incy include pcdestrian/bikc
trtil aleng sidc. (See Figure 7.38.)
Tassajara Road: Delete Item #2 and substitute:
Residential Streets:
from curbline to ROW line
includes 6-'- sidewalk and 6-1- planting strip with canopy trees. 4- 7
Ilim•ammy
Revise Figure 7.49 to conform with revised sidewalk/planting
strip as noted.
Village Special Entry Streets (Fallon Village):
28' median accommodates natural drainage swale. Plan
informally with native riparian vegetation. Includes 6' sidewalk
on each 3idc cf median:
Revise Figure 7.53 to conform to revised text.
Action Program:
Program 7A: Design Review. The City shall establish Design Review
procedures and assign review responsibilities for certain projects
proposed in eastern Dublin
centers, and eway &th-arGas. The con en e Design Review
wi be based on the design guidelines and development standards
contained in this Specific Plan and any guidelines which the City
has established for the City as a whole. In general, it is
recommended that the process include at least three steps:
Conceptual. Design Review, Site Plan Review, and Building Review.
lin\docs\edsp1014.rdt
6
4/ -38
The ci y has the option ofconductiigthis
review with planning staff and Planning Commission, or augmenting
their review with a Design Review Board or a qualified design
professional.
Program 7C: Master Streetscape Plan. The City shall require -the
devGlcipncnt of develop a Master Streetscape Plan for the Town
center Commercial area to ensure the concepts set forth in the
Specific Plan are translated into detailed design standards that
will be applied to all projects in the subarea.
Policy 8-2: Promote a consolidated development pattern that
supports the logical development of planning area schools, and
ensure that adequate classroom space is available prior to tho
dcric-,lapricnt LIwordination with ocmnPancy of new homes.
Policy 8-3: Ensure that new development in eastern Dublin,
including both residential and non-residential development, fully
mitigates the impact of such growth on school facilities, according
Stateo '' •
Policy 8.5: Time the construction of new facilities to coincide
with new service demand in order to avoid periods of reduced
service efficiency. The first station will be sited and bcgin
construction c=crarxcnt with
Program 8G: Coordinate with DRFA to identify and acquire specific
sites for new fire stations. The westernmost site must be acquired
prior to the approval of the first development plans in eastern
Dublin. Timing for acquisition of the second site will be
determined by DRFA the City. Specific land owners that may be
affected by the requirements for a fire station site are the County
of Alameda for the first station, and either Jordan or TMI for the
second station.
Program 8H:
applicable DRFA. recommendations on project design relating to
access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the
requirements for development approval. Require that the following
DRFA design standards are incorporated where applicable.
A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are contiguous
with wildland area. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with
irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent fire -resistive vegetation or
Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street
slopes, parking recommeh ations, and secondary access road
requirement.
•••••=,..
lin\docs\edsp1014.rdl 7
Policy 9-2: Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries
to encompass the entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Expansion of the DSRSD water system into eastern Dublin should be
coordinated with expansion of the Zone 7 wholesale water delivery
system. The City should support Zone 7's capital improvement
program and water management plan as it relates to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area.
Program R: Detailed analysis of effects of development on water
tea_ • t .. ..... i +. } aF
quality of surface runoff<`>'-<-"-�};}�.:::�:;��<>:�>�::::�;
Program T: Delete all wording for Program T as proposed.
10.3.1 Delete 3rd sentence and replace with:
lin\docs\edsp1014.rd1
8
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
October 15, 1992
Chairperson George Zika and Members
City of Dublin Planning Commission
Ms. Brenda Gillarde, Project Coordinator
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE:
RECEIVE
OCT 15 1992
UBLIN PLANNING
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
FAX: 510 829 1180
510 828 0515
Comments on the Draft Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for
Eastern Dublin
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is our pleasure to present the comments of the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) on the draft Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for Eastern Dublin. Our
comments are presented in this letter and its attachment. Please note that no itemized
comments are offered on the General Plan Amendment.
The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan generally show a conscientious, thorough
effort by the city and its consultants to identify and address all the issues regarding the
provision and expansion of water, recycled water, and wastewater facilities. However, we
have identified several areas of concern which deserve special attention. These are:
Required Planning Period Agreements
Availability of Potable Water
Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority Facilities
Provision of Recycled Water
Project Utility Phasing
Each topic is addressed in turn below.
REOUIRED PLANNING PERIOD AGREEMENTS
The Board of Directors recently approved Resolution 38-92, Extension of Utility Services.
This policy statement provides that the District shall recover costs, including staff time and
direct costs, (such as consultants for the advanced planning work), from those who directly
benefit by entering into standard planning period agreements with the owners of the property
or their representatives. The District will be negotiating such agreements with Eastern
The Dublin San Ramon SeMcrs Disinet is a Public Emily
City of Dublin Planning Commission
Draft Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment for Eastern Dublin
October 15, 1992
Page 2
Dublin land owners as' the land use and development approval process continues in Eastern
Dublin.
As applied to Eastern Dublin, the policy states that the District will consider annexing the
territory and extending utility services when it is requested to do so by the owners of the
property or by public agencies having land use planning jurisdiction -- for example, the City
of Dublin. Annexations must be economically sound and must not place the burden on
constituents currently served by the District. The policy goes on to state that the District
will undertake the planning necessary to provide utility service to the areas considered for
service directly with District staff and their consultants, and only commit to provide service
to development projects at time of annexation and under terms and conditions specified in the
District's annexation documents.
AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER
The Eastern Dublin Planning Area is within the wholesale water supply area of Zone 7.
Accordingly, DSRSD's first choice to acquire supplies for Eastern Dublin development will
be directly from Zone 7. However, DSRSD recognizes that unlimited supplies may not be
available in the future from Zone 7. Accordingly, the Board of Directors passed Resolution
5-92 in February, 1992. This Resolution established the District's policy on securing
additional water supplies for existing and future customers. The Resolution states that it is
the District's policy to:
• First and foremost secure water to meet the needs of existing customers.
• Pursue acquisition of additional water supplies to meet the needs of new
developments being planned by the land use planning agencies.
• Cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain new water but to take the necessary steps to
acquire this water from sources other than Zone 7, if that is what is required.
• That ultimate beneficiaries of the new water equitably participate in funding of the
planning, engineering, acquisition, and delivery of that water, to our service area.
DSRSD is now undertaking a Water Resources Acquisition Study, the goal of which is to
acquire or develop new water resources to both stabilize the existing water supply and to
provide long term firm deliveries to new areas. To date, this work is being funded in its
entirety by development interests in Western Dublin and Dougherty Valley. District staff has
had preliminary discussions with development interests in Eastern Dublin to ensure equitable
funding for the search for water for Eastern Dublin. To date, DSRSD has tentatively
examined a number of potential water suppliers and has targeted three potential search
supplies for consideration.
City of Dublin Planning Commission
Draft Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment for Eastern Dublin
October 15, 1992
Page 3
In order to meet future demand, DSRSD is also pursuing other sources of water that will
include the use of recycled water from its treatment plant as well as water conservation
through the implementation of "Best Management Practices" for Urban Water conservation.
TRI-VALLEY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY FACILITIES
Portions of the Specific Plan appear to assume that current limited capacities within the
export system of the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA)
may be available to development within the Plan area. DSRSD's current projections indicate
that LAVWMA capacity will be exhausted by 1996. Therefore, it is unlikely that any
LAVWMA capacity may be committed to the Plan Area. The facilities planned by the
members of Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) are therefore essential to the
development proposed by the Specific Plan and the General Plan Agreement. The draft
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for TWA facilities identifies a preferred alternative
involving the pumping of raw wastewater from service areas such as Eastern Dublin through
trunk lines north to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's wastewater plant for treatment
and disposal. This alternative ("Alternative North 3") further requires the siting of storage
for raw wastewater during storm and other peak flow conditions. This storage will be in
addition to emergency storage that TWA has already identified in its draft Subsequent EIR.
Based on a maximum of 4.4 mgd from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, approximately
five to eight million gallons of storage will be required. The District is currently analyzing
the most cost effective configuration for this storage, whether it be centrally located at the
TWA pump stations or separate storage within each project area. It is anticipated that the
storage will be underground with odor control facilities.
PROVISION OF RECYCLED WATER
The Specific Plan notes the potential for recycled water use but does not include policies
which require its development or provision. Recycled water from the DSRSD Wastewater
Treatment Plant serves as an additional supply of water in addition to that provided by Zone
7 or other potential potable sources. Having recycled water for large landscaping during
times of extended drought or other uses, provides a fail-safe supply that will protect
landscaping during times of extended drought or other water emergencies. The use of
recycled water for such non -critical uses as landscaping, can actually protect substantial
investments in landscaping by the City as well as private property owners. Resolution 42-92
of the Board of Directors established a Recycled Water Policy (Attachment B to the attached
comments) which sets out policies and priorities for the provision of recycled water. It
provides that in certain zones, recycled water would be a required addition to the potable
source for specified acceptable uses. The zones within which this provision will govern
would be created by ordinance. We anticipate that significant portions of the Pastern Dublin
City of Dublin Planning Commission
Draft Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment for Eastern Dublin
October 15, 1992
Page 4
Plan area would be identified as such recycled water zones.
PROTECT UTILITY PHASING
The feasibility and costs of utility infrastructure are greatly affected by the manner in which
development projects are phased. As the Eastern Dublin land use plans contain the potential
for a number of diverse and separate development proposals which could occur in several
different sequences, a phasing plan should become an integral requirement of plan
implementation. We strongly recommend that the phasing plan be adopted as a condition of
annexation into the City and DSRSD. The Plan for Services referenced in Section 11.1 and
the Phasing Recommendations contained in Appendix 6 should be developed into a phasing
plan which links developments and the infrastructure needs within and between the phases in
the Specific Plan area. Such a phasing plan should also be implemented within the General
Plan Amendment area and link the Specific Plan to the General Plan Amendment area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Specific Plan and the draft General
Plan Amendment. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
BERT L. MICHALCZYK
Technical Services Manager
BLM/BWW: gb
\brubaker\comments\edubsp In. cv r
COMMENT 11.9N 'THE
RAFT: EASTERN DUBI :v.Ku-q : PLAN' Ar'SFN1vt NT:
DATED MAY;27; 1992:
CHAPTER 1
No Comments
CHAPTER 2
No Comments
CHAPTER 3 - SUMMARY
1. Page 19 - 3.8.1 - Water Supply and Facilities. It is stated that DSRSD will obtain its
water supply from Zone 7. It should be noted that DSRSD is currently constructing a
well jointly with the City of Pleasanton and is undertaking a Water Resources
Acquisition Study. The goal of the Water Resources Acquisition Study is to acquire
and/or develop new water resources for all the District's Advanced Planning areas,
should Zone 7 not be capable of supplying wholesale water to the entire development
area.
2. Page 20 - 3.8.2 - Wastewater. The section should be re -written as follows:
"Wastewater service to the Specific Plan area will be provided by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District. Development in the Specific Plan area will require the
construction of collection facilities and additional treatment and disposal capacity.
The additional treatment and disposal capacity can be achieved via the facilities
proposed by the members of the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA). These
measures may include pumping sewage north to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District (CCCSD) via their trunk sewer for treatment at the CCCSD plant. The TWA
facilities will be augmented by increased water reclamation and reuse within the
Specific Plan area and the existing service area."
CHAPTER 4 - LAND USE
1. Page 27 - 4.4.2 - Affordability. Senate Bill 1019 (October, 1991) requires water and
wastewater utilities to set aside capacities to serve affordable housing projects as those
projects are identified and approved by General Plan Amendment actions.
Accordingly, Policy 4-8 should include the requirements of SB 1019. DSRSD will be
formulating policies and procedures to separately allocate new water and wastewater
capacities to affordable housing projects in accordance with SB 1019 as those projects
are approved by the City.
Tlie I)uhttn San [Union Senrte. I )l.tntt a I,ihhe Emily
Page 2
CHAPTER 5
No Comments
CHAPTER 6
No Comments
CHAPTER 7
No Comments
CHAPTER 8
No Comments
CHAPTER 9 - WASTEWAI'hR AND STORM DRAINAGE
1. Page 125 - Paragraph 9.1. Domestic Water System. sub -paragraph 2:, second sentence
states that currently the DSRSD water service boundary is the same as the city limits
of the City of Dublin which extends as far east as Tassajara Road. In actuality, the
area that is east of Dougherty Road and which extends to Tassajara Valley (i.e.,
Camp Parks) was annexed to the District in 1983 with a DSRSD condition that
service was to be limited to sewerage and refuse. DSRSD is currently analyzing the
implications of this action and what the requirements would be for DSRSD to provide
water service for the area. DSRSD is not responsible for the Camp Parks water
distribution system or sewer collection system. Although we agree that DSRSD
should ultimately be the water and sewer service provider to the Alameda County
property, there remain a number of institutional issues between the County and
DSRSD that have to be resolved. These include the phasing of the 30 year water
supply contract between the County and Zone 7 as well as several outstanding sewage
capacity issues between DSRSD and the County.
2. Page 125 - Paragraoh 9.1. Domestic Water System, sub -paragraph 2: Recycled water
should also be mentioned as an additional water supply source for the Eastern Dublin
area in addition to the sole water supply coming from Zone 7. Recycled water is
such an important component of the total water supply for Eastern Dublin that its use
will very likely be required by DSRSD in accordance with our Recycled Water
Policy. (Copy enclosed as Attachment B).
3. Page 125 - Paragraph 9.1, Domestic Water System, sub -paragraph 2:, DSRSD is also
jointly constructing a groundwater well with Pleasanton. This will allow DSRSD to
utilize its share of independent quota water (210 mg/yr) within our service area.
fhr Dublin Sin Ramon Sen1ir, Dist not is a Dilbb. Emily
Page 3
4. Page 125 - Paragraph 9.1.1. Required Water Distribution System. first sentence;
Delete the "and" in front of item 5, and add the following at the end of the first
sentence; "and 6) a new 24 inch diameter recycled water main from the DSRSD
Wastewater Treatment Plant".
5. Page 125 - paragraph 9.1. Domestic Water System. end of the second paragraph;
States that DSRSD would be a logical agency to combine all the water services into
one system. The preceding sentence mentions Camp Parks Reserved Forces Training
Area as well as the Alameda County area. We have not done any planning related to
DSRSD being a water service provider to the Camp Parks Training Area. It is our
understanding that the Army intends to keep Camp Parks as a base and will,
therefore, be responsible for the maintenance of its water distribution system and
collection sewers within its confines.
6. Page 125 - Paragraph 9.1. Domestic Water System, DSRSD acknowledges that the
County property is currently within the District, (including the portion of land west of
the specific plan area that is being traded from the Army to Alameda County and
BART), however, a number of issues between DSRSD and Alameda County must be
resolved before service will be provided.
7. Page 126 - subsection 9.1.2. DSRSD Expansion. The following should be added
after the first paragraph: "In February, 1992, the District adopted Resolution 5-92
which is the Water Supply Policy. [A copy is included as Attachment C to these
comments.] This Resolution established the District's policy on securing additional
water supplies for existing and future customers. The Resolution states that it is the
District's policy to:
• First and foremost secure water to meet the needs of existing customers.
• Pursue acquisition of additional water supplies to meet the needs of new
developments being planned by the land use planning agencies.
• Cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain new water but to take the necessary steps to
acquire this water from sources other than Zone 7, if that is what is required.
• That ultimate beneficiaries of the new water equitably participate in funding of
the planning, engineering, acquisition, and delivery of that water, to our
service area.
DSRSD is now undertaking a Water Resources Acquisition Study, the goal of which
is to acquire or develop new water resources to both stabilize the existing water
supply and to provide long term firm deliveries to new areas. To date, this work is
being funded in its entirety by development interests in Western Dublin and
Dougherty Valley. District staff has had preliminary discussions with development
interests in Fastern Dublin to ensure equitable funding for the search for water for
Eastern Dublin. To date, DSRSD has tentatively examined a number of potential
n, Dublin s.n w.n„on k ,.r, ui.in. i. T lti,nu, en"iv
Page 4
water suppliers and has targeted three potential search supplies for consideration. In
order to meet future demand, DSRSD is also pursuing other sources of water that will
include the use of recycled water from the wastewater treatment plant as well as water
conservation through the implementation of "Best Management Practices" for Urban
Water Conservation.
DSRSD has also recently adopted a policy (Resolution 38-92) on the extension of
utility services to new areas. [Copy of Resolution 38-92 included as Attachment D].
Resolution 38-92 establishes the policy of DSRSD for service to areas within and
outside of DSRSD's sphere of influence. As applied to Eastern Dublin, the policy
states that the District will consider annexing the territory and extending utility
services when it is requested to do so by the owners of the property or by public
agencies having land use planning jurisdiction -- for example, the City of Dublin.
Annexations must be economically sound and must not place the burden on
constituents currently served by the District. The policy goes on to state that the
District will undertake the planning necessary to provide utility service to the areas
considered for service directly with District staff and their consultants, and only
commit to provide service to development projects at time of annexation and under
terms and conditions specified in the District's annexation documents. The District
shall recover costs, including staff time and direct costs, (such as consultants for the
advanced planning work), from those who directly benefit by entering into standard
planning period agreements with the owners of the property or their representatives."
8. Page 126 - Comment to Policy 9-2. We recommend revising the last sentence to the
following: "The City should support DSRSD's and Zone 7's policies, capital
improvement programs, and water management plans as they relate to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area."
9. Page 126 - Comment to Action Program: Domestic Water Supply: Program 9A.,
The second bullet should be revised to state: "Support implementation of the DSRSD
Water Use Reduction Plan and implementation of Best Management Practices for
water conservation."
10. Page 126 - Program 9A. Add the following bullets:
• Water efficient irrigation and landscaping systems for residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial areas in accordance with AB325.
• Adoption of a water efficient landscape ordinance by the City of Dublin that
will apply to Eastern Dublin development.
• Encourage the use of recycled water during construction for compaction and
dust control.
11. Page 126 - Action Program 9B: Water Reclamation. We recommend revising the
second bullet to state the following:
Rtr Ilubltn San Itan,,n tiervl.n Instnct Is n iuittln Ennv
Page 5
• Construction of a recycled water distribution system in Eastern Dublin as well
as necessary offsite facilities to support recycled water use. Construction of
such a recycled water system will require approval of the use of recycled
water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7, and the San Francisco Bay
Area Regional Water Quality Control Board.
12. Page 126 - Program 9C. Revise the wording of this sentence to read as follows:
"Require Eastern Dublin Development Interests to participate in planning period
agreements with DSRSD that will include updates to be performed to DSRSD's Water
System Master Plan and computer model reflecting the most recently proposed
Specific Plan Land Uses."
13. Page 126 - Response to Program 9D. See earlier comment 1 that addresses the issue
of providing Camp Parks or Alameda County with water service from DSRSD. If
pending issues with Alameda County are resolved, DSRSD will then provide service
to the County's portion of the specific plan area.
14. Paae 126 - Program 9E. Revise sentence to state: "Require that the design and
construction of all water and recycled water system facility improvements be in
accordance with DSRSD Policies, Standards, and Master Plans."
15. Pan 126. 9.2 - Wastewater - The first paragraph implies that DSRSD may be
operating the collection system within Santa Rita Jail as well as Camp Parks. This is
not true for either facility. It is important to note that DSRSD currently only treats
sewage from Camp Parks and the Santa Rita properties. Presently, the collection
system within Alameda County is owned and operated by Alameda County and the
collection system within Camp Parks is also owned and operated by the Army. See
comment 1 for additional discussion on this subject.
16. Page 127 - Third paragraph under 9.2, Wastewater. It is stated that DSRSD jointly
owns a wastewater treatment plant with the City of Pleasanton. This is not true. The
entire plant is owned, as well as operated, solely by DSRSD. DSRSD provides
wastewater treatment service to the City of Pleasanton under contract.
17. Page 127 - Fourth paragraph under 9.2, Wastewater. This paragraph states that
LAVWMA and TWA are "wastewater disposal agencies". This is not true. They are
each joint powers agencies with a number of public agencies as members. It is true
that their current prime focus is wastewater disposal.
18. Page 127 - 9.2.1. Required Wastewater Facilities, First Paragraph. The third
sentence states "the current LAVWMA export disposal facilities are projected to be
exceeded in the early 1990's". DSRSD now projects 1996 or later as the date
disposal facilities are exceeded. This is based on a February 1992 study by
n . IhthOn San Hanlon Sena( , ut.nntI , a fLn. Enn .
Page 6
Pleasanton and DSRSD staff entitled, "Analysis of Wet Weather Flows on Wastewater
Storage and Export Capacity of the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the City
of Pleasanton".
19. Page 127 - 9.2.1. Required Wastewater Facilities. first paragraph. first sentence:
Because TWA's facilities will require storage of wastewater as part of the pumping
facilities, the first sentence should be revised by adding the words "wastewater
storage" after collection, so that the sentence would read, "In order to provide
wastewater service to Eastern Dublin, collection, wastewater storage, treatment, and
disposal facilities will have to be constructed."
20. Page 127 - 9.2.1. Required Wastewater Facilities. first paragraph. fourth sentence.
The sentence reads, "At the present time, TWA has developed a preferred alternative
for additional wastewater disposal capacity which would involve pumping untreated
wastewater from Fastern Dublin and the rest of the valley (emphasis added) north to a
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District trunk sewer, with final treatment and disposal
through CCCSD facilities." We believe the sentence can be misconstrued by the
phrase "rest of the valley". A more precise choice of words would be "and other
areas identified in the draft Subsequent EIR by TWA".
21. Page 127 - 9.2.2. DSRSD Expansion. The third sentence is misleading by implying
that LAVWMA will have ample capacity for new service areas. This is not
necessarily true. DSRSD has no capacity in the LAVWMA system for Fastern
Dublin, flows will be serviced by the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority Alternative
North 3. This is discussed at length in the draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report that was released in January, 1992, by TWA. Certification of the TWA
Subsequent EIR has been tentatively scheduled for the October 22, 1992 TWA Board
of Directors meeting.
22. Page 127 - 9.2.2. DSRSD Expansion. As part of the coordination reference under
Policy 9-4, the Specific Plan should identify areas to be used for wastewater storage
as part of the TWA Alternative North 3 project. If approved, the TWA Alternative
North 3 will require in -valley storage of raw wastewater during storm events. This
storage will be in addition to emergency storage that TWA has already identified in
its draft Subsequent EIR. Based on a maximum of 4.4 mgd from the Fastern Dublin
Specific Plan area, approximately five to eight million gallons of storage will be
required. The District is currently analyzing the most cost effective configuration for -
this storage, whether it be centrally located at the TWA pump stations or separate
storage within each project area. It is anticipated that the storage will be underground
with odor control facilities.
23. Page 127 - 9.2.3. Wastewater Reclamation. We recommend the term "Wastewater
Reclamation" be revised throughout to "Recycled Water". This would be consistent
with present-day nomenclature used by the profession. It would probably be better to
The DubIm Sun Raman Sen.,. Utanet is a HtbUc Entity
Page 7
have recycled water under its own separate heading because it relates to both
wastewater, which is heading 9.2, as well as domestic water, 9.1 (see earlier
comment 2). Recycled water from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant serves as
an additional supply of water in addition to that provided by Zone 7. Having
recycled water for large landscaping and other uses provides a fail-safe supply that
will protect landscaping during times of extended drought or other water emergencies.
The use of recycled water for such non -critical uses as landscaping, can actually
protect substantial investments in landscaping by the City as well as private property
owners.
24. Page 127 - 9.2.3. Wastewater Reclamation, reference second paragraph. The Zone 7
study referenced in this paragraph was completed on May 29, 1992 and is entitled,
"Livermore-Amador Valley Water Recycling Study: May 1992; Brown and Caldwell
Consultants". This study identifies the Eastern Dublin area as being a fringe sub -
basin. As such, desalination is not recommended in this study for the Eastern Dublin
area.
25. Page 127 - 9.2.3. Wastewater Reclamation. Policy 9-5. Rather than "promote" the
use of reclaimed water, revise the phrasing to "require" recycled water use for
landscape irrigation in Eastern Dublin in accordance with the DSRSD Recycled Water
Policy. Dual piping systems, one for potable water, one for recycled water, will be
required by DSRSD within the Eastern Dublin planning area. The following should
also be added to Policy 9-5: "Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its recycled water
service boundary to encompass the entire Pastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The
City should support DSRSD's plan for the use of recycled water as it relates to the
Pastern Dublin Specific Plan area." As part of a related action program, it should be
noted that: "Eastern Dublin Development Interests will be required to enter into a
planning period agreement with DSRSD to cover the cost of updating its recycled
water master plan computer model based on the latest Fastern Dublin Specific Plan
and other related planning requirements."
26. Page 128 - Section 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities. Policy 9.6. We
recommend adding the following sentence: "The City should support DSRSD's and
TWA's wastewater management plans as they relate to the Fastern Dublin Specific
Plan area."
27. Page 128 - 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities, Action Program 9I. Add the -
following sentence: "Require Eastern Dublin Development Interests to enter into a
Planning Period Agreement with DSRSD for the purposes of updating its Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan computer model and other related planning
requirements."
28. Page 128 - 9.2.4, Expansion of Disposal Facilities. Program 9J. Add a sentence at
the end stating: "Require Eastern Dublin Development Interests to enter into a
11,. UUMI" San RA11u41 ScM,r. Uisinoi is n {b4IN Entity
Page 8
planning phase agreement with DSRSD for the purposes of updating its recycled
water distribution system computer model reflecting the proposed Specific Plan and
other related planning requirements."
29. Page 128 - 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities, Program 9K. Second half of the
sentence should be modified. Revise "encouraging wastewater reclamation" to
"require the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area and other appropriate uses for recycled water in the area."
30. Page 128 - 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities, Action Program 9L., Add a
sentence to the end of this paragraph that states: "The District may require individual
applicants to limit their estimated wastewater flows to a maximum of 2500 gallons per
net acre per day and/or fund wastewater reduction efforts of cooperative wastewater
producers in the planning area to achieve 2500 gallons per net acre per day for the
participating producers."
31. Page 128 - 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities. Action Program 9M., Revise the
sentence to read: "Require Eastern Dublin applicants to obtain a will -serve letter
from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval."
32. Page 128 - 9.2.4. Expansion of Disposal Facilities, Action Program 9N., Revise to:
"Coordination with DSRSD policies, standards, and master plans. Require design and
construction of all wastewater systems to be in accordance with DSRSD service
policies, procedures, design and construction standards, and master plans."
33. Page 131 - Table 9.1. Water Service Matrix of Implementation Responsibilities.
Under Phasing and Developer, add the following: Enters into planning phase
agreements with DSRSD to cover computer modeling expenses, and other related
planning costs. Under Funding and DSRSD, add the following: "Other potential
sources of funding include selling of bonds, special assessment districts, change in the
connection fee rate, a change in the replacement allowance, and a possible treated
water surcharge." Under Construction and DSRSD, add the following after the first
bullet: "Issues waterline construction permit to developers following satisfactory
review and approval of development plans." The second bullet should be revised to:
"Charges plan checking, connection, inspection and other related miscellaneous fees
to developer at review of developer plans." Add the following third bullet: "Inspects
construction of developer -installed water distribution systems." Under Construction
and Developer, revise the first bullet to read: "Upon payment of DSRSD connection
fees, issuance of DSRSD waterline construction permit, and issuance of building
permit, constructs water distribution system within development in accordance with
DSRSD design standards exclusive of major infrastructure agreed to be constructed by
DSRSD."
34. A table similar to Table 9.1 should be developed for recycled water service with the
The pump Can Ramon Smuts District is a ILblfc Entity
Page 9
same general overall discussion that follows in Table 9.1 as well as the comments
contained under comment 32 of this letter.
35. Page 133 - Table 9.2. Wastewater Service Matrix of Implementation Responsibilities.
The same comments apply to this table as were made in comment 32, except that the
word "sewerline" should be substituted where waterline is referenced.
36. Figure 9.1 - Conceptual Backbone Water Distribution Svstem. It should be noted on
the drawing whether or not the conceptual system was based on the use of recycled
water. We believe this plan assumes that there is no use of recycled water for
irrigation, therefore, some of the lines may be slightly greater in diameter than need
be should recycled water be used in Eastern Dublin. On the same drawing it shows a
future connection to DSRSD, Pressure Zone 1 to the west. This line may or may not
be existing by the time Eastern Dublin develops. If it is not in place, there will be
off -site development costs related to installing a pipeline from the end of Dublin
Boulevard at its present location at the SP right-of-way, east to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan boundary.
37. Figure 9.2 - Conceptual Backbone Wastewater Collection System., The TWA future
Fast Valley Interceptor may replace portions of the 33 inch, 30 inch, and 27 inch
pipeline shown that are west of Fallon Road. Attachment E contains Figures 4-4 and
4-5 from the January 31, 1992 TWA SEIR that show the proposed alignment of the
East Valley Interceptor going through this portion of the 'Eastern Dublin planning
area. The note at the lower left-hand corner of Figure 9-2 should be revised to say:
"To existing DSRSD Collection System and/or Future TWA Pumping System."
38. Figure 9.3 - Conceptual Backbone Reclaimed Water Distribution System.. On this
Figure, all the references to reclaimed water should be replaced with "Recycled
Water". Revise the note at the lower left-hand corner entitled, "Reclaimed Water
Supply from New Advanced (emphasis added) Wastewater Treatment System", to
say: "Recycled water system from DSRSD wastewater treatment plant." The present
statement infers that a substantial process improvement will be required at the existing
DSRSD wastewater treatment plant. This may not be true because the May 1992
Zone 7 Livermore-Amador Valley Water Recycling Study found that the Eastern
Dublin area would be in a fringe area and would not requiredemineralization of the
recycled water. There may, however, be some additional modifications to the
existing DSRSD treatment plant filters and other related processes. It should also be
noted that the alignment of the 24-inch pipeline shown along Interstate 580 and
crossing in the vicinity of Hacienda Drive may actually be located in the future
Eastern Dublin Boulevard extension right-of-way and cross Interstate 580 from south
to north near the end of Owens Court in Pleasanton and into Scarlett Court in Dublin.
Routing from this point may go up through Chabot Road, then east into the Dublin
Boulevard extension. Exact alignment of the 24-inch diameter recycled water main
Ihr IAtbpn San Haman <rM,.. UI<tnot IS d hiblit EnIIIV
Page 10
requires further study.
CHAPTER 10 - FINANCING
1. Page 143 - 10.3.1 - Capital Improvements. Included here should also be a
discussion of utility fees levied by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. These
fees include a water connection charge based on meter size and a wastewater
connection charge calculated on the basis of dwelling unit equivalents. A
summary of DSRSD connection charges is included as Exhibit A to these
comments.
Mention should be made also in this section of Zone 7 Water Connection Fees. In
addition, a discussion of the TWA financing alternatives identified in the
subsequent EIR to the TWA project should also be included.
2. Page 146, 147 - 10.4 - Financing Goals and Policies. DSRSD agrees with the
financing goals identified in this section and expects to use a combination of
financing tools which may include those identified in Policies 10.1 through 10.10.
However, it should be indicated in the preface to Section 10.4 that the provisions
of the Specific Plan policies will not regulate DSRSD's utility financing and
expansion activities.
3 Page 147 - 10.5 - Capital Financing Sources and Burden on Land Uses. The
Section states that existing Dublin San Ramon Services District fees are not
sufficient to cover all infrastructure costs and that the City will have to consider
creating a system of developer and builder impact fees to fund remaining costs.
Although coordination of the imposition of these fees and costs will be necessary
between DSRSD and the City, the creation of any additional fees to fund costs not
currently covered by DSRSD connection charges or other financing measures for
water and sewer infrastructure, will be the jurisdiction and responsibility of the
District.
4. Page 149 - Action Program: Financing. The bullet on Utilities Impact Fees
addresses coordination of efforts to fund utilities services. It should be noted that
Utility Impact Fees can be secured through assessment proceedings of the City or
independently by Dublin San Ramon Services District, through Assessment
District financing or up -front developer payments.
5. Table 10.1 - The Table should clearly indicate that the breakdown of costs
Ilir Uuhitn S.,n Ramon Senvr, U,etnrt In a Ibblu Entity
Page 11
between Developer Funding and Impact Fees and Mello -Roos or Assessment
District financing, are merely estimates and are not binding requirements upon the
project nor upon DSRSD.
6. Table 10.2 - Infrastructure Phasing Program.. Table 10.2 assumes a 17-year
build -out of the Specific Plan Project. The General Plan Amendment assumes a
30-40 year build -out program. It is unclear what the phasing relationship between
the 17-year build -out of the Specific Plan and the 30-40 year build -out of the
General Plan Amendment would be. A 30-40 year build -out period for the
General Plan Amendment should result in a longer build -out for the Specific Plan
than 17 years.
Table 10.2 indicates that water service improvements are scheduled for
construction beginning in 1995 whereas streets and mass grading improvements
begin in 1994. To avoid extensive trucking costs and mitigate potential impacts
from lack of construction water or use of potable supplies for construction, it is
recommended that recycled water infrastructure improvements be constructed into
the first development Phase prior to mass grading and street improvements.
CHAPTER 11 - IMPLEMENTATION
1. Page 158 - 11.2.6 - Annexation. It should be noted that DSRSD will also be
required to adopt a resolution and conditions of annexation which will become part
of the City's application to LAFCO for reorganization. This should also be noted
in Table 11-2 under "Responsibility for Document Preparation".
Appendix 6, "Background Documentation for Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage".
1. Page A6-1 - Background. See comment 1 to chapter 9 that is related to the DSRSD
service boundary.
2. A6-1 related to Current Policies. We believe the following should be the first
paragraph: "On February 4, 1992, DSRSD Board of Directors passed Resolution 5-
92 [Attachment C] that outlined the District's water supply policy. This policy has -
the following basic points:
• To secure water to meet the needs of the District's existing customers.
• To pursue the acquisition of additional water supplies to meet the needs of new
developments being planned by the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon.
• To cooperate with Zone 7 to obtain the needed water, but to take steps -that
may be necessary to acquire this water from sources other than Zone 7 if that
fl a I)nhttn San Ramon Sfn1tr. I)I.tnrl ts a t10h11r EMIR
Page 12
becomes required.
• Make the ultimate beneficiaries of the new water equitably participate in
funding for the planning, engineering, acquisition, and delivery of water into
new service areas.
A second policy that relates to Eastern Dublin was passed by Resolution 38-92
[Attachment D] on July 7, 1992 by the DSRSD Board of Directors. This policy
relates to extension of utility services and is summarized as follows:
DSRSD will consider annexing territories and extending utility service
when requested to do so by owners or public agencies having land use
jurisdiction over the territory. Annexations must be economically
sound and should not place a burden on constituents currently served by
the District. DSRSD will only commit to provide service to a new
development project at the time of annexation on the terms and
conditions specified in the annexation ordinance. This policy also
outlines how DSRSD will recover costs from the owners of new
property through planning period agreements.
Finally, although it is true DSRSD does not have a policy requiring an individual
parcel to connect to its water distribution system, a well serving one parcel may not
provide water to another parcel across the boundary line. The construction of private
wells must be approved by the County Department of Health and Zone 7.
3. A6-2 - Existing Water Distribution System. second paraaraph. This paragraph should
be updated to reflect a new water main that was placed in the Dublin Boulevard
extension. The closest DSRSD water services to the Specific Plan are now an 8 inch
diameter main at the end of Scarlett Court, as well as a 12 inch diameter main at the
end of Dublin Boulevard extension, both terminating at the old Southern Pacific
Right -of -Way.
4. A6-2 - Water Supply and Demand. This section references Zone 7's February, 1992
water supply update as using an overall community consumption rate of 210 gallons
per capita per day (GPCD). Using that figure extrapolates to the potential population
that the Valley could support. The 210 GPCD is an overall Valley -wide average that
assumes the Eastern Dublin development will have the same overall mix of
commercial, residential, and industrial facilities in the future as the entire valley does -
right now. It should be noted that the peak DSRSD water consumption using
commercial as well as residential occurred in 1990 and was 170 GPCD. Regardless
of the per capita consumption rate one assumes, we still conclude that the overall
Valley -wide water supply will run short when compared to the various prospective
plans for all the Valley cities. The degree of shortage, however, may not be as great
as implied in the past Zone 7 report. The Zone 7 report is based on TWA data
indicating a potential population of 274,000 and it should be noted that this TWA
ntr UuAlln Sun Wmun Senn<. Ulan( 1,. a ILMit enure
Page 13
prospective plan data is based on a land use concept and a division by the valley cities
approximately two years ago. The most recent trend has been for reduction in those
numbers. In addition to the efforts by Zone 7, DSRSD is in the process of
completing a Water Acquisition Study (see comment 7 to chapter 9). To meet future
demands, DSRSD also envisions the use of recycled water from its treatment plant in
Pleasanton and the implementation of Best Management Practices for Urban Water
Conservation. It should be noted that on May 29, 1992, Zone 7's consultant
completed the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Recycling Study. This Study
recommends several key projects, including the use of non-demineralized water from
the DSRSD Treatment Plant for landscape irrigation in the Eastern Dublin area. This
report identifies the Fastern Dublin area north of I-580 as being in a fringe sub -basin
with allowable total dissolved solids of approximately 700 milligrams per liter, which
are current wastewater effluent values with no demineralization.
5. Page A6-3 - Planned Water Supoly Sources Improvement. With regard to the second
paragraph, it should be noted that DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton have jointly
constructed a well within Pleasanton that will enable DSRSD to obtain its agreed -upon
independent quota of 210 million gallons per year (about 640 acre feet per year).
This independent quota amount is included in Table A-1 of Appendix A6 and should
therefore not be construed as an additional water supply source, but primarily an
improvement to the DSRSD system.
6. Page A6-3 - Planned Water Supply Sources Improvement. Third paragraph. A
paragraph should be added that DSRSD is a signatory to the "Memorandum of
Understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation in California" along with one
other value retailer, California Water Services Company. A copy of the MOU signed
by DSRSD is included as Attachment F for your reference. DSRSD is implementing
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified within the MOU to achieve water
conservation.
7. Page A6-4 - First paragraph. It should be noted that in addition to Table A-2 of the
Appendix, the DSRSD goals for water use reduction also include implementation of
the Best Management Practices for Urban Water Conservation and the use of recycled
water. Best Management Practices will include the use of water conserving plumbing
fixtures and ultra low -flow toilets within new areas being developed requiring water
efficient landscaping within new areas as well as the periodic completion of landscape
water audits.
8. A6-4 - Estimated Water Supply Demand - First paragraph. It should be noted that
Table A-3 does not account for any savings through the use of recycled water for
landscape irrigation. There may also be the potential additional savings by the use of
recycled water for flushing toilets in commercial and institutional type buildings. As
identified in Table A-7 of the Appendix, approximately 2.5 mgd of water could be
saved by using recycled water for irrigation. This would result in a total average day
n,e unoun San Ram," Scr.,a, ui.t nct Is a i'mn.- Enure
Page 14
demand in Table A-3 of 3.5 mgd as opposed to the 6.0 mgd. DSRSD will require the
construction of dual piping systems within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area for
recycled water.
9. Page A6-6 - Recommended Phasing. DSRSD will require Eastern Dublin
Development Interests to enter into a planning period agreement that will study and
analyze phasing of the water distribution system in related facilities. Conditions for
annexation into DSRSD would include a requirement for the Development Interests to
comply with the recommendations of a phasing study.
10. Pages A6-16 and A6-19 - Maximum Wastewater Export Through Proposed TWA
System. The total estimated cost for Alternate North 3 is $43.4 million which does
not include the cost of buying into the CCCSD facilities. The buy -in costs between
TWA and CCCSD are currently being negotiated. It also appears that the 19 mgd
figure for the export transport system of TWA is from the earlier 1987 LAVWMA
EIR as opposed to the more current TWA draft Subsequent EIR of January 31, 1992.
According to the 1992 SEIR the total TWA system capacity is estimated at 26.1 mgd
as opposed to 19 mgd. Additionally, the TWA capacity allocation between member
agencies is yet to be determined. According to TWA Board of Directors Resolution
92-1, each member agency is to request capacity from TWA and the total amount of
all requests must be less than or equal to 26.1 mgd. Presently, TWA member
agencies are developing their requests. Once these numbers become known, the
analysis presented in this section should be revised and updated.
11. Page A6-19 - Maximum Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. This paragraph
discusses a way in which 2.5 mgd of reclaimed water could be treated with reverse
osmosis and then pumped through a pumping station and forcemains to deliver
reclaimed water to the F-stern Dublin area. This discussion should be updated and
consider the recent Zone 7 study on reclaimed water which has identified Eastern
Dublin as being a fringe basin and not requiring demineralized water for irrigation
purposes.
rnr Iluhlin S.m H.,n. In Services Ulvincl 1, a F' hhr F. nILL\
October 15, 1992
Mr. Larry Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear ong:
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
C E'v E D 1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
OCT 1 y 199a (510) 373-5200
DUBLIN I'LANNINq
O-1 • k
LAX S!-k
Following is an outline of the City of Livermore's
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
will forward final comments on the Plan (and DEIR)
1992.
6
comments on the
Plan. The City
by October 21,
Doolan Canyon Land Use Proposal: The proposed intensity and
type of development in this area will substantially change
the character of this natural buffer area separating the
cities of Dublin and Livermore. The City of Dublin should
consider a substantial reduction in the future development of
this canyon. A reduction to 500-1000 residential units will
preserve much of the open space value of this area and reduce
the level of traffic use of Livermore streets and inter-
change(s) to support this urban development.
Airport Land Use Conflicts: The General Plan proposes lo-
cating significant residential use in geographical areas that
would be adversely impacted by aircraft operations from
Livermore Airport. The City of Dublin should consider alter-
native land uses that do not create the same sensitivity to
aircraft noise.
Transportation: The extension of Dublin Boulevard to connect
with North Canyons Boulevard is consistent with City of
Livermore policy and provides an intra-city transportation
route. The General/Specific Plan proposals should assure
that commercial and industrial development proposed in this
area be located and designed to accommodate high traffic
flows along Dublin Boulevard.
We will expand on these comments in our letter response to the
Plan DEIR. However, I trust these comments will be helpful in the
Planning Commission's October 15th hearing.
Sincerel
ROBERT G. BROWN
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
Mr. Larry Tong
Mr. Dennis Carrington
City of Dublin, Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
PACIFIC TEAL DiVELOPMENT
A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANCY
October 10, 1992
0.-O,f),VLp`4-0
SUBJECT: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
e ECC,V E®
OCj 1.6 1992
DUBLIN PLANNING.
Pursuant to your conversation with Terry Teeple, enclosed please find information
regarding Telecommunications. The enclosed information was taken from the South Sutter
County General Plan Amendment documentation. Through a set of goals and policies,
Sutter County is requiring future development in their south area to explore the use of
Telecommunications as a means of reducing growth impacts (traffic, noise, air, etc.). This
form of communication through the use of Fiberoptics should be considered as part of
development in the Dublin East Area.
We are currently pursuing the use of Telecommunications as part of a project we
represent in the City of Grass Valley. If you have any questions or comments, please feel
free to contact Terry of me at (714) 641-3200. I hope this information is of assistance to
your planning process.
Sincerely,
PACIFIC -TEAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Todd Chambers
Project Coordinator
Enclosures
cc: Steve Hammond, Wallace Roberts & Todd
7
200 BAKER STREET • SUITE 202 • COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • (714] 641-3200 • FAX (714] 641-0615
•
VjeiC
* ;► ,tr t44 4 Pia.. -4. tr,+,d ,tut "
e i — A644 ..414.44 A M $ ttiwt rn e al a.
7� 31 /'U
Fa l i c it;,-r r
Policy 10.4 Develop an energy conservation Action 10.4.1 Coordinate energy -related educational media
comunications program to inform programs.
m
and educate individuals, groups and
businesses. Action 10.4.2 Adopt prnjeet•related energy conservation
guidelines that would be incorporated Into the
development approval proceas to promote and
require conservation strategies as development
proceeds.
Goal 11 Assist in efforts to develop alternative energy technologies which have minimum adverse effect
on the environment.
Policy 11.1 Develop new and innovative Action 11.1.1 Assist in the development of feasibility
resources, technologies, and design demonstration projects that test new energy
features in enemy facilities which can resources or technologies.
assist in maximizing resources and
minimizing impacts. Action 11.1.2 Assist in developing high efficiency power
generation modes and transmission systems.
Action 11,1.3 Assist in analysis of feasibility and benefit of
using new technologies during the siting
procedure for proposed energy facilities.
Goal 12 Maximize the use of telecommunications to reduce transportation and land use demands.
Policy 12.1
Utilize and encourage
telecommunications in order to reduce
the impacts of motorized
transportation on air quality and
energy consumption.
Action 12.1.1 Work with and adopt the policies and atandsrds of
the Sacramento Ares Council of Governments in
their regional transportation and sir quality
planning efforts, as required by the appropriate
state laws and regulations.
Action 12.1.2 Recognize and promote the increased use of
telecommunications facilities which can reduce
the demand for transportation and vehicle trips.
Action 12.1.3 Investigate telecommuting for County employees
which would allow certain work to be done at
home on a personal computer linked to their
workplace computers.
Goal 13 Build into the community every feasible opportunity to maximize telecommunication potential.
Policy 13.1 Establish communications networks to Action 13.1.1 Require fiber optic trenching and wiring in all
obtain and disseminate information for development projects.
decisionmakera, the general public,
and public interest groups. Action 13.1.2 Encourage the design of advanced visual
information systems to allow for standard analog
channels, two-way and multi -way aervkes
(broadcast and conferencing), all local broads set
radio and TV stations, and traditional CATV
services.
Action 13.1.3
Action 13.1.4
Action 13.1.5
Action 13.1.6
Encourage the design of the telecommunication
system to include switched broadband services
such as video teleconferencing.
Encourage the use of the telecommunications
system as high-speed fiber-optic computer
interfaces or Wide Area Networks (WANa).
Encourage development of centralized residential
and business alarm systems to allow the fire and
protective agencies to more readily respond to
emergencies.
Encourage direct utility monitoring. This can be
done at the dwelling unit and linked to a central
monitoring system.
Circulation and Infrastructure
Goals, Policies and Actions
A-20
Action 13,1.7 Encourage the development of communications
links attd information transfer between dwelling
units and local merchants.
Action 13.1.13 Encourage the development of a network boned
communications capability between classrooms
and dwelling units. This should be designed to
address the needs of every level of student, from
nurnery and elementary students to vocational and
university students.
Action 13.1.9 • Require developers to dedicate or set amide
adequate right-of-way to accommodate cable
routes and equipment housings for present and
future telecommunication networks.
Goal 14 An approach to solid waste management which involves coordination with agencies at the
state, regional and local levels, and other interested agencies or persons in the public and
private sectors.
Policy 14.1
The County will include the solid
waste management needs of the South
Sutter County Land Use Concept in
the preparation of their AB 939 Plan.
Action 14.1.1 Specific plats must demonrtrate compliance with
AB 939 and how they comply with the County's
AB 939 Plan.
Action 14,1.2 Participate in regional solid waste management
studies.
Goal 15 Solid waste management services that accommodate the growing local population and without
causing significant damage to environmental resources.
Policy 15.1
Protect sensitive land uses from
exposure to additional noise, traffic
and odors associated with solid waste
management facilities.
Policy 15.2 Extend the life of existing landfills to
the maximum extent possible.
Policy 15.3
Action 15.1.1 intermediate processing facilities and materials
recycling facilities shall be distanced and buffered
from sensitive land uses, Where feasible, they
will sited in industrial area, clone to major
roadways and rail spurn.
The County will identify an interim materials
recycling facility within an employment area of
South Sutter County that has good access to
Highway 99. The site may also need to
accommodate an intctmedtate processing facility.
Action 15.1.3' If the County -wide AB 939 Plan concludes that
compost facilities or hazardous waste collection
centers are necessary in South Sutter County. they
should be located in areas remote from sensitive
land uses.
Action 15.1.2
Action 15.2.1 Encourage and support the development and
implementation of methods to reduce the amount
of wood and yard waste being landfllkd.
Action 15.2.2 Assist the private sector wherever possible in
developing methods for the reuse of inert
materials (concrete, asphalt and other building
material waste) which currently use valuable
landfill space.
Action 15.2.3' Support AB 939 Plan recommendations related to
source, reduction, reuse and recycling/composting
activities.
Include local environmental, social Action 15.3.1 Seek public involvement in the development of
and economic impacts and needs regional solid waste management
when considering regional solid waste recommendations,
management planning and practice.
Action 15.3.2 Develop recommendations which have the least
environmental, social and economic impacts.
Action 15.3.3 Assist agencies involved in aolid waste disposal to
minimize adverse impacts on surrounding natural
resources,
Circulation and Infrastructure
Goals, Policies and Actions
A-21
Frze t4 " 'i. f.e Pua v
5,0 , Sv.4j Co. G. r.p. .
161111 dlill OItllJlil a 1.1 1hI NIMIIItliJulillddl l J11111odllillYi JllmYilllJlhi I Id0V611,ii6ipidl
Chapter Five
CIRCULATION & INFRASTRUCTURE
I. Introduction
A. Purpose
The purpose of this Circulation and Infrastructure Chapter is to provide a plan for
developing and utilizing the infrastructure systems necessary to support the land uses
identified in the Land Use Chapter. The Circulation and Infrastructure Chapter must
correlate directly with the T and Use Diagram so as not to stimulate development
proposals in areas inconsistent with the Land Use Chapter or not provide service to areas
that are consistent. Infrastructure systems must be comprehensively master planned to
efficiently and safely utilize public and private resources. Careful phasing and funding
programs that anticipate growth and development must be created to maintain service
levels and to allow the South Sutter County area to grow and prosper. Detailed
management plans should be prepared to best utilize the infrastructure systems that have
been developed.
In South Sutter County, where relatively few facilities exist, a comprehensive approach
to infrastructure planning has been taken in conjunction with the comprehensive plan-
ning process for land uses. The Land Use Diagram (Exhibit A) relates vehicular and
transit circulation systems to the planned land uses. The Trails Plan (Exhibit K) provides
for pedestrian and bicycle and other non -automobile transportation alternatives for
people to circulate in the planning area. A strong but flexible Land Use Plan requiring
mixed land uses and different land uses (particularly employment and residential in close
proximity will shorten trip lengths and utilize the circulation system more efficiently.
This in turn will minimize congestion, decrease air quality impacts and promote the
opportunity for a higher quality of life for the area's residents.
Other infrastructure and utility systems will be designed and constructed to eventually
serve the whole planning area. Interim improvements that must be abandoned or
demolished will be minimized due to the comprehensive conceptual engineering that
has been completed as part of the planning effort. In all cases, contemporary technology
and efficient use of resources have been incorporated into the planning.
5-1
GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTIONS CIRCUI 4TION & INFRASTRUCTURE
This chapter spells out Goals, Policies and Actions that will guide more detailed
infrastructure planning, funding, development and operation. Amendments to this
chapter may become necessary if changes are made to the Land Use Chapter, new
technologies emerge or a more efficient approach is discovered.
B. Consistency with State Law
Circulation. Elements are required to identify "...The general location and extent of
existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other
local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use Element...." The
Circulation Element must address the establishment of infrastructure that adequately
accommodates not only transportation but sewage, water, drainage, energy and commu-
nications. When combined with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act the circulation systems must be designed and developed to minimize adverse
environmental impacts, and resource consumption, unless its infeasible to do so while
still carrying out the goals of the General Plan.
II. GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTIONS
A. Public Facilities Master Planning
Goal 1 A comprehensive and efficient public facilities and circulation
system in South Sutter County.
Intent To accommodate short-term and long-term development of the South Sutter County
planning area.
Policy Require a Public Facilities Master Plan and service plans (as part of a specific plan)
1.1 be approved prior to approving any development in the South Sutter County
planning area.
Actions
1.1.1
Require the Town Public Facilities Master Plan and specific plans to address
circulation systems, drainage, water supply and sewer, solid waste, energy and
telecommunications, schools, parks and libraries, civic buildings, fire, sheriff
and paramedic service.
1.1.2 Town Public Facilities Master Plans and specific plans shall be consistent with
the South Sutter General Plan.
5-2
GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTIONS CIRCULA"'N & INFRASTRUCTURE
11.1.3 Assist in analysis of feasibility and benefit of using new technologies during
the siting procedure for proposed energy facilities.
E. Communications
Goal12 Maximize the use of telecommunications to reduce
transportation and land use demands.
Intent The increased use of telecommunications can help achieve a community less reliant on
the automobile. A high level of telecommunications can reduce vehicle trips, transpor-
tation demands, and office space requirements. While no one governmental or private
agency has total responsibility over communications, the County should use its ability
to influence facility siting and design with its regulatory and administrative powers.
Policy Utilize and encourage telecommunications in order to reduce the impacts of
12.1 motorized transportation on air quality and energy consumption.
Actions
12.1.1 Work with and adopt the policies and standards of the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments in their regional transportation and air quality plan-
ning efforts, as required by the appropriate state laws and regulations.
12.1.2 Recognize and promote the increased use of telecommunications facilities
which can reduce the demand for transportation and vehicle trips.
12.1.3 Investigate telecommuting for County employees which would allow certain
work to be done at home on a personal computer linked to their workplace
computers.
Goal 13 Build into the community every feasible opportunity to maximize
telecommunication potential.
Intent Communication possibilities in newly developed planned communities are immense.
Development in South Sutter County is well positioned to take advantage of such
opportunities.
Policy Establish communications networks to obtain and disseminate information for
13.1 decisionmakers, the general public, and public interest groups.
5-16
CIRCULATION & INFRASTRUCTURE GOALP "OLICIES AND ACTIONS
Actions
13.1.1
13.1.2
Require fiber optic trenching and wiring in all development projects.
Encourage the design of advanced visual information systems to allow for:
standard analog channels, two-way and multi -way services (broadcast and
conferencing), all local broadcast radio and TV stations, and traditional CATV
services.
13.1.3 Encourage the design of the telecommunication system to include switched
broadband services such as video teleconferencing.
13.1.4 Encourage the use of the telecommunications system as high-speed fiber-optic
computer interfaces or Wide Area Networks (WANs).
13.1.5 Encourage development of centralized residential and business alarm and
safety systems to allow the fire and protective agencies to more readily respond
to emergencies.
13.1.6 Encourage direct utility monitoring. This can be done at the dwelling unit and
Iinked to a central monitoring system.
13.1.7 Encourage the development of communication links and information transfer
between dwelling units and local merchants.
13.1.8 Encourage the development of a network -based communications capability
between classrooms and dwelling units. This should be designed to address
the needs of every level of student, from nursery and elementary students to
vocational and university students.
13.1.9 Require developers to dedicate or set aside adequate right-of-way to accom-
modate
cable routes and equipment housings for present and future telecom-
munication networks.
F. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Goal 14 An approach to solid waste management which involves
coordination with agencies at the state, regional and local levels,
and other interested agencies or persons in the public and private -
sectors.
5-17
1 L'S
( RECEIVED
JAN 2 5 1992
4)/ DUBLIN PLANNING
jazza 2Jazza. E9uEitzlan &ntEt
5374 gaisa/aza c�oaci, 2&a1anton, Coy{ 94566 • 829-0815
1/27/92
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: East Dublin General Plan
Dear Sirs,
A recent study of the general plan appears to have
15 acreas of Yarra Yarra for a Junior High School.
I do not appreciate having a Junior High School on the
grounds of Yarra Yarra. Nor do I think it is in the best
interest of the students, because of its location to the
Santa Rita facilities.
However, if it is impossible to move the school. I would
apppreciate the school being called the William Koller Junior
High School. Mr. Koller had dedicated a great deal of his life
to education.
Thank you.
Fours Truly,
Marjorie Koller
ATTArbUPUT 5:11
EASTERN DITBLLKT SPECWIC PLAN ISSUES
C--(Trn N.o cr\A"s 713V•w• ocu),
CH 4 - LAND USE
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE 'ASSUMPTIONTHAT VEHICULAR TRIPS WILL
BE REDUCED AS A DIRECT FUNCTION OF THIS PROJECT ? - 4.3.1
* FIRST OF 4 FACTORS WHICH IMPACTED FORMULATION OF
LAND USE PLANS WAS THAT "PLAN THAT WILL REDUCE THE
NUMBER AND LENGTH OF VEHICULAR TRIPS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
* THE EMPLOYED MASSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S
COMMERCIALTINDUSTRIAL SECTIONS COULD COME FFOM
writ -;Eft THE BAY AF--EA (B_ YING HOUSI-t-40 WITHIN
THE PLANNINCI AREA r-rJES NoT COL1E WITH A GLIARENTEE OF
A JOB IN THE SAME AREA DUE TO (1) SKILL REQUIREMENTS,
(2) TRANSFERS, FRM OTHCATInNP:AITHIHRM'SOER LOTE
BRANCH LOCATIONS, OR (3) QL ALITY OF THE jOB HELD BY
THE h--`0LIE PURCHASER PRIOR TO BU‘kiING THE FOMF_.)
* ONLY THOSE PEOPLE iN A mANUFACTURING OR RETAIL
ENVIROMENT (46 = 13,083) ARE REQUIRED ON -SITE
T. Earl_ _
" "1-"E7 !".1`1- TE?"--i'-'--!= IN AN OFFICE, SALES,
i 1"1—,1-il N-1:-.1 11 "t.Ji r-,r-c • I 7.-- c
OR SFRVICE ENVIROMENT (54 = 15,200) MAY HAVE
SCHEDULES WHICH REGU!RE LOCAL TRAVEL DURIW3
WORKINCi Fr.)URS, AND PUBLIC TRANSIT WOULD ONLY
SUFFICE IF IT P2OVIDEn MINT -TO -POINT ACCESS OR THE
MATER A REQU RING TRANSPORT WAS SUFFICIENTLY SMALL
THE TASSAJARA VILLAGE CENTER (AT TASSAJARRA & FALLON ROADS)
vn! ATFs POI ICY !qF THE MCQNCETPTED
DEVELOPMENT' (MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY & NEIGHBORED:0 COMMERCIAL)
'(AS LOCATED PER FIG 4.1 & 4.2) ARE OVERLAIN ON THE TASSAJARA
CREEK & IT'S TRIBUTARIES (AS LOCATED BY FIG 6.3 & EIR FIG 3.7-A & B) -
* EIR STATES THAT NORTHERN RIPAR
. IMPORTANT HABITAT - EIR 3.7-2
9 AN HABITAT IS THE MOST
* EIR STATES THAT THE BOTANICALLY SENSITIVE HABITATS ARE
(1) NORTHERN RI:JAR:U-4 HABITAT ,(2 ARKIY0 WILLOW
FnritR:AN WOODLAND, & (3) FREASH WATER MARSH - EIR 3.7-3
ATTArilinut
LARGE AREA iF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DE' OPMENT (AS
LOCATED BY FIG 4.1) ARE ON THE VISUALLY SENSITIVE RIDGELANDS (AS
LOCATED BY EIR FIG 3_8-H)
CH 5 - TRAFIIC AND CIRCULATION
WHAT 'Ocf LL THE IMPACT OF ROAD NOISE BE ON THE WILDLIFE & THEIR
HABITATS?
* TASSAJARR! ROAD IS CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR ARTERIAL
PER 5.2.7 WITH 5-8 LANES OF 'VERY HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME
AT SS MPH
• TAssAJARA ROAD WILL GENERATE AT LEAST GO dBA NOISE
LEVELS (As IND CATEn BY EIRFG3_10-B) D THESE NOISE
It-gIT !NFS CRPFK (A NnFITHERN
RIPARIAN FOREST PER EIR FIC--; 3.7-A) AT A CRITICAL JUCTION
4an-r rrie v-ofn! rr E., V
VSEifiEi v.J
EIR STATES THAT THE BOTAN CALLY SENSITIVE HABITATS APE
(1) NORTHER-N R PAR AN HAB TAT ,(2) ARMY° WILLOW
RIPARIAN. WC() OLAND, et- (3) FREASH WATER MARSFI - EIR 3_7-3
POLICY E-19 'PARKING REQUIREMENTS ..." CAN NOT BE ADEQUATELY
EVALUATED UNLESS QUANTIFIABLE STANDRDS ARE DEVELOPED
* NEED TO DEVELOP MODEL OF USERS OF PAP.KING FACILITIES
1..E-11--IE- RE CO THEY COME FR-OL-1
** WHERE ARE THEY GOING
HOW LONG WILL THEY BE HERE
** WHAT TIME WILL THEY ARRIVE, STAY, OR LEAVE
* NEED TO PHASE IN &JAL OF REDUCING DEPENDANCY ON
AUTOMOBILES
** DEMOGRAPHICS OF TARGET GROUP
REE1ONAP-i 1'7 TILIP BASE
** INSTRUMENT TO CAUSE CHANGE
** FEEDBACK PROCESS TO EVALUATE &/OR ALTER
PERFORMANCE
CH 6 - RESOURCL JANAGEMENT
WHY IS SO MUCH OF THE 'OPEN if CALSSIFIED AS RURAL
RESIDENTIAL ?
* PER TABLE 4.1
ci
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PARKS
OPEN SPACE
1SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
ACP.Fr-‘ i PERCENT 1
409.4 12°i
241.5 70/1
412.4 i 1,-.ni-i
i L'iLK
3,327.8 I 1000/0i
* PURPOSE OF HOPEN SPACE' IS 'RESOURCE PROTECTION &
PUBLIC SAFETY' .- 6.2.4
UTILIZING A RNA ----1-1WNER'S ASSOCIATION AS A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR
OP -EN SPAUE 'MANAGEMENT & OV-a-IERSH
RECJIREMENTS AND PREVAILING LOGIC
P IS COUNTER TO STATED
* iT S PREFERABLE THAT UNDEVELOPED RURAL RESID'ENTIAL
LANDS. BE MANAGED AND MA NTAINED BY AN AGENCY WITH
EXPERIENCE It-4 OPEN SPAC PI A A GEMENT ... F — 6 .4
* 1-10MEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS i-tAvE -NEITHER. THE EX PERTICE
OR THE- SLPPQRTED POWER TO CARRY OUT THIS
REQUIREMENT
OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS NON -DEVELOPABLE BY EDICT
PRIOR TO PROjECT APPROVAL; POLICY 6-7 ON PAGE 67 VIOLATES THIS
r11-1.1 t nlfl al
* 'ALL RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) AREAS SHALL BE KEPT
PRMARLY iN OPEN SPACE. IF POSSIBLE, ALLOWABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN THESE AREAS .2 - POLICY G-7
* ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD IMPACT SCHOOLS,
TRAFFIC, :JLLh CAL HZITATS, NOISE, AIR 'QUALITY, &
FINANCES AND THERF-ORE REQUIRE A REVISED ER WITH.
PUBLIC INPUT - LE A NEW PRO-JECT
* "THE INTENT OF THE PLAN IS THAT THIS RURAL OPEN SPACE
JULO BE PERMANENTLY PRESERVE S A VISUAL &
NATURAL URAL RESOURCE AREA ..." - 6.3
IF WILDLIFE AV -I f- PROXIMITY
TO HLAAN ACTIVITY
(LE.- NARROW
CORRIEURS) HOW WILL WILDLIFE ACCEPTsMANADE UNDERPASS
- t CO� tiuVi IS AS REQUIRED BY PUUCV 6-19 'k
CH 7 - COMMUNITY DESIGN
V
'NO COF-AMENTS''
--4 {
1 L`yI F.1-1. 1 IiIFS
R." is-rfDLIMILF-NTSP.
CH 9 - Sy YY ERE WATER, AND D STORM DRAINAGE
WHERE WELL .H_ WATER SUPPLY L. COME FR: C :_ EEE THL DER -:AND OF
F I FE. L E,'D7s_ _ _ r B— -- r = —_. _— _ —i-' I >_•, S t iFHA
is ijT- ! E-T[ONg •Rr CONSIDERED n WHAT FORMULAS ARE Uz"D TO
CA-!_ LJLATE i HF c
-i F L. r -DE_.M-Mi EQUATIO-N r
• i rER L°O E REFS i Cr. FQRECAS; S tai2 i_ � _Lj & % BA VALE E
--r-177M! 6= _ FoR7_:117-75 E .:_2- E), THE E ALLEY WILL FA
TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR WATER DLURI G THE f i95-9s_r FY
** WATER SUPPLY vAsi i LE - a THE- !E_ DE_.F Ii{N :0 FOR
210,0E38 PEOPLE
** ABA ^ FORECASTS 212,180 PEOPLE IN VALLEY BY
1996
* DSRSD RECEIVES WATER FRO . ZONE 7 & ZONE 7 SUBM
THE FORECAST OF SUPPLY vs DEMAND - 9.1 & 9.1.2
VOW WILL THE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TO TASSAJARA CREEK, AS
TTED
rtn vrlR r! F'.r r', ! eln
81TIl+PTIP\.1+ r ' !r a nrn T(j
:e i-a! P�F i E E EE- i ii- I Lr-ii : L=_i._1 ;i I [i_r i .ui:1v Lfi_ L•'vii 1[ i t_fi iLrLr { Lf
AVOID DAMAGE E TO WILDLIFE HABITATS ? - 9.3.1
ACCESSABILI ( Y
* NATURAL ENVIROMENT
* CONSTRUCTION COMTAMINATION
* DISRUPTION OVER TIME
WHERE WILL THE DETENTION FACILITIES FOR STORM DRAINAGE BE
R. 1. INDUSTRIES TEL :510-829-7172
R.I .INDUSTRIES TEL:5' "'-829-7172
.IVWWuYY�YWWWY�yJ�,dhVVIIdIYIhYd6.,�quIIVWYW416�li�iJ�Vliddu�UqudwdW��IlllVtluloWlYdduhi�Wupbddldyu�iduw�mlwiaumnumll��e�mdiwdu��i�iui�w�u���e��1�� �uou���W���������„������w������� ����������������„�����
Oct 15,92
Oct 15,0)
16:02 No.001 P.02
16 : 05 No . 002 P.01
PARC
te;'-a.._: —,- Zi.: ..•�-'mil -. _ ~'-'
^�� .y:, nn.'»•tirc wry. t t
PRESERVE AREA. r- .,.,,, -, • ,-, , : .; �r�. ,
RIDGELANDS COMMI'1'I EE C;2.t-;-,� (__C �,
1262 M7dison Avc,
Livermore, CA 94550
1
City of Dublin Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Plaza
Dublin, CA 9456E
October 15, 1992
REC'E1VED
OCT 151992
DUBLIN PLANNING
RE: Draft East Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The proposed East Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment should
rejected. The proposed plan fails to provide adequate funding for freeway
construction and does not adequately address water and sewage capacity shortages
and requires a substantial bonding debt with insufficient analysis of that potential
debt. This plan also fails to adequately address air pollution, public open space,
and school funding issues.
The Planning Commission should request an alternative plan which does not include
the Tassajara Village and the northern and northeastern foothill residential areas.
This alternative should include an analysis of the comparative costs of local sewage
treatment with reverse osmosis versus the cost of the TWA sewer proposal. Any plan
should include an analysis of proposed Mello Roos bonding by banking experts, -
The concept of a compact town center should be preserved and better integrated
with the proposed DART station to the west. A smaller plan will address many of the
capacity issues not addressed by the current plan. However, the cumulative affects
of massive development in the Tri-Valley will lead to freeway gridlock. No funding
is currently available to address this issue: Dublin must work with other
jurisdictions to size regional expansion to fit capacity and to expand regional transit
alternatives.
A.I.INDUSTRIES TEL:51u-S29-7172
Oct 15, E 1 E6 : 05 Nr . 00i2 P.02
No plan should proceed without providing for public open space, This plan area
includes several endangered habitats, areas of geologic hazard and creates a
potential for conflict on the urban/rural fringe. The City of Dublin needs to
implement a resource protection ordinance which provider for the protection of
important open space areas and provides for the protection of the public health and
safety. Tossing leftover areas unsuitable or too dangerous for development to park
districts or homeowner's associations does not constitute responsible open space
planning, A comprehensive resource protection ordinance should be the guiding
force for future development.
Any General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan should include the requirement that
all development should define a sustainable source of water to supply all new growth
during the public approval process, All future development should include plans for
the use of reclaimed water for all public and semi-public landscaping. Before any
amendment is approved the City of Dublin should request that the Dublin:San Ramon
Services District resolve with the Regional Water Duality Control Board the issue of
the degree of treatment required for reclaimed water.
The proposed Specific plan fails to adequately address how infrastructure costs are
to be met. What is the mechanism for collecting the developers share of these costs?
What is the mechanism for assuring adequate financing of new schools? What is the
per unit cost of proposed Mello Roos bonding for the area? Is the job generation of
this project likely to provide incomes which will allow new residents to buy average
cost homes and absorb the projected cost of repaying the bonds?
The proposed plan also fails to address the proposed airport protection zone. The
City of Dublin is aware of plans by Alameda County to provide a protection zone for
noise hazards. The fact that Dublin is not in favor of the zone as currently
proposed does not abrogate the city's responsibility to address possible noise
hazards for housing proposed in the area. Any plan proposed should address
alternative zoning for the noise hazard area.
We will address further comments to the City Council when the when the Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment is heard before that body and the comment period is re-
opened as required by law.
Sincerely,
Marjorie R. LaBar
In consultation for Preserve Area i idgelands Committee
GREG D. ANDERSON, D.D.S.
AND ASSOCIATES
Dentistry
Cosmetic & Implant Surgery
RECI=IVED
OCT -81992
DUBLIN PLANNING,
October 5, 1992
Dear Dublin City Planning Commission:
Re: Anderson Property A.P. #99B-3200-6-3
The property is in the specific plan, it's west border
is Croak Rd. and it's south border is the 580 freeway.
(location, see figure 2.3 of specific plan)
With the help of photographs and maps I will try to help you
understand why I would like the open space colored green in figure
6.1 removed.
The trail marked in blue should become the eastern border of
this designated open space. It does not make sense to' continue the
open space to the east over the Croak Rd. border. The land
drastically slopes away from Croak Rd. to the west into a deep
ravine. This swell or ravine is a natural border and trail for bike
and pedestrian traffic, (see photos 1, 2 and 3). Further to the
east would not be natural open space area or accessible from the
west open space, because of the difference in heighth of land and
Croak Rd.
In figure 6.3, it labels this area as visual sensitive
ridgeland, but by looking in photo 4 you can see that this area
has been a dirt quarry for ten years. This is not a ridge, it is
just a facade for the freeway view. This land already has been
developed somewhat from a grading point of view. In figure 6.3 it
shows the open space not continuous but broken at this location
because of the land's physical barriers. In figure 4.1 you can see
how awkward this area of open space looks. It's appendage -like
projection into this area is not congruent with the land use -for
the area.
I would hope for the reasons mentioned, that this area of open
space would be changed to match the surrounding area, (single
family or medium density) . This would not alter any trail, traffic_
pattern, or any facet of the specific.plan. Infact, this change
would make this area continuous and similar with surrounding areas
form a physical and practical standpoint. Thank you for your
special consideration.
Sincerely,
ATTACNh1ENT II