HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08081995 - SD9 • `� Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS rn' _ Costa
County
FROM: SUPERVISOR BISHOPy,•,-
DISTRICT 3 •; �`�
OSTA.COUFI'r`;'G�ti
DATE: AUGUST 8, 1995
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE TRI-VALLEY SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING PILOT PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Consider the suggested objectives and policies contained in Working
Paper #1 and provide comments, if any, to Supervisor Bishop for
transmittal to the Tri-Valley Planning Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding creating the subject
committee, the Planning Committee Member has the responsibility of
providing the Board with routine progress reports and receiving
input for the Planning Committee. The Committee has now reached a
point at which 2 documents are complete and ready for
consideration. These include "Issues for the Tri-Valley Sub-
Regional Planning Strategy" and Working Paper #1, "Location and
Intensity of Urban Development" . The first of these documents lays
out the issues of concern to the Association of Bay Area
Government, who provided funding for the planning study. The
issues are summarized on pages 3 through 6, with respect to the
location and intensity of urban development. The proposed
suggested objectives and policies in this regard are found on pages
26 through 32 of Working Paper #1. It is probably helpful for the
reader to pay particular attention to the italicized "Points for
Discussion" section of the Ojectives and Policies part of the
report.
r
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x _ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON b' / APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Dennis M. Barry 646-2091 ATTESTED -a g, /y,
cc: Community Development Department PHtL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Judy Coons, Auditor-Controller THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CAO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
David Joslin, CDD
County Administrator BY , DEPUTY
County Counsel
- DMB:df
Page Two
It should be noted that a separate implementation document will be
prepared as Working Paper #4 . Further work papers will be
transmitted to the Board as they become available.
It should also be kept in mind that while adoption of the strategy
requires unanimous concurrence of all of the jurisdictions, each
jurisdiction will necessarily need to consider whether and how to
incorporate the objectives and policies in their own general plans.
Issues for the Tri-Valley
Subregional Planning Strategy
Tri-Valley Planning Committee
Members and Alternates
Alameda County
Supervisor Ed Campbell
Planning Commissioner Ario Ysit
Contra Costa County
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Special Projects Assistant Avon Wilson
Town of Danville
Mayor Millie Greenberg,Chair
Councilmember Dick Waldo
City of Dublin
Mayor Guy Houston
Councilmember Paul Moffatt
City of Livermore
Mayor Cathie Brown
Councilmember Tom Reitter
City of Pleasanton
Mayor Ben Tarver,Vice-Chair
Councilmember Karin Mohr
City of San Ramon
Mayor Gregory Can
Councilmember Hermann Welm
May 22, 1995
Issues for the Tri-Valley
Subregional Planning Strategy
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
1. Location and Intensity of Urban Development........................................... 3
2. Natural Resources Protection and Management 8
3. Transportation................................................................................................12
4. Housing.......................................................................................................... 15
5. Economic Vitality.......................................................................................... 18
Appendix—Public Comments.....................................................................A-1
Map
Map I-1. Planning Area
INTRODUCTION
The town of Danville,the cities of Dublin,Livermore,Pleasanton and San Ramon,and the counties of
Alameda and Contra Costa have formed the Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC)to prepare a Subre-
gional Planning Strategy. This is a pioneering effort by local governments working cooperatively to
address subregional issues which individual jurisdictions acting alone cannot deal with effectively. The
program is funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District.(BAAQMD)with support from all seven local governments. The Tri-
Valley Subregional Planning Area is illustrated on Map I-1.
The Planning Strategy will produce five categories of model goals and policies which the participating
jurisdictions can incorporate into their general plans,including:
• Location and Intensity of Urban Development
• Natural Resource Protection and Management
• Transportation
• Rousing
• Economic Vitality
Goals and policies will cover only subjects of subregional,rather than local,significance.
The purpose of this report on Issues for the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy is to identify the
subjects to be addressed. A first step in preparing the report was to determine where there are areas of
agreement and disagreement among the seven jurisdictions. City Council and Board of Supervisors
representatives to the TVPC were asked to review the March 1994 ABAG report entitled Menu of Subre-
gional Land Use Policies,which is a compilation of a range of generic policies in each of the five subject
areas. The responses about whether each policy was one they would support,would consider,would not
support,or was not applicable were compiled. Planning staff representatives of the seven jurisdictions
also compared their General Plans with the Menu policies and in some cases suggested additional
policies that might be considered. This information made it possible to identify subjects on which there is
general agreement,those on which there is disagreement,and possible additional issues to be discussed.
At a series of Community Workshops during late April and early May,members of the public com-
mented on issues they felt should be addressed in the Planning Strategy. Public comments are presented
in the Appendix.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 1
The next step in the planning process will be to prepare a series of Working Papers containing basic
information and suggested goals and policies for the Planning Strategy. A second series of Community
Workshops on the draft Planning Strategy will follow in the late summer or early fall,before the Tri-
Valley Planning Committee acts on the report and presents it to the local jurisdictions for their consider-
ation and possible incorporation into their General Plans.
Each of the following sections of this report contains a statement about why this subject should be
addressed on a subregional basis,followed by a list of key objectives suggested in the Menu of Subre= .
gional Land Use Policies. Next,under Issues,is a list of policy questions related to each subject. Then a
section on Responses summarizes subjects on which the local governments expressed general agreement,
and those on which some jurisdictions disagreed. Finally there is a discussion of Opportunities for
achieving goals and policies on a subregional basis and Constraints that may hinder their achievement.
2 TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT
1. LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ABAG's Projections 94 report indicates that between 1990 and 2010 the number of households in the Tri-
Valley area is expected to increase by two-thirds,from about 78,000 to 138,300. The number of jobs in the
area is expected to increase by more than 80 percent over the 20-year period,from approximately 110,200
to 201,900. ABAG's regional and county forecasts are based on forecast of the economy over the 20-year
period. Local land use plans and policies,and regulations are among the key assumptions used in
developing local forecasts.
The type,location,and phasing of future growth,as well as the total amount,are important. Policies for
the location and intensity of urban development establish a foundation for all other policies regarding
transportation,environmental protection,housing,and the economy.
Key objectives for the Subregional Planning Strategy are:
A. Ensure that new development is in a city-centered pattern,to support existing urban and subur-
ban communities,improve mobility,minimize public infrastructure costs,protect natural re-
sources,and support economic activity.
B. Maintain performance standards and levels of service for public services and facilities,transpor-
tation,and open space.
C. Make the most efficient use of existing infrastructure.
Issues
Urban Growth Boundaries
Urban growth boundaries define areas generally suitable for urban development and areas generally
suitable for long-term protection of natural resources,agriculture and other productive resources,recre-
ation,buffers between communities,and public health and safety. The question of whether an urban
growth boundary should be a permanent limit beyond which urban development should not be allowed,
or whether it should be subject to periodic review and revision,is a policy decision to be made by the
TVPC.
• Should we establish boundaries around existing communities beyond which urban growth
cannot occur?
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 3
• For what period of time should these boundaries extend? Ten years? Twenty? Permanently?
• What kinds of uses should be permitted outside the growth boundaries? Private recreation and
agriculture? Housing,and if so at what densities? Other?
• What kinds of uses should be permitted inside and close to the boundaries?
• . Should there be controls over when development can occur inside and outside the boundaries?
• Should land outside urban growth boundaries be kept open? If so,how can it be protected? Are
there funds to acquire land and/or development rights?
• Should all lands inside urban growth boundaries be presumed to be developable?
Responses: There was general agreement that the subregion should have urban growth boundaries
around existing communities,and that land uses should be planned accordingly,with less intensive
uses outside the boundaries. There was disagreement about how strong restrictions should be,for
example controlling which areas should develop first. There was also concern about how to pay for
greenbelt acquisition,and about whether subregional growth projections are realistic.
Annexation and Urban Expansion
• Land inside urban growth boundaries may be available only in small non-contiguous blocks
which are difficult to develop on a scale that will address housing needs. Is this a justification for.: =}
outward expansion to enable larger-scale housing development that is difficult to accomplish on
an infill basis?
• Can annexation policies by the Local Agency Formation Commissions(LAFCOs)in the two
counties implement urban growth boundary policies?
• Should land inside existing city limits develop before adjacent unincorporated areas?
•, Following are the criteria which the present State law generally requires LAFCOs to use in
evaluating proposed annexations. Should these be changed? Are there other criteria that should
be used?
4 TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT
— The land is within urban growth boundaries.
— Water,sewer,police,fire,and other services have adequate capacity.
— The land within existing city limits is unsuitable or insufficient to meet the need for housing,
jobs,and services at an urban level of development.
— The land adjoins a city or existing or planned city streets on at least one side.
— The land is not under an agricultural preserve or open space contract.
Responses: There was general agreement that annexations should conform to an orderly expansion
of city boundaries within planned urban growth areas that provide for a contiguous development
pattern. However,there was disagreement about what LAFCO annexation criteria should be. For
example,it may be acceptable to allow annexations when services are inadequate,if those services
would be provided as part of a development proposal. There was also concern that annexation
criteria address the quality,as well as the quantity,of development.
Growth Management/Infrastructure
Several issues relate to the management of growth,to assure that there are adequate public facilities and
services to support new development.
• . Should growth be directed to where infrastructure capacity is available or committed,including
roads,transit,water,solid waste disposal,and sewage treatment?
• Should services only be extended to areas contiguous with existing development,within urban
growth boundaries?
• Should the cities,counties,and special districts cooperate to eliminate costly duplication of
capital infrastructure,public facilities,and services?
• Should special districts be consolidated at the subregional level to achieve efficiencies?-If so,how
might this be accomplished?
• Should there be standards for levels of service for all public facilities and services throughout the
subregion?
TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT 5
• Should the governments and special districts within the subregion establish a coordinated capital
improvements program to provide needed public facilities?
• Should a subregional development mitigation program be established,to ensure that new
development pays its fair share of the cost of public facilities and services?
Responses: There was general agreement that development should be encouraged where there are
already services,but disagreement about whether extensions of services should be only to areas
adjacent to those already served. There was general agreement about the need to coordinate the
planning and development of public facilities and services at the subregional level. There were some
questions about the extent to which the public,rather than developers,should pay for extensions of
service.
Land Use and Development Intensity
• Should we encourage different kinds of uses—employment,commercial,residential,public
services—to locate close together,to contain growth and minimize the need to travel?
• Should we encourage higher density housing within walking distance of downtowns and near
major office developments,retail centers,and transit stations?
• Should we establish minimum densities in some of these areas?
• .Should there be incentive programs to encourage infill and reuse of vacant and underused
parcels within existing urban areas,for example with reduced application fees?
• How can we address the problems associated with infill and reuse,such as neighborhood opposi-
tion and on-site toxics?
Responses: There was general support for the idea that different uses should be close together to
reduce the need to travel, that there should be higher residential densities near services,and that
vacant and underutilized land should be redeveloped. But there was disagreement on such incentive
methods as sliding scale fees.
6 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
Opportunities
The Planning Strategy can establish a unified,mutually supportive approach to urban development and
annexation,for the most efficient use of transportation,infrastructure,and environmental protection. It
can provide a basis for the cooperative programming of public services and facilities on a subregional
basis,to reduce costs and inefficiencies. The Local Agency Formation Commissions in each county can
implement annexation policies. Other government agencies can adopt and implement the Tri-Valley
Subregional Planning Strategy.
Constraints
Local governments cannot mandate actions by LAFCOs or special service agencies,such as the East Bay
Municipal Utilities District. LAFCOs cannot make judgments about land use planning. Increasing the
density of development in areas which have services without reducing the densities elsewhere could
overburden planned infrastructure. Consolidation of special districts on a subregional basis would be
difficult,particularly since some serve an area larger than the Tri-Valley. Infill development is difficult to
accomplish when parcels are small,non-contiguous and adjacent to established neighborhoods where
residents frequently oppose development at densities high enough to support affordable units.
TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT 7
2. NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT
As the Tri-Valley area has grown,so have concerns for maintaining air and water quality,protecting open
space,streams and wetlands,ensuring the availability of land for parks and wildlife preserves,and
retaining land for agriculture and other resource production. Because these resources cut across jurisdic-
tional boundaries,a subregional approach to their protection is important. The area contains extensive
public open space holdings and trails,but there remain gaps in the network:. Large areas of the Tri-Valley
are used for resource production:grazing,vineyards,quarries,and wind energy conversion. _
Key objectives are:
A. Preserve environmental resources in order to maintain and enhance ecological health and diver-
sity of plant and animal communities.
B. Preserve economically productive lands,including vineyards,crop and grazing land,quarries,
and wind energy production areas.
C. Ensure the availability of open lands for public purposes,including recreation and watershed
protection.
D. Create and enhance community identity through protection of community separators,hillsides,
ridge lines and viewsheds,riparian corridors and key landscape features.
E. Use conservation of open land to guide needed and anticipated new development into areas
where it best provided for;avoid areas with high risk of landslide,flood,fire,seismic,or other
natural hazards.
F. Preserve and enhance air and water quality.
Issues
Conservation of Ecological Resources
• Should we establish a subregional inventory of important biological.,production,and historic
resources and establish a cooperative program for preserving them:'
8 TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT
• Should we establish standards and programs for the efficient use of existing water supplies,
including conservation and the use of reclaimed water?
• Should there be area-wide watershed management strategies to protect,enhance,and restore
wetlands and riparian areas,including development standards to reduce pollution?
• Should there be acquisition of lands needed to maintain and improve animal movement corridors
and protect large-scale plant and animal habitats? .What would be the source of funds?
• Should there be a continuous system of open space adjacent to urban growth boundaries? If so,
how should it be preserved? Required dedications of conservation easements? A non-profit land
trust? Private contributions? Funding by state and federal agencies and foundations? Public
acquisition funded by taxes and fees?
Responses: There was general support for interjurisdictional efforts to ensure environmental stan-
dards and protect resources,but concern about the use of regulations alone to preserve open space.
Preservation of Agricultural Resources
• Should agricultural land be retained in large,contiguous blocks of sufficient size and quality to
enable economically viable grazing,cow-calf operations,or other agriculture?
• Should we protect lands with soils or other characteristics suitable for farming for future farming
use?
• How should agricultural lands be protected? Preservation agreements? Conservation ease-
ments? Agricultural production zones where all land divisions and non-agricultural develop-
ment are prohibited? How can agricultural landowners be brought into the planning process?
• Should agricultural activities be protected by"right to farm"ordinances and/or buffer zones
between urban and rural areas,to reduce conflicts?
• Should the appropriate agencies encourage the transfer of water resources from agricultural
parcels to urban uses?
Responses: There was general agreement about the need to protect agricultural activities from
conflicts with urban uses,but disagreement on such measures as requiring dedications and prohibit-
ing divisions of land.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 9
Protection of Community Separators
• Should hillsides and ridgelines be preserved as community separators?
• If so,how can these areas be protected? Low-density zoning on hillsides? Clustering of develop-
ment to preserve ridgelines and other scenic resources?
•
:Should we establish a subregional dedication and acquisition program to acquire community
separator lands?
Responses: There was general support for policies to preserve community separators,although
specific areas have not yet been mapped.
Air Quality
• Should we encourage modes of transportation other than the use of single-occupant automobiles
to reduce air pollution?
• Should we discourage single-occupant automobile use by such means as reducing parking
requirements for new development and/or charging for parking?
• Should we encourage the provision of tele-commuting facilities in residential neighborhoods,to
reduce the need to travel?
• Should we encourage services such as child care,restaurants,banks,and convenience markets at.
major employment centers to reduce vehicle trips?
• Should we require design and facilities to encourage access by pedestrians,bicycles,and transit
in new developments?
• Should we preserve rights-of-way and land for stations along future transit corridors?
Responses: There was general agreement about the need to reduce auto trips and encourage other
means of transportation,but disagreement about reducing or charging for parking. There was also
concern about the fact that transportation facilities are planned,funded,and developed by agencies
outside the control of Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
10 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
Water Quality
• Should we impose state and federal requirements for the protection of wetlands through local
development regulations?
• Should natural riparian and streamside areas be retained in their natural state?
• Should degraded wetlands and stream environments be restored?
• What controls over land development,quarrying,tree cutting,agriculture,septic tanks,and road
building should be imposed to protect water quality?
Responses: There was general agreement on policies to protect wetlands and stream areas,but
disagreement over some strict regulations such as limiting development in areas with prime soil
percolation capability,in order to reduce water pollution. Concerns were expressed regarding
inverse condemnation from excessive regulation.
Opportunities
The Planning Strategy can establish a strong policy basis for action to preserve and protect natural
resources on a subregional basis,when local action alone has limited effectiveness. A Tri-Valley organi-
zation for acquisition of open space and development rights could help to leverage funds from a variety
of sources,such as-voluntary contributions,foundation grants,land trusts,and possibly a subregional
taxing/management district.
Constraints
State and federal funds for land acquisition are limited,and it would be difficult to obtain necessary
approvals to raise taxes for this purpose at the subregional level. There would probably be political
opposition to measures that would limit development of agricultural land and hillside areas. Transporta-
tion systems that would improve air quality are beyond the control of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 11
3. TRANSPORTATION
The 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan,prepared by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council,
covers approximately the same area as the Subregional Planning Strategy. The Transportation Plan is
designed to accommodate projected growth in the Tri-Valley area. It recommends 12 major projects,
including freeway interchange improvements,High Occupancy Vehicle Lane extensions,the BART
extension to Dublin/Pleasanton,improvements to arterial roads,and express bus service. Total cost
would be more than$1 billion,of which 30 percent-is-unfunded;the plan recommends impact fees on .
new development to make up the difference. Even with these improvements,congestion at the entrances
to the Tri-Valley area on the I-580 and I-680 freeways would continue,due to development outside the
area,particularly in San Joaquin County to the east. The plan found that patterns of low density housing
and commercial development in the Tri-Valley,which are expected to continue,cannot be served well
with transit,given realistic funding expectations.
Transportation has a direct impact on land use,air quality,mobility,econornic vitality,and quality of life.
Major routes need to be planned on a subregional or regional basis.
Major subregional objectives for transportation are:
A. Create an efficient,cost-effective multi-modal transportation system by focusing investment and
development in designated transportation corridors.
B. Integrate land use and transportation planning in order to ensure patterns that facilitate safe,
convenient mobility of people and goods at a reasonable cost,and to increase use of transit. .
C. Discourage long-distance,single-occupant automobile commuting while increasing access to
employment,shopping and recreation by transit or other alternative modes.
D. Provide more streamlined transit service by establishing a unified and coordinated network
consisting of all transportation agencies in the Bay Area.
12 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
Issues
Transportation Facilities
• Are the transportation improvements recommended in the Tri-Valley Transportation Action
Plan realistic?
• . Would it be feasible to rely more:on-transit rather than on roadway improvements?
• What effects would the development impact fees proposed in the Transportation Plan have on
economic vitality and meeting housing needs?
Responses: There is concern about raising questions regarding the proposals of the Transportation
Plan so soon after completion of a three-year effort. Nevertheless,the Subregional Planning Strategy
may result in policies that should be reflected in the Transportation Plan. Another factor is that the
Transportation Plan was based on 1990 projections of jobs and housing,which are higher than
ABAG's Projections 94.
Transit-Centered Development
• Should we encourage transit-compatible infill development or redevelopment near future BART
stations,near future light rail stations,in business parks,and in central business districts to create
effective destination centers for transit?
• Should we promote pedestrian-oriented mixed use centers,including residential,commercial and
employment activities,easily accessible by foot,bicycle,or transit?
• Should residential and commercial densities be increased in accordance with proximity to transit
stations and corridors?
Should we use incentives such as sliding scale development fees to encourage higher density
transit-centered development?
• Should we discourage the development or expansion of major commercial,office,or institutional
centers into areas not adequately served by transit?
• Should we use design features to encourage transit,bicycle,and pedestrian access,such as
connections between activity centers and residential areas and road design that accommodates
transit vehicles?
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 13
Responses: There was general support for policies to increase densities near transit stops and
providing mixed use activity centers. There was disagreement about the use of sliding scale develop-
ment fees as an incentive.
Mixed Use
• Should we provide employment and shopping opportunities in or near residential areas?
• Should we encourage home-based work opportunities?
• Should we facilitate the conversion of underused commercial and industrial sites for residential,
mixed use,or live/work activities?
• Should we encourage small-scale neighborhood tele-commuting centers in or near residential
areas,to enable residents to work close to home?
Responses: There was general support for encouraging home-based work opportunities,but concern
about the incursion of non-residential uses into residential areas.
Opportunities
A BART extension is now planned to the East Dublin/Pleasanton area,with a later extension to
Livermore and addition of a West Dublin/Pleasanton station. A light rail line is possible along the a-'-
Southern Pacific right-of-way,extending through the southern part of the Tri-Valley area. It is possible to
plan in advance for transit-friendly development near future stations. .
Constraints
The Tri=Valley Transportation Action Plan,to be the basis.for recommendations to the Metropolitan
.Transportation Commission(MTC),is completed. It generally assumes continued reliance on single
occupant vehicles. Is it realistic to plan development to support transit? Is the cost of transit justifiable?
Will people use it? To what extent can the Planning Strategy influence the Transportation Plan? Growth
in San Joaquin County,which occurs in part because of the increasing cost of housing in the Tri-Valley
area,greatly affects congestion in the Tri-Valley area,but is outside the jurisdiction of Tri-Valley jurisdic-
tions and MTC.
14 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
4. HOUSING
Under current projections,the number of jobs and employed residents in the Tri-Valley area would be
about equal by the year 2010,indicating a jobs/housing balance. A numerical balance,however,does not
necessarily mean that people will actually live and work in the area,or that in-and out-commuting will
be eliminated,for several reasons. The cost of much of the housing in the Tri-Valley area is higher than
many Tri-Valley workers can afford to pay. Many households contain two or more employees,one of
-whom may work outside the area. Some Tri-Valley workers may choose to commute from outside the
area,where they may be able to obtain more housing for the dollar or a rural lifestyle not available closer
to their places of employment.
There is a strong connection in the housing market among all parts of the Tri-Valley area,and the need
for housing supply and affordability should be viewed on a subregional basis.
Major subregional objectives for housing are:
A. Promote fair and equal access to housing for all persons regardless of race,color,religion,gender,
disability,sexual orientation,age,national original,or family status.
B. Strengthen interjurisdictional efforts to ensure a fair,equitable and rational distribution of low-
income,moderate-income,and special needs housing throughout the subregion consistent with
land use policies,transportation services,and employment locations.
C. Facilitate the development of affordable housing near areas with superior transit service. '"'
D. Undertake affordable housing projects on a cooperative subregional basis.
Issues
Housing Supply
• Should we encourage the development of multi-family housing near transit?
• Should we encourage the development of special needs housing,such as community care facili-
ties for the elderly,mentally or physically disabled,and dependent or neglected children,in
residential and mixed-use areas near transit and other services?
TRINALLEY ISSUES REPORT is
• Should major new residential developments contain a range of unit sizes,types,and lot designs?
• Should vacant or underused commercial and industrial sites be reused for residential or live-
work space?
• Should there be a minimum residential density in locations near transit and other services?
• Should we encourage second units and shared housing in residential areas? -
Responses: There was general support for all policies directed toward increasing the housing
supply.
Housing Affordability
• Should we establish a cooperative program to designate specific sites,including vacant buildings,
for the provision of temporary homeless shelters and transitional housing?
• Should we expand the work of the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee to develop housing
for very low,low and moderate-income households,through inter-jurisdictional participation
and public-private partnerships?
• Should developments that involve the demolition of housing units be required to provide an
equal number of equivalently priced units in any replacement development,with previous
residents given first priority for occupancy?
• Should manufactured housing be encouraged,to reduce costs?
• Should there be"inclusionary"requirements for new residential developments to provide a
minimum of below market rate units?
• Should employers be encouraged to participate in programs to make housing affordable to their
workers?
• Should all new non-residential developments and/or major employers be required to pay
housing impact fees to assist in providing affordable dwelling units?
Responses: There was general support for housing affordability policies,but disagreement about
imposing a housing impact fee on new non-residential developments.
16 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
Opportunities
A subregional approach to developing housing could create stronger incentives and new opportunities
for jurisdictions,developers,and non-profits,compared to individual jurisdictions working alone. For
example,the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee enables jurisdictions to pool their resources to
support housing projects through public/private partnerships.
Constraints
The private market,not local governments,primarily produces housing. Cities and counties can provide
incentives and affordability requirements,but are limited in their ability to influence the overall supply.
A"jobs/housing balance"in one community or in the subregion does not necessarily guarantee that
people will live close to their places of work.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 17
5. ECONOMIC VITALITY
The entire Bay Area has been hit hard by an economic slowdown in recent years,compounded by the
closing of military bases. The Tri-Valley area,which has been a center of vigorous growth since the
1980's,has suffered less,but economic projections are Iess optimistic now than they were even a few
years ago.
General economic conditions are compounded by state fiscal policies that cause local jurisdictions to
"fiscalize"land use planning and compete for revenue-producing development,leading to overbuilding
and adverse economic effects on existing centers. Coordinated efforts are needed to achieve fiscal reform
and equitable distribution of economic opportunity. Other components of economic health include
providing quality education,producing affordable housing,investing in transportation,and maintaining
environmental quality.
Key subregional objectives for the economy are:
A. Retain and allow for the orderly expansion of existing businesses.
B. Attract new businesses that employ Tri-Valley residents.
C. Offset revenue-driven development through fiscal reform and interjurisdictional cooperation.
Issues
• Should we establish a coordinated,public/private subregional economic development program?
• Should we encourage economic development which provides jobs for residents of the Tri-Valley
area?
• Should we seek to retain existing businesses,by reducing barriers to their expansion?
• Should we seek to develop housing in a range of sizes and prices to:meet the needs of workers in
the area and to ensure that prospective employers have a diverse local labor pool?
• Should we work to remove impediments to gainful employment by providing adequate child
care,job training,and vocational education?
18 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT
• Should we attract small and medium size firms with good growth potential through financial
incentives?
• Should non-compatible uses be discouraged from encroaching into areas designated for commer-
cial and industrial use?
• Should we establish a Tri-Valley economic development information inventory,including data
on available land,employment opportunities,public sector financing opportunities,and job -
training needs?
• Should development processing for desirable employment generating projects be expedited,for
example by permitting the reuse of existing buildings without discretionary permits?
• Should we advocate changes in state fiscal policies in order to offset revenue-driven land use
plans and development programs?
Responses: There was general support for a wide range of policies to retain existing employers,
attract new businesses,provide services and education. There was also support for fiscal reform.
There was some disagreement about reducing regulations to expedite economic development or
redevelopment.
Opportunities
The private sector,through organizations such as the Tri-Valley Business Council,can conduct outreach
_. programs,conduct surveys,coordinate economic information,and work with educational institutions in
the area. Local governments could pool their resources to support these programs.
Constraints
International and national trends,rather than local and subregional efforts,largely shape economic
development. Changing the tax structure which creates an incentive for"fiscal zoning"and competition
among individual jurisdictions would require revisions in state law.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT 19
APPENDIX - PUBLIC COMMENTS
Introduction
The work plan adopted by the Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC)emphasizes the importance of
public participation in the development of the Subregional Planning Strategy: Consequently,a series of
- workshops were held during the first phase of the project to achieve the following objectives: 1)to inform
the public and answer questions about the project;2)to solicit comments on issues that should be ad-
dressed in the Tri-Valley Planning Strategy;and 3)to make it convenient for the public to participate in
the process.
Evening workshops were held on April 24 in San Ramon,April 25 in Pleasanton,and on May 8 in
Livermore. An afternoon workshop was held on April 27 in Dublin. The San Ramon meeting was taped
and the Pleasanton meeting was a live call-in program broadcast by Community Television,CTV—
Viacom 30. Both were subsequently broadcast on public access television stations to cable subscribers in
areas served by CTV—Viacom 30 and Contra Costa County Television cable companies.
The workshops were publicized in the newspapers,on public access television,and in a brochure that
was posted and distributed to over 500 individuals and organizations. To enhance participation,the
brochures included a response form and address to which comments could be mailed,and a telephone
number set aside to record comments throughout the planning process. The telephone line will be
available to record public comments for the next six months.
Approximately 65 people attended the four workshops. In addition,16 viewers phoned in comments
during the Pleasanton workshop. Several speakers expressed support and commended the Tri-Valley
leaders for their commitment to the planning process. A number of speakers noted affiliations with an
organization,agency,or association including the following:the Tri-Valley Business Council,Sierra Club,
East Bay Community Foundation,League of Women Voters,Association of Retarded Citizens,Chabot-
Las Positas Community College District,Save Our Hills,California Alliance for Jobs,and the Palomares
Canyon Homeowners'Association.
Two common themes recurred. First,the strategy should address how to maintain the Tri-Valley's
quality of life,and secondly,Tri-Valley communities should work to achieve responsible,sustainable
growth. A number of speakers recommended that the TVPC look at models of successful multi-jurisdic-
tional planning within and outside the region. One speaker suggested that Tri-Valley residents be offered
alternative choices to evaluate and comment on.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-1
The issues that were raised at the workshops and in comments recorded on the project phone line or
received in the mail are summarized below. Issues are organized by source (telephone,mail or meeting)
and topic area.
Telephone calls received at ABAG
The issues reported below reflect comments recorded on the Tri-Valley Planning Project telephone line
(510)464-7961,between April 21 and May 15.
Urban Development
• Consider market absorption of residential and commercial space;Projections used in Transporta-
tion Plan are unrealistic.
• Proposal to build 3,000 homes on the San Francisco property.
• Maintain cap of 70,000 residents in Pleasanton.
Natural Resources
• Master plan for regional trail system.
• Property rights issues—particularly for agricultural land.
• Options for use of agricultural land when it is economically infeasible to farm.
• Environmental and public health.
Transportation
• The Toll Road.
• Regional Gas Tax.
• Transit to connect Walnut Creek and Dublin BART;plan in conjunction with planning for
Dougherty Valley.
• Congestion on 1-680.
Other
• Overcrowded schools.
• Schedule a workshop in Livermore to make it more convenient for Livermore residents to
participate.
• Subregional support for libraries since schools are cutting back.
A-2 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX
Mail addressed to Tri-Valley Planning Committee
The following issues were identified on response forms mailed to the Tri-Valley Planning Committee,c/o
Carol Cirelli,City of Dublin.
Urban Development
• Growth anticipated—how much before gridlock.
• Impacts of growth on traffic,schools,quality-of-life.
• Sprawl development.
• Meaningful urban growth boundaries.
Natural Resources
• Biodiversity study.
• Watershed protection and management.
• Maintenance of wildlife corridors.
• Protection for riparian areas.
• Implementation of recommendations in Comprehensive Conservation&Management Plan for
the San Francisco Estuary.
• Protecting agriculture and open space.
• Protecting creeks.
• Plan for open space and appropriate connectors.
• Preserve wildlife habitat and native vegetation. t>
Housing
• High cost of housing—housing needed for less affluent.
• Tremendous number of units being planned.
San Ramon workshop — audience comments
The San Ramon workshop,held on Monday,April 24 from 7:30 p.m.to 9:00 p.m.,had an audience of 18
people. The following issues were identified:
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-3
Urban Development
• Sustainable communities.
• Links between land use,transportation and air quality.
• "Green planning"—review recommendations from United Kingdom,Holland,Germany,New
Zealand.
• Patterns established when land and materials were cheap no longer work.
• Location of high density development—build near freeways.
• Urban village potential at BART stations.
• Higher density close to transit and larger highways.
• Infill development.
Natural Resources
• Take long term view—resources,quality of life for future generations.
• Complete trail systems.
• Use best of the valley for recreational purposes.
• Preserve agricultural land,forested land,use relatively barren hills.
• Protect agricultural and open space lands by exploring mechanisms such as transfer of develop-
ment rights,land trusts,etc.
Transportation
• Pedestrian friendly streets—arterials too wide for pedestrians.
• BART stations in Eastern Dublin and at Phelan Road.
• If I-580 is widened,widen enough to accommodate BART.
• Auxiliary lanes on I-680 between Sycamore and Diablo.
• Freeway in the Route 84 corridor.
• Expressways for areas like Dougherty or Tassajara Valleys.
• Approaches that help to reduce automobile use.
Housing
• Let market determine housing issues.
• Consider and allow new housing ideas,e.g.Windemere,Calthorpe.
A-4 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX
Economy
• Business council is encouraged by and supports subregional effort.
• Public and private interests can cooperate to improve and maintain quality of life.
• How will economic development be considered?
• Controlling traffic and air pollution essential to healthy economy.
• Employment diversity study—determine why people commute out,what types of jobs or work
environment do they seek.
Other
• Commend leaders for cooperative effort.
• Be careful of parochialism—can undermine the process.
• Consider holding longer workshops,intensive working sessions.
• Consider how Tri-Valley policies affect regional neighbors,e.g.San Joaquin County,communities
closer to Bay Area's center.
• Implementation essential.
• Heartened to see public involved—appreciate commitment of elected officials.
Pleasanton workshop —telephone comments
The Pleasanton workshop was a-live call-in broadcast on Tuesday,April 25 from 7:30 p.m.to 9:00 p.m.
Approximately 25 people attended the meeting,and 16 viewers called in comments that were read owthe:*
air. The following issues were identified:
Urban Development
• Avoid"LA-like"development with everything sprawled together.
• Concentrate housing and business parks in areas such as the BART Station,Northern Livermore,
San Francisco property,similar locations.
• Developers playing the cities against the counties.
• Consider setting maximum housing numbers.
• People have to drive everywhere—take kids to school,work,shop,etc.
• Enable people to walk,ride bikes,use public transportation.
• Cities growing together—you can't tell where one ends and the next begins.
• Growth has exceeded the capacity of streets to handle traffic.
• Cities are running together.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-5
• Stop development and analyze before more growth occurs.
• Development of large urban projects should be located within a city instead of a county,e.g.San
Francisco Water Department site.
Natural Resources
• Avoid building in open space.
• Support for agricultural uses,e.g.vineyards.
• Protection of water quality,protect the aquifer.
• Preserve hillsides from housing and urban sprawl.
• Commuting here from San Joaquin causes traffic,air pollution.
• Building homes in San Joaquin develops the land where food should grow.
Transportation
• Too much traffic.
• -Expansion of Livermore airport will affect entire area;everyone should have input. .
Housing
• Affordable in all communities.
• Affordable housing for young families.
• How can communities work together to provide housing. =
• Housing to enable kids who grow up here to stay here.
• NIMBY attitudes.
Economy
• Maintaining economic sustainability at buildout.
Other
• Conflict resolution—process for conflict resolution when difficulties occur.
• Let speakers complete their presentations.
A-6 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX
Pleasanton workshop —audience comments
Urban Development
• Urban limit line.
• Buffer zones around cities—transfer development rights,agriculture easements,etc.
• Annexations done properly,with land annexed to cities that can provide necessary services.
• Offer alternatives:large number of subdivisions and more highway capacity vs.more compact,
transit-oriented;more vs.less growth;sprawl vs.compactness.
• How fast and for how long will growth occur—don't become like San Jose.
• Emphasize compact growth.
• Consider neo-traditional neighborhoods at BART stations,downtown Pleasantonand Livermore.
• Ahwahnee Principles.
• Cities and counties need to work together to develop land adjacent to cities.
• Invest in existing urban areas.
Natural Resources
• Open space preservation through subregional and regional effort.
• Open space preservation between subregions and between developments.
• Subregional network of open space.
• Draw urban growth boundary'and put on the ballot for public to vote;general plans too easily-
changed;consider joint powers agreements,e.g.Pleasanton Ridge.
• Preserve open space,protect wildlife corridors,agriculture and ridgelands. _ =w= •
Transportation
• Toll road would encourage more sprawl.
• BART—Greenville Road station to catch traffic coming over Altamont,create reverse commute
from Tri-Valley,and connect with commuter train.
• Trail system valley-wide that provides direct routes for bicyclists.
• BART construction down center of freeway is most expensive,put to one side.
• Involve San Joaquin County.
• Control parking at BART and use land for mixed use developments at stations on both sides of
freeway.
• Gas taxes too low to pay for transportation facilities.
• Reduce parking available at work sites and pay commuter subsidies to workers.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-7
• Expressway built at two lanes with open space dedicated on either side to accommodate current
need not encourage more growth.
• Regional gas tax to pay for BART station.
• BART north to Brentwood.
• Private enterprise could pay for BART extensions.
Housing
• Affordable housing through joint actions.
• Address in conjunction with transportation.
Economy
• Support redevelopment in core cities to improve general economic climate.
• Impacts of employers locating east of Altamont where housing is more affordable.
Other
• Tri-Valley sales tax to be used for Tri-Valley needs.
• Conflict resolution.
Dublin workshop —audience comments
Approximately 15 people attended the workshop held in Dublin from 1:30 p.m.to 3:00 p.m.on Thursday,
April 27. The following issues were raised:
Urban Development
• Buffer zones.
• Communications infrastructure.
• Develop along arterials and at transit centers;remove roadblocks to development in those areas.
Natural Resources
• EBRPD and EBMUD—Alameda/Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group.
• A positive approach to environmentalism focused on legitimate issues.
A-8 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX
Transportation
• Complete Highway 84.
• Gridlock on I-580 can't be solved locally—people already live in San Joaquin.
• Extend BART to Greenville Road to catch commuters coming from the East.
• Transportation,housing and job availability for disabled individuals(jobs and homes are often
not linked by public transportation).
• Transportation systems are financial and operational disaster.
• Focus on improving auto occupancy from 1.3 to 2.3 per auto.
• Too focused on auto use—plan for non-motorized travel.
• Telecommuting to expand education/training opportunities.
Housing
• Affordable housing near workplaces will reduce stress of long commutes that take workers away
from families,out of communities.
• Affordable housing important criteria for corporate expansions and re-locations.
• Mismatch between cost of housing and salaries of available jobs,e.g.warehouse retail sales.
• Jobs and housing balance.
• Make it more possible for people to both live and work in the Tri-Valley.
• Partnerships with non-profit developers to produce affordable housing.
Economy
• Healthy economy requires good transportation,affordable housing and high quality-of-life.
• . Regional outreach effort to retain existing and attract new business.
• Work with employers to more fully integrate disabled individuals into work force.
• Attracting jobs that are more challenging,offer better salaries.
Other
• Negotiating and resolving conflicts.
• Business Council offers encouragement and support.
• Recreational opportunities,open space,arts,cultural activities,other amenities that keep people
in the community.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-9
Livermore workshop — audience comments
Approximately 12 people attended the public workshop held in Livermore on May 8 following the
regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The following issues were identified.
Urban Development
• Greenbelts between cities.
• Minimize visual impact and amount of space devoted to the automobile.
• Pedestrian and bicycle friendly community design.
• Compact,city-centered growth away from prime agricultural land.
• Ensure services are available for new development.
• Mixed,balanced growth.
• Develop in cities vs.in counties.
Natural Resources
• Preserve open space and agricultural lands.
• Habitat protection.
• Maintain improvements in air quality.
• Higher value agricultural crops,e.g.wine industry.
• Scenic resources.
• Earthquake response. =
Transportation
• Alameda Congestion Management Agency has ongoing Altamont Corridor study—check with
CMA,MTC.
• Areawide trail system.
• Investment in roads vs.transit—analyze returns.
Housing
• Broad range of housing in every community.
• Housing vs.quality-of-life
A-10 TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX
Economy
• Get input from Alameda County Economic Development Advisory Board.
• Attract good jobs.
Other
• Quantify and qualify the issues—prioritize.
• Lawrence Livermore laboratory.
• Response to strategy by individual jurisdictions—implementation.
TRI-VALLEY ISSUES REPORT APPENDIX A-11
Map I-1. Planning Area
DISCLAIMER
Please note that the accuracy of the information displayed on the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Project maps,
which were produced using the City of San Ramon Geographical Information System(GIS),is deemed reliable,
but is not guaranteed by the Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC),the Technical Advisory Committee,or the
City of San Ramon.
It is understood and accepted that the maps are composites of data obtained from several local jurisdictions and
service providers',and as such are not the officially adopted maps of any one jurisdiction. It is quite possible
that errors and omissions will occur in data input and/or programming done to provide the data in the form
desired,and further understood and agreed that it is highly probable that errors and omissions will occur in
any record keeping process,especially when large numbers of records are developed and maintained,and that
the data may not meet the standards of the TVPC or any of the participating jurisdictions as to accuracy or
completeness. Notwithstanding,the data has been taken"as is,"fully expecting that there may well be errors
and omissions in the data obtained.
The TVPC further understands and agrees,and makes absolutely no warranty whatsoever,whether expressed
or implied,as to the accuracy,thoroughness,value,quality,validity,merchantability,suitability,conditions,or
fitness for a particular purpose of the data or any other programming used to obtain the data,nor as to whether
the data is error-free,up-to-date,complete or based upon accurate or meaningful facts.
• S
I
mRoll
,
mu
y SY" 1 r ��a. �}
.>i.�',o-.�ea Y'��-"s�;�` � "i��•�yt�k �St tk .�T'�' 1�'� `��n.�'
;�,�' S.' `'�^'- �-�•,� S �rk- �� 3 F M fit- gy ..
� kvs ``.i( ' .y❑ 'b �'a+s' �" t�>wy r �i` + -pct`-�7 s S'�`� y� :a
I 3..,f a� `'x�. .�ir,.re;.Yr.�„ "'_a*��I•'��r k �`3 -.� ♦i� -�1 x•f I `�"-� Z, �'�,�'
o .-.ass 3.sr .��4 ���A a`�ass.�a ;r,. s"�� ..,g'Sr �f^r �°.•r �c '�1 t?a S `t+5�- '� �'��'tom .�
aY'��
h
Rae
c§s � �����✓;��� r 3eC� 'u� �1w S't �t �i 1-a-'rim �i �
{5Yry -
*4 ,
•�w�� C'" n* `3�
f4 �^�.rrK�
-r * �i r3� ..`�•r "- .`�'•;, }� M Mi
t� ��� ••ra"a �i� � �Y• �,c,^�,t. �„q� J"STZ tl 4 k°.� � 4 vi'�r T tF��" ���''�x 4'c
s�. � �4'Y`•�ix �fi-'F" ` � � � P � 1 i d zla"Wi'r f u'k
Pf-
`�•3 3 S\ GG � S P k "M
��'-b
ai..' 1Jf 1
re Y�sa .s- � �39S` n �•,a 5 4 d ra f!a i ..e fj A' "``
gSi,t,, 'fro^-•? c�4''r'� +s'� '�%�+,�'.'"�,��.3 *��' `Nc � t r � �� .r�
.� . •`t4/J � �� K � KG'S:. .�r `7' 4'v..�� ��' `� �4} `i..,yx,.a.�G 4 }9�
k m � t A� "fir 4 ?his• r-.C`" `'sY.` ' `' ! 3 't'r r tMr t 5Q` "r+5
- .'�.se �7t`+,i`'13x. t3`'� ' ,��-..�.ctir> �'yx 1J'ja. •i�' -5" �' •" _ "y r( �-r.e`"rj i- �'"`r{ 4 _�yMr,
gon
-a,�wiNw'`•F"'x'. �� -� rin
�Fa��n � •a^> ^G �,cg"' � ,�'6g",e.?,.. "'�, a.0 �'�' '� z.1.r � kR�'�ir�i _ •2" '1 r.c '�����,
2s 1
t r�-'�*$ r�n •ter'����'��� � `'� �'�.,r,�� F'`w,y� � y f t
Alt
�''z�'•P'ts�<"��s ��������`t"' � � � _ 4i �t-.1 �!a?ku,,-.J A 4�., �r_�. _�
'�`„�� ` �'`,pa��"�'� '�-rr�(r,.� �q� '�rr;�.�a`'y-f� �., [r _a..,7- ry,.s. t i✓-�r<'s- _
�14<�y �t -� ,. 9�r•r-���,c���kt y -cam N,,s � eA '��'.•t�-�• •s,�- i r,,2 i r c 'S} `��t .c„
4�` �bM2 � 0
p"g-2Y
,i4 uyi
I'
HELP PLAN THE FUTURE OF THE TRI-VALLEY AREA
The Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC)meets on Monday mornings at 7:30 a.m.in the Regional
Room at the Civic Center in the City of Dublin. Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)meetings generally
follow at 9:30 a.m. We invite you to attend and participate in developing a comprehensive subregional
planning strategy for the Tri-Valley.
TVPC meetings are currently scheduled for the following dates: July 10,17,24,31;August 14,28;Sep-
tember 11, 18,25;October 30;November 6. The Draft Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy will be
reviewed by the public during community workshops in October. Specific dates and locations will be
announced. The TVPC is scheduled to take final action on the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy
and complete the six-month pilot project on November 6.
To record your views on the Issues Report and Working Papers,or to confirm meeting dates and loca-
tions,call and leave a message on the Tri-Valley phone line at(510)464-7909.
The Issues Report and Working Papers are available for review in the public libraries and planning
departments of the seven participating jurisdictions. All reports will also be available on the Internet at
the following World Wide Web address: http://www.abag.ca.gov.
Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee
Town of Danville Alameda County
Kevin Gailey,Chief of Planning and Building Deborah Stein,Assistant Planning Director
City of Dublin Contra Costa County
Carol CireW,Senior Planner Dennis Barry,AICP,Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Livermore Planning Consultants
Susan Frost,Associate Planner Marge Macris,AICP
Natalie Macris
City of Pleasanton
Wayne Rasmussen,Principal Planner ABAG
Ceil Scandone,Regional Planner
City of San Ramon Hing Wong,Regional Planner
Deborah Raines,AICP,Senior Planner
BAAQMD
Henry Hilken,Senior Environmental Planner
The committee acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals:
Daniel Berman,City of San Ramon Sue Warden,County of Contra Costa
Priya Tallam,County of Alameda Steve Woods,City of Pleasanton
Working Paper #1
Location and Intensity of Urban Development
Tri-Valley Planning Committee
Members and Alternates
Alameda County
Supervisor Ed Campbell
Planning Commissioner Ario Ysit
Contra Costa County
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Special Projects Assistant Avon Wilson
Town of Danville
Mayor Millie Greenberg,Chair
Councilmember Dick Waldo
City of Dublin
Mayor Guy Houston
Councilmember Paul Moffatt
City of Livermore
Mayor Cathie Brown
Councilmember Tom Reitter
City of Pleasanton
Mayor Ben Tarver,Vice-Chair
Councilmember Karin Mohr
City of San Ramon
Mayor Gregory Carr
Councilmember Hermann Welm
June 26, 1995
Working Paper #1
Location and Intensity of Urban Development
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
1. Background...................................................................................................... 2
2. Policy Analysis................................................................................................ 6
3. Suggested Objectives and Policies ............................................................. 26
Maps
Map 1-1. General Plan Land Use Diagram
Map 1-2. Major Development Projects
Map 1-3. Water District Boundary Diagram
Map 1-4. Sewer District Boundary Diagram
INTRODUCTION
The following working paper presents basic information and suggested objectives and policies for
Location and Intensity of Urban Development,the first subject to.be addressed in the Tri-Valley Subregional
Planning Strategy. The Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC),consisting of representatives of Danville,
Dublin, Livermore,Pleasanton,San Ramon,and Alameda and Contra Costa counties,is preparing the
Strategy,which will address subregional planning issues that individual jurisdictions acting alone cannot
otherwise deal with effectively. The program is funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area
Governments(ABAG)and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),with technical
support from ABAG as well as staff support from all seven local governments.
An earlier report on Issues for the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy identified subjects to be ad-
dressed in the Strategy. It included comments made by members of the public at a series of community
workshops in late April and early May.
Following this report, three more working papers will be prepared covering the following topics: Natural
Resources/Transportation,Housing/Economy,and Implementation. The four working papers will then be
compiled into the draft Strategy. This composite will subsequently be the subject of a series of commu-
nity workshops to receive public input. The TVPC will then act on the Strategy and present it to the local
jurisdictions for their consideration and possible incorporation into their General Plans.
The following report contains,first,a Background summary of basic data on housing and jobs from
ABAG's Projections 94,and,information about infrastructure providers and capacity for water,sewer,
solid waste,and other major facilities. Next,the Policy Analysis section summarizes major land use
policies from the General Plans of each of the seven jurisdictions and describes issues of subregional
importance within the planning area of each city and county. Finally,the report suggests Objectives and
Policies,for possible inclusion in the Strategy,for urban growth boundaries,annexation and urban
expansion,infrastructure,and land use/development intensity.
Two terms used in this report should be clearly defined. Urban growth is development which requires an
urban level of services for water,sanitation facilities,flood control,schools,libraries,police,fire,and
parks. For water supply and wastewater disposal,it is development at a density that cannot be sup-
ported by wells and septic tanks. Urban growth boundary is a definition of areas generally suitable for
urban development,and areas generally suitable for long-term protection of natural resources,agricul-
ture,and other productive resources;recreation;buffers between communities;and public health and
safety. The question of whether an urban growth boundary should be a permanent limit beyond which
urban development should not be allowed,or whether it should be subject to periodic review and
revision,is a policy decision to be made by the TVPC.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1
t BACKGROUND
The Tri-Valley area encompasses some 363 square miles in the Diablo,San Ramon,and Livermore/
Amador valleys. The planning area is bounded generally by the East Bay hills on the west,an east-west
line extending through Mount Diablo State Park on the north,Altamont Pass and other parts of the
Diablo Range on the east,and the watershed lands of the San Francisco Water District and the southern
extent of the Livermore Valley on the south.
Until the 1950's,the area was primarily agricultural. The cities of Pleasanton and Livermore,incorpo-
rated in the 19th century,provided services for the local agricultural economy. The establishment of
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and other major research facilities in the 1950's began to change the
character of the area. The completion of the freeway system in the 1960's and early 1970's opened the
area to extensive single-family suburban development,in unincorporated areas and near the cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore. The three other communities,Danville and San Ramon in Contra Costa
County and Dublin in Alameda County,incorporated in the early 1980's and included within their
borders urbanized land that had previously developed under the jurisdictions of the two counties.
During the 1980's the Tri-Valley area became a major center of employment for the region,with the
development of the Bishop Ranch office park in San Ramon and the Hacienda Business Park in
Pleasanton. Map 1-1 provides a generalized composite view of current general plan land use designa-
tions. Potential new major development project areas are illustrated on Map 1-2.
Since the 1980's,the Tri-Valley jurisdictions have worked to address growth issues,through transporta-
tion systems management programs,growth management,and limitations on building permits. The
general plans of both counties now include urban growth boundaries,and the Contra Costa jurisdictions
participate in a growth management program linked to transportation funding under Measure A. Urban
growth to the east of the area,in San Joaquin County,is now creating additional pressure on the Tri-
Valley.
Projections for Housing and Jobs
ABAG's Projections 94 report indicates that between 1990 and 2010 the number of housing units in the Tri-
Valley area is expected to increase by 77 percent from about 78,000 to 138,300. The number of jobs in the
area is expected to increase by about 83 percent over the 20-year period,from approximately 110,200 to
201,900. See Table 1-1 on page 3. The regional and county projections of housing demand and job
growth reflected in Projections 94 are based upon ABAG forecasts of the economy. Local governments'
plans,policies,and regulations affecting the use of land are among the key assumptions in ABAG's local
forecast. ABAG notes in Projections 94 that its forecast is not, in and of itself, the policy of any given city,county,
or district.
2 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TABLE 1-1. TRI-VALLEY GROWTH FORECASTS
Based on ABAG Projections 94
Employed
Households Residents Total Jobs
1990 1995 2010 1990 1995 2010 1990 1995 2010
Alamo-Blackhawk 7,252 8,500 9,520 10,751 11,900 14,300 3,060 3,220 3,350
Danville SOI* 11,088 12,780 16,760 17,352 17,900 25,300 8,120 8,350 9,390
San Ramon SOI** 12,895 14,690 17,830 21,192 22,000 28,900 29,700 26,880 49,090
Other CC County*** 0 0 8,100 0 0 12,900 0 0 2,900
Dublin SOI* 6,834 7,630 20,880 11,028 10,700 33,600 13,000 14,150 37,860
Livermore SOI**** 20,998 23,000 35,100 31,826 33,600 53,400 25,230 23,940 43,540
Pleasanton SOI* 18,960 20,360 30,150 30,506 31,100 47,200 31,110 33,840 55,760
Totals 78,027 86,960 138,340 122,655 127,200 215,600 110,220 110,380 201,890
Notes:
1. All City listings include figures for the City Sphere of Influence(SOI).
2. 1990 figures are based on 1990 Census data.
3. Preliminary Projections 96 will be out for review by local jurisdictions in July 1995,and will be finalized and
adopted in the fall of 1995.
* SOI in Projections 94 is reasonably consistent with Tri-Valley base map for Danville,Dublin,and Pleasanton;
Dublin projections include Western and Eastern Dublin.
** Projections 94 figures for San Ramon SOI reflect the 1993 SOI which included San Ramon plus the area north
and west of San Ramon on both sides of Bollinger Canyon Road,and south of Norris Canyon Road to Dublin,
but not Dougherty nor Tassajara Valleys.
*** Other CC(Contra Costa)County is the combination of Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys.
**** Livermore SOI in Projections 94 is consistent with base map except for southwestern area adjacent to
Pleasanton,bisected by Vallecitos Road;Projections 94 Livermore listings include Northern Livermore,
reflecting input from Livermore on their preferred alternative.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 3
Public Facilities and Services
Information about Transportation,including roads and transit,will be presented in Working Paper#2.
Water Supply
Water is supplied by East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD),which serves as wholesaler and
retailer,or by Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as wholesaler
for four retail agencies:Dublin-San Ramon Services District,California Water Service,and the cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore. Water district boundaries are illustrated on Map 1-3.
Major constraints on water supply are frequent long periods of drought,legal commitments which limit
the amount of water that can be withdrawn from various sources,and competition among agricultural,
urban,and environmental needs. According to the Background Report for the 1993 Alameda County East
County Area Plan,the present water supply for that planning area is insufficient to meet the needs of the
projected population by 2010. The 1992 EIR for the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan in Contra Costa
County found that EBMUD anticipates that water demands within its service area may exceed available
supply.
Providing adequate water for anticipated growth is a major subregional issue that will require coordi-
nated planning,growth management,and cooperative efforts to obtain additional supplies in a manner
that will meet agricultural and environmental,as well as urban,needs.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Major service providers are the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD),the Dublin-San Ramon
Services District(DSRSD),and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. Sewer district boundaries are
illustrated on Map 1-4.
Treated effluent from DSRSD,Pleasanton,and Livermore is exported to San Francisco Bay via a pipeline
built by the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency(LAVWMA),a joint powers authority
formed by these three agencies. This pipeline will have insufficient capacity to transport flows from
LAVWMA's member agencies in the future. A new LAVWMA wastewater export system would be
required to accommodate the major new developments to be served by the member agencies;however,
there have been no final decisions regarding the design,location,and completion date of a new effluent
export system.
4 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CCCSD,which discharges its effluent to Suisun Bay,has identified its own interceptor and treatment
plant capacity constraints to providing major service expansions in the study area. These capacity
constraints could be relieved by upsizing future facilities already included in CCCSD's long-range capital
improvement plans. The major new developments proposed near CCCSD's existing facilities in the
northern portion of the study area,however,are not within CCCSD's sphere of influence or service area.
Wastewater reclamation will play an increasingly important role in reducing the demand for both new
potable water supplies and export of wastewater effluent. Reclamation programs,however,would not
bridge the gap between available supplies and the demands generated by proposed new development.
Solid Waste
Existing landfills operated by Alameda and Contra Costa counties are expected to be adequate to accom-
modate solid waste generated by projected development. However,programs to reduce the supply of
waste and to recycle materials are increasingly important to reduce the need to expand landfills.
Schools
Declining enrollment during the 1970's,resulting from a decrease in family size,led to the closure of
some schools in the planning area. More recently,in-migration and higher birth rates have increased the
demand for schools,and some districts in the Tri-Valley area are at or near capacity. The provision of
needed school facilities is an issue that must be addressed during development approvals,subject to State
law restrictions on school impact fees.
For the community colleges in the Tri-Valley area,there is an opportunity to coordinate"remote learn-
ing"programs,using computer technology in homes and employment centers. The business community
can be an important part of these programs.
Other Public Services
The provision of other public services—police,fire,parks,child care—must be addressed at the time
local governments are considering development proposals. The currently available information does not
indicate major service shortfalls of subregional importance in these areas. However,it may be that
efficiencies can be achieved through the consolidation of agencies at the subregional level to provide
some of these services.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 5
2. POLICY ANALYSIS
Town of Danville 2005 General Plan (1987)
Residential Uses
The Town of Danville 2005 General Plan allows residential densities ranging from "Rural Residential"
(five-acre lot minimum) to"Multiple Family-Medium Density" (13 to 21 units per net acre). The majority
of the lands designated"Multiple Family-Medium Density"are located along Interstate 680,adjacent to
Danville Boulevard,San Ramon Valley Boulevard,and Camino Ramon. The General Plan contains
policies to"maintain Danville as a predominantly single family residential community surrounding a
distinctive downtown retail core" (Policy 1.01),and to"preserve the limited areas planned for multi-
family residential development and discourage general plan amendments and rezonings of such areas to
office or other uses"(Policy 1.09).
Commercial Uses
The General Plan establishes downtown Danville as the Town's retail core,and designates relatively few
remaining areas for commercial uses. The remaining areas are located on the east side of Interstate 680 at
the Diablo Road and Sycamore Valley Road interchanges,and immediately north of the Crow Canyon
Road interchange in the Fostoria Way area. The Plan contains a policy to"consider major regional scale
shopping centers inappropriate in Danville" (Policy 4.05).
Office and Industrial Uses
Areas designated for office use are located along Interstate 680 adjacent to the El Cerro Boulevard and
Sycamore Valley Road interchanges. The Plan designates a"Controlled Manufacturing"area along Crow
Canyon Road east of Interstate 680.
Protected Areas
East of Interstate 680,the General Plan designates substantial areas within the town limits as General
Open Space. These lands,which are predominantly hilly areas surrounded by residential uses,are
"permanently protected as open space either through public ownership or enforceable restrictions"
(General Plan,page 40). The General Open Space designation also applies to large areas west of Inter-
state 680 that are within Danville's Sphere of Influence but outside the town.limits;in these cases,the
designation reflects"the existing Contra Costa County designation and the development potential
consistent with the County's policies"(General Plan,page 40).
6 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Urban Growth Boundary
The Danville General Plan does not establish an urban growth boundary.
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The General Plan contains policies to"re-evaluate and seek redesignation of Danville's Planning Area
and Sphere of Influence to insure maximum control over land use decisions which directly affect the
existing community"(Policy 2.04),and to"seek to extend Danville's Sphere of Influence to reflect the
community's long term interests,as well as the likely extension of urban services"(Policy 6.02). As an
implementation measure,the Plan recommends that Town staff conduct a Sphere of Influence Study,
"with particular attention given to the areas surrounding the existing Sphere in the Tassajara Area"
(General Plan,page 123).
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The Town of Danville adopted a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan in 1991. The
element establishes policies and standards for traffic Levels of Service,and performance standards for
parks,fire,police,sanitary sewer facilities,water,and flood control. The intent of the element is"to
establish a comprehensive,long range program that will match the demands for new development with
plans,capital improvement programs,development mitigation programs and financing mechanisms"
(Growth Management Element,page 1).
Issues of Subregional Importance
Establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary,defining the area within which urban development is
anticipated over the next 20 years,can help to protect resource,agriculture,and open space areas. In
coordination with Contra Costa County,areas inside and outside the City can be permanently protected
as part of a subregional greenbelt system.
There are opportunities for higher density housing and mixed use development in and near the Down-
town,which can support transit and downtown businesses.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 7
City of San Ramon General Plan (1986)
San Ramon is now in the process of revising its General Plan.
Residential Uses
The City of San Ramon General Plan allows residential densities ranging from"Ranchettes"(five-acre lot
minimum)to"Residential High Density"(22 to 30 units per net acre). Areas designated for higher
densities are primarily located adjacent to Interstate 680 and along Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta
Boulevard. The 1992 updated Housing Element contains policies to"Expand housing opportunities and
promote a diversity in tenure,type,size,location,and price to permit a choice of housing for persons of
all economic levels" (Policy 6.3)and"Encourage a variety of housing to provide greater opportunities for
current and future residents" (Policy 6.2).
Commercial Uses
The General Plan designates areas adjacent to Interstate 680 and along Crow-Canyon Road,Bollinger
Canyon Road,and Alcosta Boulevard for"Retail Shopping"and "Commercial Services"uses. In addi-
tion,an area on the west side of the Interstate 680/Bollinger Canyon Road interchange is designated
"Thoroughfare Commercial." The 1991 Conservation and Enhancement Program,which superseded the
Downtown Specific Plan,includes the policy of"Provide neighborhood and community shopping centers
of sizes and at locations that will maintain both choice and convenience for shoppers as well as the trade
area buying power needed to support quality design,maintenance and merchandising"(Policy 2.5C).
Office and Industrial Uses
The General Plan designates large areas on either side of Interstate 680,including the Bishop Ranch
Business Park,for"Office"and"Manufacturing and Wholesale"use. Two BART express bus routes
operate between the Bishop Ranch Business Park and BART(General Plan,page 58). The Plan contains a
policy to"limit office floor area to 35 percent of site area(.35 FAR)"(Policy 2.61)). The intent of this
policy is to ensure adequate traffic and parking capacity and to prevent major floor area additions on
developed sites(General Plan,page 32).
8 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Protected Areas
The General Plan designates large portions of the Bollinger Canyon and Westside areas,located in the
northwestern and western portions of the Planning Area within the city's Sphere of Influence,as"Open
Space,"i.e.,"permanently open land primarily in natural vegetation"(General Plan,page 21). The Plan
also contains a policy to"develop a program with Contra Costa County,the East Bay Regional Park
District(EBRPD)and Danville to maintain contiguous open-space areas of sufficient size to allow eco-
nomic use for grazing" (Policy 3.21)).
In 1990,the City Council adopted the"Save Our Hills"Ordinance,which is an amendment to the General
Plan by initiative. The ordinance restricts development in the following ways:for land above 500 feet
elevation,development shall be limited to one unit per acre where slopes are between 10 percent and 15
percent,and one unit per five acres where slopes are between 15 percent and 20 percent. No develop-
ment is allowed on slopes that are more than 20 percent.
Urban Growth Boundary
The San Ramon General Plan does not establish an Urban Growth Boundary.
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The General Plan contains a policy to"seek cooperation of Contra Costa County and developers to secure
annexation to San Ramon of areas designated for urban use prior to granting development approvals"
(Policy 2.2C). The Settlement Agreement between the cities and Contra Costa County spells out annex-
ation procedures for portions of the Dougherty Valley project;annexation will occur after building
permits are issued.
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The General Plan contains a policy to"allow the market,the status of agricultural preservation
(Williamson Act)contracts,and the availability of urban services to determine the timing of urban
development consistent with adopted specific plans for the Westside and the Dougherty Valley"(Policy
2.2B). The Plan also calls upon the City to"allow urban development only in accord with a plan for full
urban services(police,fire,parks,water,sewer,streets,and storm drainage)to which all providers are
committed. Areas lacking full services are deemed outside the urban service area and are unsuited for
urban development regardless of Plan designation until services are assured"(Policy 2.2D).
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 9
The City Council adopted a Growth Management Element in 1991,which establishes performance
standards for all urban services:police,fire,parks,water,sanitation,facilities,flood control,schools,and
libraries.
Issues of Subregional Importance
Establishing an Urban Growth Boundary for areas anticipated to be needed for development would help
to protect resource,agricultural,and open space lands. Designated open space areas in Bollinger Canyon
and Westside can be incorporated into a subregional permanent greenbelt system.
There are opportunities for infill,mixed use,and more intensive development at Bishop Ranch and other
existing commercial areas,to.provide housing at accessible locations and to support transit.
Development of the Dougherty Valley area must be coordinated with annexation policies and with the
provision of water supply and sewage disposal capacity.
Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005 (1991)
Residential Uses
The Contra Costa County General Plan allows residential densities ranging from"Single Family Residen-
tial,Very Low"(0.2 to 0.9 units per net acre)to"Multiple Family Residential,Very High Special"(45.0 to
99.0 units per net acre). In the vicinity of Danville,the Plan designates the unincorporated Alamo/
Diablo/Blackhawk area,located adjacent to Danville's northerly Sphere of Influence,for single family
residential densities ranging from"Very Low(0.2 to 0.9 units per net acre)to "Medium"(3.0 to 4.9 units
per net acre). In the vicinity of San Ramon,the Plan designates the unincorporated Dougherty Valley
area for densities ranging from"Single Family Residential,Medium"(3.0 to 4.9 units per net acre)to
Multiple Family Residential,High".(21.0 to 29.9 units per net acre). The Plan also designates a portion of
San Ramon's Westside area for low density single family housing(1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre).
The General Plan contains a policy stating that"the predominantly single family character of substan-
tially developed portions of the County shall be retained. Multiple-family housing shall be dispersed
throughout the County and not concentrated in single locations. . ." (Policy 3-20). However,the Plan
also contains a goal to"recognize and support existing land use densities in most communities,while
encouraging higher densities in appropriate areas,such as near major transportation hubs and job
centers" (Goal 3-E).
10 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan proposes up to 11,000 housing units and 800,000 square feet of
commercial space on 6,000 acres in the unincorporated area. A General Plan amendment for the
Tassajara Valley would allow another 5,340 housing units plus 52 acres of commercial/office use on 6,000
acres. The first phase of the Dougherty Valley project,known as the Country Club at Gale Ranch,in-
cludes 1,216 lots on the western 618 acres of the Dougherty Valley planning area. All discretionary
approvals have been granted,including the General Plan amendment,rezoning to planned unit develop-
ment,vesting tentative map,and a development agreement.
Commercial Uses
The General Plan does not designate any commercial uses in the unincorporated areas surrounding the
Town of Danville. In the vicinity of San Ramon,the Plan designates small areas of Commercial use in the
unincorporated Dougherty Valley area;this designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (ratio of building
square footage to lot size)of 0.1 to 1.0(General Plan,page 3-23).
The Plan contains policies stating that"local shopping facilities shall be distributed and spaced at inter-
vals to accommodate the requirements of residential neighborhoods,minimize travel times,and reduce
energy costs"(Policy 3-33),and that"business and professional office development shall be encouraged
in areas designated for commercial land use within shopping areas and where a transition or buffer use is
appropriate between commercial and residential areas" (Policy 3-37).
Office and Industrial Uses
The General Plan does not designate any office or industrial uses in the unincorporated portions of the
study area.
Agricultural Uses
The General Plan designates much of the unincorporated portion of the study area as"Agricultural
Lands." The Plan establishes a five-acre minimum parcel size for these lands(Implementation Measure
8-w). The Plan further states that"in order to reduce adverse impacts on agricultural and environmental
values,and to reduce urban costs to taxpayers,the County shall not designate land located outside the
ULL(Urban Limit Line)for an urban land use"(Policy 8-30). [See discussion under"Urban Limit Line"
on page 12.1
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 11
Protected Areas
The General Plan designates large areas of the eastern portion of the study area for"Watershed"and
"Parks and Recreation"uses. The"Watershed"designation,which applies mainly to land owned by the
East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD)and the Contra Costa Water District(CCWD),allows only a
very limited number of uses(e.g.,agriculture,passive recreation)in order to safeguard public water
supplies(General Plan,page 340). The"Parks and Recreation"designation encompasses Mount Diablo
State Park and Morgan Territory Regional Park.
Urban Limit Line
The General Plan establishes an Urban Limit Line(ULL)that generally encompasses the urbanized areas
of the county,including Danville,Alamo,and San Ramon. The Plan states that"the purpose of the ULL
is twofold:(1)to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural,open space and other areas by
establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General
Plan,and(2)to facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard" (General Plan,page
3-14). [See discussion of 65/35 Land Preservation Standard under"Growth Management and Level of
Service Standards"on page 13.1
The Plan contains policies stating that"the extension of urban services into agricultural areas outside the
Urban Limit Line,especially growth-inducing infrastructure,shall be generally discouraged" (Policy 3-
10),and that"urban uses shall be expanded only within an Urban Limit Line where conflicts with the
agricultural economy will be minimal" (Policy 3-11). In accordance with the General Plan(Implementa-
tion Measure 3-r),the County reviews the ULL every five years. The Plan(page 3-15)states that"during
the term of the General Plan,properties that are located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan
Amendments that would redesignate them for an urban land use."
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The General Plan contains an implementation measure to"advise LAFCO to (a)respect and support the
County's 65/35 Preservation Standard,Urban Limit Line and growth management standards when
considering requests for incorporation or annexation to cities or service districts,(b)apply the stricter of
the growth management standards of either the County,the incorporating city or the annexing city or
service district,when considering requests for incorporation or annexation of land to cities or service
districts,and(c)require unincorporated land located within the Urban Limit Line that is included in the
incorporation of a new city or annexed to a city to provide a fair share of affordable housing when and if
such land is developed"(Implementation Measure 3-v).
12 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The General Plan establishes a"65/35 Land Preservation Standard"and other growth management
provisions in accordance with Measure C,a series of two countywide ballot measures approved in 1988
and 1990. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development through at least the horizon
of the General Plan to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County,and requires that at least 65
percent of all land in the County be preserved for agriculture,open space,wetlands,parks,and other
non-urban uses. The standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and non-
urban land uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas(General Plan,page 3-17).
The Plan also contains a Growth Management Element that establishes policies and standards for traffic
levels of service and performance standards for fire,police,parks,sanitary facilities,water,and flood
control. The purpose of the element is to "establish a long range program which will match the demand
for public facilities to serve new development with plans,capital improvement programs and develop-
ment impact mitigation programs"(General Plan,page 4-1). The element states that"if it cannot be
demonstrated prior to project approval that levels of service will be met. . .,development will be tempo-
rarily deferred until the standards can be met or assured"(Policy 4-2).
Issues of Subregional Importance
The County's land use designations and zoning can support the policy of assuring that additional urban
development is within or annexes to cities. An increase in the minimum agricultural parcel size from the
present five acres would help to support the continuation of farming and grazing.
Urban development of the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley areas must be coordinated with
annexation policies and with the provision of water supply and sewage treatment capacity.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 13
City of Dublin General Plan
Residential Uses
The City of Dublin General Plan allows residential densities ranging from"Low Density Single Family
Residential"(0.5 to 3.8 units per gross acre)to"Medium-High Density Residential"(14.1 to 25.0 units per
gross acre). Properties designated "Medium-High Density Residential'are:located on the east side of
Interstate 680,in Donlan Canyon and in the vicinity of San Ramon Road and.Amador Valley Boulevard
in the downtown area. The General Plan contains policies to"designate sites available for residential
development in the primary planning area for medium and medium-high density where site capability
and access are suitable and where the higher density would be compatible with existing residential
development nearby" (Implementing Policy 2.1.113). The 1994 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
states as a Guiding Policy,"Encourage the development of a balanced mixed use community in the
Eastern Extended Planning Area,that is well integrated with both natural and urban systems,and
provides a safe,comfortable and attractive environment for living and working"(Policy 2.1.4).
The approved Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,covering 7,000 acres,would
allow approximately 13,000 housing units and 9.7 million square feet of commercial/industrial space.
More than half the residential acreage is designated Rural Residential/Agriculture,with a density of 1
unit per 100 acres. The plan calls for a wider range of densities in the remaining residential sections of
Eastern Dublin than now exist in the City,although the prevailing density in the plan is single-family
detached. A portion of the East Dublin area(approximately 2,744 acres)is outside the existing Dublin
Sphere of Influence. This area is designated Future Study Area/Agriculture.
Commercial Uses
The General Plan contains a policy to"intensify downtown Dublin" (Guiding Policy 2.2.1A),and desig-
nates the largest areas of"Retail/Office"use on the west side of Interstate 680 in the downtown area. The
Plan contains policies to "encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures with
ground floor retail space"(Implementing Policy 2.2.11)),and to"provide a downtown BART station that
will serve customers and workers with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking
distance and eventually over BART parking"(Implementing Policy 2.2.1C).
14 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Plan also designates"Retail/Office"and"Retail/Office&Automotive"uses on the east side of
Interstate 680 along Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard,and contains a policy to"allow for creation
of an auto center(for car dealerships)east of Camp Parks Military Reservation,"along Interstate 580
within the Plan's"extended planning area"(Implementing Policy 2.2.2B). The Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment designates portions of the land adjacent to the freeway as"General Commercial,"
which permits high-volume regionally oriented retail uses,other retail and office uses,and mixed use
including residential if location and design ensure compatibility.
Office and Industrial Uses
The General Plan establishes"Business Park/Industrial/Low Coverage"areas along Interstate 580 west
of the San Ramon Road interchange and east of the Dougherty Road interchange,and northwest of the
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection,surrounding Scarlett Court.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment designates portions of the land adjacent to the freeway for
"Campus Office"and"Industrial Park." The Campus Office designation allows an increase in Floor Area
Ratio adjacent to the East Dublin BART station at the discretion of the City Council. It also allows resi-
dential as part of a planned mixed use development. Residential uses are not allowed in the Industrial
Park designation.
Protected Areas
The General Plan establishes policies for preservation of open space for public health and safety,recre-
ational opportunities,and natural resource production,through purchase,easements,transfer of devel-
opment rights,and special district financing. Generally,slopes of more than 30 percent are not to be
developed. The plan contains policies for the protection of riparian vegetation,oak woodlands,and
historic resources,and for the prevention of damage from erosion,siltation,and flooding. The City's
Parks and Recreation Master Plan,adopted in 1994,contains standards and locations for parks,recreation
facilities,and trails;however,it does not designate open space areas.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment designates open space corridors connecting parks and
residential areas. Productive agricultural soils in this area are limited. The plan allows development of
agricultural land,provided the owner has notified the applicable agency of the intent not to renew a
Williamson Act contract,the proposed use is suitable and will have adequate urban services,and the
conversion will not have adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining in agricultural use.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 15
Urban Growth Boundary
The Dublin General Plan does not establish an urban growth boundary. However,the East Dublin
General Plan Amendment incorporates policies that are consistent with the urban growth boundary
concept,such as development in accordance with housing and employment needs and open space land
use designations on visually important ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas.
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The General Plan does not contain policies that address the City's Sphere of Influence or annexations.
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The General Plan provides that"approval of residential development in the extended planning area will
require determination that(1)utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban standards
without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses;(2)proposed site grading and means of
access will not disfigure the ridgelands;(3)timing of development will not result in premature termina-
tion of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands;and(4) the fiscal impact of new residential
development in the extended planning area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal
base of the remainder of the city' (Implementing Policy 2.1.4C). This policy applies to the Western
Dublin extended planning area. There are additional policies applicable to the Eastern Dublin planning
area.
Issues of Subregional Importance
Establishment of strengthened policies for an urban growth boundary for areas anticipated to be needed
for development would help to preserve resource,agricultural,and open space lands. The urban growth
boundary should be coordinated with the Sphere of Influence,indicating areas expected to annex within
five years. Open space areas in the northwestern and northeastern parts of the planning area can be
incorporated into a subregional greenbelt system.
Development of mixed use and higher density housing near the future BART station can help to establish
a downtown in Dublin,in addition to meeting housing needs and supporting transit. The East Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station is within an area designated Public Lands and adjacent to an area designated
Business Park/Industrial:Outdoor Storage. A General Plan amendment could be considered for this
area,consistent with the downtown BART station policies.
Development in the Western Dublin area must be coordinated with policies for annexation and provision
of water supply and sewage disposal capacity.
16 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
City of Livermore Community General Plan, 1976-2000 (1976)
and North Livermore General Plan Amendment (1993)
Residential Uses
The City of Livermore Community General Plan,1976-2000,allows residential densities ranging from
"Rural"(1-5 acre sites)to"Urban High-4"(up to 18-22 units per acre). In addition,the North Livermore
General Plan Amendment,which contains the City's planning policy for approximately 14,500 acres
located north of Interstate 580,allows residential densities ranging from"Rural Estate"to "High Density
Village" (18 units per gross acre average density). Lands designated for the highest densities are located
along South Livermore Avenue south of Interstate 580,along Vasco Road and Springtown Boulevard
north of Interstate 580,and immediately adjacent to Interstate 580 in the North Livermore planning area.
The North Livermore General Plan Amendment places"the highest density villages"on sites that"are
suitable for locating the planned West Livermore BART station,"with "moderate density villages. ..
planned to provide a feeder bus connection to the BART station"(General Plan Amendment,page 22).
Commercial Uses
Commercial uses are generally clustered along Interstate 580 and in the downtown area,with smaller
neighborhood shopping centers designated in residential neighborhoods north and south of the freeway.
The North Livermore General Plan Amendment designates a regional commercial center on the north
side of Interstate 580 at Isabel Parkway,in a designated`Business&Commercial Park"(see discussion
under"Office and Industrial Uses"below). The General Plan contains policies stating that"the down-
town shall serve as the dominant commercial area and as the major retail shopping area within the period
of the plan,"that"downtown shopping shall be supplemented by neighborhood shopping centers,"and
that"highway commercial development adjacent to Interstate 580 shall be limited"(General Plan,pages
92-93). The North Livermore General Plan Amendment contains policies stating that"local-serving
commercial centers,consisting of retail convenience and personal service uses shall be located adjacent to
transit stops . . ."(Commercial Policies,Policy 31),and that"a local transit plan shall be provided (for the
regional shopping center) to move patrons from the villages,as well as portions of the community south
of 1-580 to the shopping center" (Business and Commercial Park Policies,Policy 45).
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 17
Office and Industrial Uses
The General Plan designates much of the land located in the eastern portion of the planning area south of
Interstate 580,including the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,for industrial uses. In addition,the North
Livermore General Plan Amendment designates a"Business&Commercial Park"on the north side of
Interstate 580 at Isabel Parkway. The General Plan contains a policy to"reserve large tracts for exclusive
industrial use to encourage development of an industrial'community'and prevent encroachment by
incompatible uses"(General Plan,page 95). For the"Business&Commercial Park,"the North Livermore
General Plan Amendment anticipates a mix of research and development/office uses(35-50 percent),
manufacturing uses(20-40 percent),and regional or convenience commercial uses(20-30 percent)(Busi-
ness and Commercial Park Policies,Policy 41).
Agricultural Uses
The General Plan designates much of the southern portion of the planning area for"Limited Agriculture"
(20-acre site minimum),"Viticulture"(100-acre site minimum),"General Agriculture" (100-acre site
minimum),and "Agriculture/Viticulture"(1-5 units per 100 acres). These areas include vineyards and
several large wineries. The General Plan contains policies and programs to.preserve and expand the
number of vineyards and wineries in the South Livermore Valley area,and to establish a permanent
urban/rural boundary to protect the long-term viability of agriculture/viticulture in the area(page 141).
The North Livermore General Plan Amendment designates the northernmost portions of the planning
area as"General Agriculture,"and establishes Transfer of Development Credits and Agricultural Resi-
dential Clustering Programs to encourage property owners to place conservation easements on the land
and maintain the area as permanent open space(General Plan Amendment,page 13).
Protected Areas
The General Plan places creeks and trail corridors,as well as large community parks,in a"Parks,
Trailways,and Recreation Corridor,and Protected Areas"designation. In addition,the North Livermore
General Plan Amendment designates the westernmost planning,area for"Hillside Conservation,"and
states that"special performance standards shall be established which regulate subdivisions and the type
and placement of buildings within the Hillside Conservation designation"(Open Space Preservation
Policies,Policy 8).
18 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Urban Growth Boundary
The Livermore General Plan does not establish an urban growth boundary. However,the North
Livermore General Plan Amendment does designate greenbelt buffers to establish a permanent edge
along the northern urban boundary of the plan and as a community separator between Livermore and
Dublin.
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The General Plan contains a policy discouraging the annexation of lands within vineyard areas unless a
proposed urban development project maximizes the acreage of permanently protected vineyards and
meets other criteria for public service availability and agricultural protection(General Plan,pages 146-
149). The North Livermore General Plan Amendment contains a policy stating that"the City shall
petition LAFCO to amend its Sphere of Influence Boundary to encompass the entire planning area,with
the intent of annexation to the City. However,if the City of Dublin does not seek to include Doolan
Canyon within its Sphere of Influence and the County maintains an Agriculture or similar designation for
the area,the City shall not seek to include Doolan Canyon within its Sphere of Influence" (General Land
Use Policies,Policy 7).
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The General Plan establishes a growth allocation system based on an average residential population
growth rate of 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 percent per year. This system is based on infrastructure requirements and
limitations,environmental impacts and constraints,affordable housing needs,and the current job growth
rate(General Plan,pages 70-75). Sewage treatment capacity is also allocated to new development on a
yearly basis(General Plan,pages 102-105).
The North Livermore General Plan Amendment requires Specific Plans for all proposed development to
address jobs/housing balance measures,infrastructure provision,incorporation of transit facilities,and
affordable housing(General Plan Amendment,page 24).
Issues of Subregional Importance
Establishment of an urban growth boundary for areas anticipated to be needed for development would
help to protect resource,agricultural,and open space lands. Areas designated for open space and
agriculture can be incorporated into a subregional greenbelt system.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 19
Development of the North Livermore area must be coordinated with policies for annexation and with
adequate water supply and sewage disposal capacity.
Mixed use and higher density housing around future BART stations can help to meet housing needs,
support transit,and revitalize the Downtown.
City and County land use policies should be coordinated to prevent encroachment of incompatible urban
uses that would interfere with the operation of Livermore Municipal Airport.
Pleasanton General Plan (1986)
Pleasanton is now in the process of conducting its comprehensive General Plan update.
Residential Uses
The Pleasanton Plan allows residential densities ranging from'Rural Density'(one unit per five gross
acres)to"High Density"(greater than eight units per gross acre). Properties designated "High Density"
are located throughout the city,in many cases adjacent to designated commercial/office areas,including
Downtown. The General Plan contains a policy to"maintain at least the amount of High Density Resi-
dential acreage currently designated on the General Plan Map" (Housing Element,Policy 2).
Commercial Uses
Major commercial areas designated by the General Plan are clustered along Interstate 580(e.g.,
Stoneridge Mall,Hopyard Road,Santa Rita Road)and in the downtown area. Floor Area Ratios(FA.Rs)
in these areas are not to exceed 0.6,except in the case of hotels and motels(maximum FAR of 0.7)and
projects in the downtown area(maximum FAR of 2.0)(General Plan,page II-7). The Plan contains a
policy to"preserve the character of the downtown area while enhancing its design and expanding retail,
office and housing opportunities"(Land Use Element,Policy 2).
Office and Industrial Uses
The General Plan designates large areas along Interstate 580(e.g.,the Hacienda Business Park),as well as
smaller areas along Interstate 680,and northeast of downtown,for"Business Parks(Industrial/Commer-
cial and Offices)"and "General and Limited Industrial"uses. Maximum FA.Rs are 0.6 in"Business Park"
areas and 0.5 in"General and Limited Industrial"areas.
20 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The General Plan also designates a large'portion of the eastern planning area,south of the Livermore
Airport,for"Sand and Gravel Harvesting." The Plan states that"no significant development is allowed
in these areas"(General Plan,page II-7).
San Francisco Water Department(SFWD Bernal Site)
Much of this 500-acre site is in unincorporated Alameda County. The remainder is in Pleasanton,and the
site is surrounded by Pleasanton. Both the County and City general plans designate mixed commercial,
residential,and recreational uses for the land. A specific plan application submitted by SFWD to the
County is now pending. Pleasanton is currently applying to LAFCO for annexation of the land.
Protected Areas
The General Plan's"Parks and Recreation"designation applies to many hundreds of acres,including
Augustin Bernal Park,parts of Castlewood Country Club,and the top of Pleasanton Ridge in the south-
western portion of the planning area;no significant development is allowed in these areas(General Plan,
page 11-7). Large portions of the eastern and southern planning area,including the Southeast Hills,are
designated"Public Health and Safety;"in these areas,which contain geologic,topographic,fire,or other
hazards,no development is allowed other than single-family homes on lots existing at the time of General
Plan adoption,subject to City requirements(General Plan,pages 11-7 and II-9). Portions of the southeast-
em corner of the planning area,adjacent to State Highway 84,are designated"Agriculture and Grazing,"
with no significant development allowed (General Plan,page II-7).
Urban Growth Boundary
The Pleasanton Plan does not establish an urban growth boundary.
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The Plan contains a program to"discourage the extension of public facilities into areas not within
Pleasanton's sphere of influence or areas inconsistent with LAFCO policies"(Land Use Element,Program
15.2).
The Plan calls upon the City to"annex urbanized pockets of unincorporated land adjacent to the City
limits in those areas where landowners are willing to accept City services and development standards"
(Land Use Element,Policy 14).
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 21
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The General Plan contains a policy to"regulate the number of housing units approved each year to
adequately plan for infrastructure and assure City residents of a predictable growth rate"(Land Use
Element,Policy 11). Programs implementing this policy call for annual growth management allocations
that limit residential development to 0 to 650 housing units per year,based on housing need,employ-
ment growth,availability of infrastructure,and the City's ability to provide public services. In addition,
the current Plan establishes a"holding capacity"of 7,300 people within the existing planning area(City
staff).
The growth management program is also used to "select for early development projects that complete
and/or install critical portions of the City's planned public facility systems" (Land Use Element,Program
15.1).
Issues of Subregional Importance
Establishment of an urban growth boundary for areas anticipated to be needed for development over the
next 20 years would help to protect resource,agricultural,and open space lands. Areas designated for
open space and agriculture could be incorporated into a subregional greenbelt system.
There are opportunities for housing,mixed use,and other more intensive uses near the future BART
station.
Alameda County East County Area Plan (1994)
Residential Uses
The East County Area Plan allows residential densities ranging from"Rural Residential"(less than one
unit per gross acre)to"Very High Density Residential"(25.1 to 75.0 units per gross acre). The Plan
generally reflects the residential land use patterns established by the General Plans of Dublin,Livermore,
and Pleasanton. The Plan contains policies stating that the County will "encourage cities to increase
maximum allowable densities and to require residential projects within high density residential designa-
tions to achieve an average density at or above the mid-point of the applicable density range. . ."(Policy
34),"facilitate development of high density housing near proposed BART stations,"(Policy 35),and
"encourage high density multiple family housing near transit and in community centers. . ." (Policy 36).
The Eastern Dublin area is designated for approximately 14,000 housing units on 7,000 acres. The North
Livermore area is proposed for 12,500 units within a 11,000-acre study area.
22 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Commercial Uses
Commercial land use designations generally reflect the designations of the Dublin,Livermore,and
Pleasanton General Plans. Plan policies state that the County will"work with cities to designate an
adequate,but not excessive,supply of land for industrial,commercial,and office development to meet
the East County holding capacity for the planning period,"and will "require new unincorporated indus-
trial,commercial,and office developments to pay their fair share of the costs for providing East County
infrastructure,public facilities and services,open space,affordable housing,and child care"(Policies 48
and 49).
Office and Industrial Uses
The"Industrial'and "Mixed Use/Business Park"designations of the East County Area Plan generally
reflect the designations of the Dublin,Livermore,and Pleasanton General Plans. However,the Plan
designates the"Sand and Gravel Harvesting"area identified by the Pleasanton General Plan for"Indus-
trial,""Water Management,"and"Urban Reserve"uses;these designations generally allow quarry
operations. [See discussion of Plan policies under"Commercial Uses"above.]
Agricultural Uses
The Plan designates the unincorporated eastern and western portions of the study area for"Large Parcel
Agriculture,"allowing a minimum parcel size of 100 acres and a maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR)of.02,
except in areas supporting greenhouses(0.1 maximum FAR). In addition to agricultural uses,this
designation allows solid waste landfills,windfarms,quarries,and "other industrial uses appropriate for
remote areas"(Area Plan,page 47).The Plan requires that urban development on agricultural land within
the urban growth boundary(see discussion under"urban growth boundary"below)be phased to reduce
impacts on continuing agricultural operations,and either be contiguous to existing urban development or
provide a high-density,transit-oriented community center(Policies 98 and 99).
The Plan designates much of the southern portion of the study area,as well as the area between East
Dublin and North Livermore,for"Resource Management,"a designation intended mainly for preserved
open space but that also allows low-intensity agriculture and grazing(Area Plan,page 47).
The plan designates agricultural and open space uses in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 23
Protected Areas
In addition to the'Resource Management"designation described under"Agricultural Uses"above,the
Plan designates much of the unincorporated southern portion of the study area,including the areas
surrounding San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs,for"Water Management"uses. This designation
provides for quarry operations,watershed lands,and similar and compatible uses. The Plan applies a
"Major Parks"designation to Sycamore Grove Regional Park,Del Valle Regional Park,Ohlone Regional
Wilderness,and SunoI Regional Wilderness in the southern portion of the study area,and Bethany
Reservoir State Recreation Area and Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area in the easternmost portion
of the study area.
Urban Growth Boundary
The East County Area Plan establishes an urban growth boundary that generally encompasses the
urbanized,incorporated areas of the County plus some adjoining unincorporated areas. The majority of
the eastern and southern portions of the study area are located outside the urban growth boundary.
Some portions of the city limits of Dublin,Pleasanton,and Livermore extend beyond the urban growth
boundary.
The Plan states that"the Urban Growth Boundary is intended to be permanent and to define the line
beyond which urban development shall not be allowed. The County shall use the Urban Growth Bound-
ary to provide certainty regarding development potential for long-term infrastructure financing,agricul-
tural investment,and environmental protection" (Policy 1). The Plan provides for County review of the
urban growth boundary and land use designations within it every five years(Program 1),and establishes
criteria for locating the boundary based on city General Plan designations,topography,visual resources,
soil stability,agricultural use,infrastructure,community separation,habitat,parcel ownership,and other
factors(Area Pian,pages T-1 and T-2).
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
The Plan states that"the County shall support the eventual city annexation or incorporation of all exist-
ing and proposed urban development within the Urban Growth Boundary consistent with the East
County Area Plan" (Policy 18).
24 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Growth Management and Level of Service Standards
The Plan establishes a "holding"capacity of approximately 94,700 housing units and 151,900 jobs through
the year 2010,and requires that Plan policies regarding level of service and other development standards
be met(Policy 10). The Plan states that the County will consider"Major New Urban Developments"(i.e.,
projects on at least 3,000 acres that canprovide transit-oriented,mixed residential/commercial develop-
ment with dedicated open space and public facilities and services)only in the areas of North Livermore
and Eastern Dublin. These developments are required to submit Development Phasing and Community
Facilities Plans,and to comply with performance guidelines for circulation,transit service,high density
housing,public services,air and water quality,noise,community design,and other factors(Area Plan,
Policies 23 and 23A,and Table 6). The Plan establishes holding capacities for the North Livermore and
Eastern Dublin areas(Policies 24 and 25).
Issues of Subregional Importance
Areas designated for resource management,agriculture,and park use can be incorporated into a subre-
gional greenbelt system.
Development of the North Livermore area must be coordinated with annexation policies and with
provision of adequate water supply and sewage disposal capacity.
Sufficient land in the unincorporated area should be reserved for major public facilities,such as jails,
landfills,and wind energy conversion.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories are research facilities which
provide an important employment base for the Tri-Valley area. Land use policies should prevent the
encroachment of incompatible development which could conflict with the operations of the laboratories.
Development near the Federal Communications Commission monitoring station in North Livermore
should be strictly regulated,to prevent health hazards to humans and interference with the operations of
the facility.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 25
3. SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The Tri-Valley area is largely developed in a low-density pattern,with residential,shopping,office,and
industrial areas designed to be served primarily by the automobile. Plans for some communities express
the intention of retaining a low-density,single-family residential environment. Significant changes in the
established community fabric are therefore not expected.
There are,however,opportunities to focus additional development in patterns that are more compact and
transit-friendly. Extensive residential and commercial growth is projected for the Tri-Valley area,and
major transit improvements are planned. The Tri-Valley Subregronal Planning Strategy can establish the
basis for reshaping future development around existing communities,so that transit is supported,open
space and agricultural land are preserved,and public services are used efficiently. The Strategy can
present an alternative to the continuation of the present pattern of low-density sprawl,so that there are
opportunities for a wider variety of residential,commercial,and mixed use areas. At the same time,the
Strategy should recognize that the character of most existing communities has already been established
and will remain unchanged.
Following are suggested Objectives for Location and Intensity of Urban Development:
1. Ensure that new development occurs in a compact community-centered pattern,and in a logical,
orderly manner linked to the provision of needed services,to support existing communities,
improve mobility,minimize public infrastructure costs,protect natural resources,and support
economic activity.
Points for discussion, The concept of"city-centered patterns of development"has been used commonly in
Bay Area regional and local planning for more than two decades. Does this mean that urban development
should not occur in unincorporated areas? What about development adjacent to existing urbanized
unincorporated communities? Should we assume that urban development that is not within cities consti-
tutes "sprawl"? Does the term "compact community-centered development patterns"better convey the
intent? Are there criteria other than being within or planned to annex to it city to determine whether a site
is appropriate for urban development,such as: Who is the appropriate body to do the planning? Is the
development adjacent to an existing city or developed unincorporated community? Does the development
meet city standards for design and services?
2. Maintain performance standards and levels of service for public services and facilities,transpor-
tation,and open space.
26 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
There should be municipal levels of service assured for urban development,defined for example as response
times for emergency services,acres of park land,congestion at major intersections,water supply,and
school capacity.
3. Make the most efficient use of existing and future infrastructure.
Following are suggested policies for the Subregional Planning Strategy:
Urban Growth Boundaries
1. Establish urban growth boundaries and designate an adequate amount,range,and density of
land use within these boundaries to meet projected needs for General Plan buildout.
Points for discussion: There are various options for determining the"need"for urban development:
General Plan buildout projections,20-year growth projections by the local government or ABAG,projected
housing needs,and for which urban services are anticipated to be available over a certain period of time.
2. Urban growth boundaries should be regarded as a long-term commitment for managing the
patterns of growth and development. As such they should be seen as a 20-year plan,subject to
periodic review coincident with comprehensive general plan updates. Even at the time of
review,revisions in urban growth boundaries should be permitted only in accordance with strict
criteria: 1)They are otherwise consistent with the goals and policies of the appropriate city and
county general plans;2)They would not promote sprawl or leap-frog development,or induce
further adjustments of the boundaries;and 3)They would not unacceptably affect visual re-
sources.
3. Outside urban growth boundaries,allow uses which do not require an urban level of service and
which do not conflict with the continuation of agricultural and other non-urban uses,including
the following:agriculture,as defined by the local jurisdiction;rural residential,as defined by the
local jurisdiction;resource management lands,such as quarries;public parks;recreation areas;
open space; and continuation of existing developed areas,for example Alamo and Sunol,allow-
ing for property improvements. Discourage development which is neither urban nor rural,such
as subdivisions of two to three acres on agricultural land.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 27
4. Inside urban growth boundaries,establish incentives to encourage development to occur in an
orderly manner,adjacent to existing development before in more outlying sections. Discourage
"leap-frog"development,which is at a distance so far from existing urban development that the
costs of providing services are significantly greater than for areas adjacent to existing develop-
ment. New development shall pay the full costs of municipal services,which must be timely,
have assured financing,and meet urban standards.
Points for discussion: This policy requires further discussion. What are appropriate incentives to encour-
age building from the inside out,rather than in a leapfrog pattern? Higher densities adjacent to existing
development than in outlying areas? Denial of any city services such as bonding for improvements?
Another method would be to require a specific plan for the area between existing development and the
outlying site.
5. To prevent conflicts between uses on either side of urban growth boundaries,allow lower density
uses inside and near the boundaries,to provide transition/buffer zones,to prevent conflicts with
uses outside the boundaries such as between urban development and farming operations,and to
minimize dangers to urban development such as wildfires.
6. Protect environmental resources within and near developed areas,both inside and outside urban
growth boundaries.
7. Establish permanent areas of contiguous open space outside urban growth boundaries,to sepa-
rate developed areas,protect views,and connect all parts of the Tri-Valley area. This area should
be publicly held and fairly acquired,or privately dedicated. It should contain trails and wildlife
corridors.
Points for discussion: If it is determined that urban growth boundaries should be subject to periodic review
and revision,it is reasonable to establish a permanent greenbelt that would not be subject to change.
Within the greenbelt there could be a variety of private and public uses,including agriculture,rural
residential,parks,private recreation,trails,and open space. A possible implementation method, to be
discussed in a later working paper,would be to establish a Tri-Valley open space district which could use
development fees,voter-approved tax revenues,grants,dedications,and other fund sources to acquire the
greenbelt.
28 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Annexation and Urban Expansion
1. Encourage all urban development to be within cities. In situations where the County processes
development applications,assure that urban services will be provided,that development will not
adversely affect existing developed areas,and that development standards are consistent with
those of the nearest City or cities.
Points for discussion: See discussion under Objective 1,regarding"city-centered development patterns."
2. Encourage the Local Agency Formation Commissions to establish spheres of influence which
indicate areas that each city intends to annex,at the time urban development is proposed.
Spheres of influence should be considered a 20-year commitment,subject to periodic review
coincident with comprehensive general plan revisions.
3. Within each sphere of influence,adopt an agreement among the affected cities,agencies,and the
County to establish how development applications outside the city limits will be handled. The
agreement should include a commitment to review development standards to assure that they
are consistent and subject to the same interpretation,to include representatives of all affected
jurisdictions in pre-application conferences with developers,to establish procedures for if and
when annexation should take place,and to establish standards for tax-sharing agreements.
4. Give priority to developing vacant or underused land within existing city limits prior to an
extension of development outside,unless needs for housing and economic vitality require
development at a scale that is difficult to accomplish on an infill basis. At pre-application confer-
ences,provide information about where land with urban services is available throughout the Tri-
Valley area. Encourage growth management standards,higher densities,and other means to
facilitate infill.
5. Local governments should use the following criteria to evaluate proposed annexations:
a. The land is within urban growth boundaries.
b. The capacities of agencies which provide such services as water,sewer,police,fire,transpor-
tation,solid waste disposal,parks,and schools are adequate or can be expanded to support
the proposed development.
c. The land within incorporated areas is unsuitable or insufficient to meet current land use
needs.
d. The land is a logical extension of an existing developed community.
e. The land is not under an agricultural preserve or open space contract.
f. The quality of the development proposed for the area to be annexed will enhance the existing
community.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 29
6. Encourage periodic joint review of planning areas between jurisdictions.
Growth Management/Infrastructure
Several issues relate to the management of growth,to assure that there are adequate public facilities and
services to support new development.
1. Through local general plans,encourage growth to be directed to where infrastructure capacity is
available or assured,including but not limited to roads,transit,water,solid waste disposal,and
sewage treatment.
2. Establish within each local jurisdiction a growth management program that links development
approvals to levels of service and performance standards for traffic,schools,parks,fire,police,
sanitary sewer facilities,solid waste disposal,water,and flood control.
3. Invest in public facilities and amenities that support the infill development of existing communi-
ties.
4. Work with special purpose districts and other service providers to assure that necessary services
are provided in advance of or concurrently with development.
5. Encourage efforts to improve the efficiency and quality in the provision of services on a subre-
gional basis.
6. Extend urban services only within urban growth boundaries,to areas that are a logical extension
of existing development,as determined by the land use planning agency.
7. Identify needed public facilities of subregional significance,and require that new development
approvals are conditioned to assure that they contribute their fair share of the cost of such
facilities.
8. Coordinate development policies and capital improvement programs of local governments and
special districts at the subregional level,to assure that infrastructure and services are provided on
a timely and cost-effective basis.
9. Consider the subregional impacts and mitigation measures in the environmental review of any
major new public or private facility or expansion.
30 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
An example of a major facility with potential subregional impacts would be expansion of the Livermore
Airport.
10. Assure that services to existing residential and business areas are maintained at an acceptable
level when new development occurs.
11. Establish land use policies to discourage incompatible uses that would interfere with the opera-
tion of needed public facilities.
An example would be not allowing development that would interfere with wind energy operations within
the designated Wind Resource Area east of Livermore.
Land Use and Development Intensity
1. Establish land use and development policies that reduce the need to travel,for example by
locating employment,commercial,mixed use,residential,and service activities close together
and by designing development so that it is easily accessible by transit,bicycle,and on foot.
2. Review and if appropriate revise general plan land use designations based upon the inventory of
available land within the subregion,considering the supply of and demand for agricultural,
commercial and industrial land and the jobs/housing balance.
3. Encourage higher density residential development to be located within convenient walking
distance of downtowns and near major employment centers,shopping areas,transit centers,and
along existing and planned bus routes and transit facilities.
Points for discussion: Densities of 12 units or more per acre are generally considered to support bus or
light rail transit efficiently,while lower densities are less efficiently served.
4. Encourage the development of downtowns in communities which do not have them,and sustain
existing downtowns.
5. Encourage the maximization of densities in areas designated as high density.
The East County Area Plan,for example,contains incentives for residential development at no lower than
the mid-point of the density range.
WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 31
6. Develop programs to encourage infill,redevelopment and reuse of vacant and underused parcels
within existing urban areas.
7. Establish subregional programs to address problems associated with redevelopment and infill.
Examples of such programs would be providing information about the effects of infill development and
affordable housing,presenting testimony at public hearings,and working with environmental and other
groups to gain support of development proposals that meet subregional goals.
32 WORKING PAPER#1:LOCATION AND INTENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Map 1-1. General Plan Land Use Diagram
Map 1-2. Major Development Projects
Map 1-3. Water District Boundary Diagram
Map 1-4. Sewer District Boundary Diagram
DISCLAIMER
Please note that the accuracy of the information displayed on the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Project maps,
which were produced using the City of San Ramon Geographical Information System(GIS),is deemed reliable,
but is not guaranteed by the Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC),the Technical Advisory Committee,or the
City of San Ramon.
It is understood and accepted that the maps are composites of data obtained from several local jurisdictions and
service providers',and as such are not the officially adopted maps of any one jurisdiction. It is quite possible
that errors and omissions will occur in data input and/or programming done to provide the data in the form
desired,and further understood and agreed that it is highly probable that errors and omissions will occur in
any record keeping process,especially when large numbers of records are developed and maintained,and that
the data may not meet the standards of the TVPC or any of the participating jurisdictions as to accuracy or
completeness. Notwithstanding,the data has been taken"as is,"fully expecting that there may well be errors
and omissions in the data obtained.
The TVPC further understands and agrees,and makes absolutely no warranty whatsoever,whether expressed
or implied,as to the accuracy,thoroughness,value,quality,validity,merchantability,suitability,conditions,or
fitness for a particular purpose of the data or any other programming used to obtain the data,nor as to whether
the data is error-free,up-to-date,complete or based upon accurate or meaningful facts.
p.+ ti
C) a a � 1
s
A � c
1 �q
11804
i MW
i
fi
� 1
AO I
v_
r
' � '►� 2t s � �� �p � diq'n��;*. � ��f. G Yrkr"` "c.,a
t �M_
�ys °
''• � s'" t�Opp`� �R .
e4 T 1
0
r �
P4
Qq
°<g'
N �
VIA
Sol
AWWoI
a
OYOy
i
°
�o
03 u
� M �
f,0A0
• ? Y c t A y 0 V
Jy 'O
-15
woo
y M�
`iXRi M Ty 8
� AO
y o
y°y
f M
V!
C a0
f
1 i
Qt A Cs
$ y
w 1Nffil
a
P t`
4 � F
S
e
w
F/M4 fY FPFO F FPFP � -
24
' FPY Q
�1i' t FIN^DP M'ed•yy� p
o .
,� 04
s �
Y
k:s
i
a \
K
r A
4�M
� 7YL
3
�f�t
F'
uy
r
r
HELP PLAN THE FUTURE OF THE TRI-VALLEY AREA
The Tri-Valley Planning Committee(TVPC)meets on Monday mornings at 7:30 a.m.in the Regional
Room at the Civic Center in the City of Dublin. Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)meetings generally
follow at 9:30 a.m. We invite you to attend and participate in developing a comprehensive subregional
planning strategy for the Tri-Valley.
TVPC meetings are currently scheduled for the following dates: July 10,17,24,31;August 14,28;Sep-
tember 11,18,25;October 30;November 6. The Draft Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy will be
reviewed by the public during community workshops in October. Specific dates and locations will be
announced. The TVPC is scheduled to take final action on the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy
and complete the six-month pilot project on November 6.
To record your views on the Issues Report and Working Papers,or to confirm meeting dates and loca-
tions,call and leave a message on the Tri-Valley phone line at(510)464-7909.
The Issues Report and Working Papers are available for review in the public libraries and planning
departments of the seven participating jurisdictions. All reports will also be available on the Internet at
the following World Wide Web address: http://www.abag.ca.gov.
Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee
Town of Danville Alameda County
Kevin Gailey,Chief of Planning and Building Deborah Stein,Assistant Planning Director
City of Dublin Contra Costa County
Carol Cirelli,Senior Planner Dennis Barry,AICP,Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Livermore Planning Consultants
Susan Frost,Associate Planner Marge Macris,AICP
Natalie Macris
City of Pleasanton
Wayne Rasmussen,Principal Planner ABAG
Ceil Scandone,Regional Planner
City of San Ramon Hing Wong,Regional Planner
Deborah Raines,AICP,Senior Planner
BAAQMD
Henry Hilken,Senior Environmental Planner
The committee acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals:
Daniel Berman,City of San Ramon Sue Warden,County of Contra Costa
Priya Tallam,County of Alameda Steve Woods,City of Pleasanton