HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1.1 Review General Plan Working Paper CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 1983
SUBJECT General Plan Program - Review of Working Paper 2 :
Analysis of Planning Options
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Working Paper 2 : Analysis of Planning Options with
?Planning Commission Annotations (under separate cover)
RECOMMENDATION Select the appropriate planning options for inclusion
in the sketch plans
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION As part of the Dublin General Plan Program, Staff and
the General Plan Consultant have prepared Working Paper 2 : Analysis of
Planning Options . The planning options attempt to address the issues
identified in Working Paper 1 : Existing Conditions and Planning Issues .
The planning options which the City Council select will give Staff and
the General Plan Consultant direction for preparing the sketch plans .
The planning options are present-ed in two categories :
1 ) policy options that express the City ' s goals for the future; and
2 ) implementation options that show what steps the City will take to
achieve its goals .
On September 15 , 1983 , the Planning Commission held a continued meeting
to select which planning options to recommend to the City Council .
Approximately a dozen citizens participated in the meeting. The
Planning Commission ' s recommendations have been handwritten into Working
Paper 2 so that the recommendations can be easily recognized.
Staff recommends that the City Council select the appropriate planning
options for inclusion in the sketch plans .
John Blayney, the General Plan Consultant, will be available at the
October 20 meeting to discuss the planning options .
�� ► �jo . I,
,j
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN -
WORKING PAPER 2: ANALYSIS OF PLANNING OPTIONS s
�I.AtJtJ��JCs` MM�SSIoN
Prepared for <..
City.of Dublin
By
BLAYNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
TJKM, Transportation Consultants
Hall enbeck-McKay be Associates; Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants
August 17, 1983
SUMMARY
The following list of options presents the major choices that will shape the General
Plan. Choices are divided into policy options and implementation options, distinguish-
ing between decisions relating to the City's desired goals and the method chosen for
achieving them. A few issues identified by Working Paper #1 or during subsequent
meetings are not covered because we do not believe they affect General Plan options;
,e.g., air quality. Some options are in conflict with other others, and the "no action"
�`; :alternative.typically is not listed. See the full`text for discussion'of the pros and cons
v ' of each option:' 1
5 a
:JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Policy Options
1. . Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri-Valley jurisdictions identify housing
additions that will balance job additions.
2. • Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri-Valley jurisdictions identify transporta-
tion mitigations that will avoid misuse of Dublin's street system by commuters
attempting to avoid freeway interchange congestion.
3. Acknowledge gains in nearby job opportunities, sales tax, and real estate values
that would result from an excess of jobs over housing opportunities and assume
that state, regional, and local funds will provide increased freeway and transit
capacity as the need becomes acute.
HOUSING
Policy Options
1. Retain Dublin's single-family character.
2. Provide housing for households of Dublin's median income.
3. Expand housing opportunities at both the lower and upper ends of the economic
scale.
4. Avoid economic segregation by city sector.
Implementation Options
1. Retain single-family residential designation east of Dougherty Hills.
2. Approve high density housing east of Dougherty Hills.
3. Designate sites in the western foothills for medium and high density housing.
4. Designate some land for rental housing only.
-1-
5. Require that all or a portion of units in multi-family projects over a certain size
be offered as rental for a given period of time as a condition of condominium
tentative map approval.
6. Limit condominium conversions.
7. Encourage development of second units.
8. Require a mix of housing types and prices in all projects larger than 100 units.
9 Encourage mixed office/residential projects adjoining downtown
10, ,Pursue opportunities to'receive funding assistance for affordable housing through
federal and state programs. Require developers to allocate a proportion of their
projects to affordable housing if subsidies are available.
.�11.�'' Require all projects of a specified size and density to include a`percentage o' f
affordable units.
12. Work with a non-profit developer/provider of housing to expand Dublin's supply of
housing for low and very low income households.
13. Award density bonuses for construction of affordable units.
14. Issue mortgage revenue bonds.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Policy Options
1. Provide land area sufficient to maximize retail sales in Dublin.
2. Upgrade downtown appearance and merchandise quality to appeal to an increas-
ingly affluent trade area population.
3. Emphasize variety and low prices in downtown Dublin, avoiding programs that
would increase costs to Dublin retailers.
4. Provide sites that will allow Dublin offices, distributors, and manufacturers to
expand in Dublin. .
5. Increase office employment in and adjoining downtown.
Implementation Options
1. Install standardized shopping center identification signs and map directories
downtown.
2. Intensify downtown activity by adding retail space and parking structures on
presently developed parcels.
-2-
3. Encourage mid-rise (4- to 10-story) office buildings downtown.
4. Designate the area between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 for office and retail
development rather than light industrial.
5. Develop a neighborhood shopping center at Amador Valley Boulevard and
Dougherty Road in accord with zoning.
6. Reserve freeway frontage east of Parks RFTA for high standard corporate office
and research facilities
7 Provide space east of Parks RFTA for industrial/business park development..
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
r...,, Policy Options
1. Acquire additional park lands.
.2. Retain maximum open space in extended planning area to preserve visual setting
of Dublin.
3. Avoid visual obstruction of ridgelines.
Implementation Options
1. Acquire a neighborhood or community park east of the SP tracks.
2. Acquire or develop a community or neighborhood park west of San Ramon Road
and north or west of Silvergate Drive.
3. Secure use of a portion of the Dublin School site as a neighborhood park.
4. Retain current county minimum 100-acre parcel size in the extended planning
area.
5. Permit residential cluster development on large lots in hill areas.
6. Retain Dougherty Hills ridgeline and slopes as open space.
CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT
Policy Options
1. Retain agricultural use.
2. Avoid development in slide-prone areas.
3. Preserve oak woodlands and riparian vegetation.
-3-
Implementation Options
1. Designate steep slopes (generally over 30 percent) as permanent open space.
2. Retain 100-acre minimum parcel size in the extended planning area.
3. Require buffer zones around watercourses to protect riparian zones and to guard
against flooding.
4. Prohibit destruction of oak trees in the extended planning area:
PUBLIC LANDS
'Policy Options
1. ' Request Murray School Distr'ict'to retain all developed school sites at least until
remaining residential density decisions have been made.
2. Request that the Army plant a buffer strip on Parks RFTA land adjoining
Dougherty Road and improve building maintenance.
3. Extend Dublin Boulevard east through Parks RFTA and Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center.
CIRCULATION
Policy Options
1. Improve freeway access.
2. Encourage improved transit and greater transit use.
3. Provide an expanded system of public streets serving downtown Dublin.
4. Minimize residential street frontage carrying traffic in excess of "environmental
capacity."
Implementation Options .=
1. . Provide new access to downtown from I-680.
2. Redesign Alcosta Boulevard interchange.
3. Provide new access to downtown from I-580.
4. Lobby for improved BART express bus service to the BART Bayf air Station with
parking lots at two or more stops serving Dublin.
5. Locate a BART rail station on Golden Gate Drive serving downtown Dublin.
-4-
,
6. Do not locate a BART rail station in downtown Dublin.
7. Designate the SP right-of-way as a light rail transit route.
8. Connect Dougherty Road with Village Parkway in the vicinity of Davona Drive as
an alternative route to Amador Valley Boulevard.
9. Provide for two or more future connections to the western ridgelands from the
: Dublin street system.
PUBLIC SERVICES
: . Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Policy Options
1. Do not approve disposal capacity increase, but allow available capacity to limit
expansion of the Tri Valley housing supply and jobs.
2. Expand capacity for export of treated sewage effluent by constructing a parallel
pipeline through Dublin Canyon or a new pipeline through the San Ramon Valley.
3. Allow development at urban densities using on-site treatment and disposal
systems.
4. Allow limited development in hill areas at densities that can be served by individ-
ual septic systems.
Water
Policy Option
1. Base planning decisions on the assumption that water supply will be adequate and
that local wells can be used to supplement imported supply if necessary.
Public Safety
Policy Options
1. Do not expand the city or do not expand it to hilly terrain.
2. Establish a system of charges for services to annexed areas that will allow provi-
sion at a break-even level.
-5-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page -
1. PURPOSE . *. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ChoosingAmong Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. " JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE . . . . . . . . . . 3
Policy.Options :`. . ..
. . . . . .
3. .nHOUSING '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Policy.Options : 6
Implementation Options . . . . . . -7
4.- COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT::: : :.: . . . :. .. .. : : 13 7
PolicyOptions : . . : . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ImplementationOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
PolicyOptions : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Implementation Options. . . . : . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
6. CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
PolicyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ImplementationOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. PUBLIC LANDS. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
PolicyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. CIRCULATION . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
PolicyOptions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ImplementationOptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
9. PUBLIC SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 27
SewageTreatment and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
PolicyOptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 27
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 27
Policy Option. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Public Safety ... . .... . . . . . . .
. . :. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 .
-i-
1. PURPOSE
This paper analyzes the major planning options or choices that must be made by
Dublin's Planning Commission and City Council in adopting a General Plan. We do not
expect that final decisions'on each option will be made now, but we do need guidance
as to which options should be shown on the sketch plans that will be prepared for
review in October.
.We have attempted to describe the options in an evenhanded manner and to coverall
important issues that are appropriately addressed by'the General Plan: The list has `•s
'•: ',•; :'.
been'shortened to avoid excessive detail and to,focus attention.on the options we
believe will have the`•greatest effect on the city's"future.' _
-In choosing among planning options, the'City has two sets of decisions to make. First
are the choices among different policy options,`i.e. the choices.that will express.the
'.' City's goals for the future. Once these goals and policies are expressed, the next
round of choices involves picking among alternative implementation strategies. The
implementation strategies form the core of Dublin's General Plan program and should
reflect the goals, policies, and commitments of the City. In some sections, such as
Jobs/Housing Balance and Public Lands, policy options only are presented, as the City
is not able to carry out implementation options in these areas.
The General Plan controls mainly the physical development of the city. Although it is
impossible to isolate physical development issues from social, economic, and fiscal
concerns, we have excluded certain types of options from this paper because we
believe they do not need to be or cannot be resolved as a part of General Plan
preparation. These are:
1. Future jurisdiction over development in the extended planning area beyond the
city's present boundaries. Dublin has a vital interest in the conservation and
development of the entire extended planning area whether or not any or all of it
is annexed to the City. (See map following page.)
2. Future service responsibilities of the City and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD).
3. Community needs not directly related to the City's ability to act through the
development approval and budgeting processes. For example, there have been
expressions of need for more activities for teenagers, but the General Plan looks
only at,a small aspect of this problem—providing adequate public recreation sites.
Programs, buildings, for-profit teenage entertainment, and miniature golf courses
are not discussed.
Public services options are discussed only briefly for two reasons. First, we do not
believe that future sewage treatment capacity problems, for example, will or should
affect the proposals of the General Plan. Second, the options for provision of most
public services are complex, and in the case of sewage disposal may require far more
study time than is allocated for the entire General Plan.
-1-
� .1
\ F L05tP G61t'q 1
GOpt�MEOp GO z t
0.
a t
i
t `6
5i-a
Pm
g r
.�� O ] O
.. a gip° S,YJ y a�a t\ O
MEEwnv 590
IN-
� .
'•.•\ 5YONEMOGE 00.NE
i 4 Dublin Planning Area--
i ro ..
° o ;, ,y .Dublin City Boundary,1983
° FEE Planning Area Boundary:
1r O �,•: Proposed Sphere of Influence
0 1 mite II ..
CHOOSING AMONG OPTIONS
Choosing among options is easiest when we can predict the future, correctly anticipat-
ing needs and ability to satisfy them. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible. The =
area of housing is perhaps the best example of the difficulties we face. Interest rates
have varied dramatically over the last several years; they will probably continue to do
so, but in which direction is difficult to predict. In developing strategies for afford-
able housing, the type of federal and state assistance determines program options.
Current state and federal administrations favor minimal funding and regulation, but
whether or not this is 'a long-term trend is hard to say z 4
al
In-recent years concern about Vall ey air quality1ed to limits on federal funds for
sewage disposal and transportation improvements. ;
2. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
The number one issue affecting future quality of life in the Tri Valley area is one for
which Dublin has limited, but not insignificant, options. Jobs/housing balance is easily
defined (jobs equal to residents employed), but over what geographic area is it
desirable?. Clearly it makes no sense to say that,each block, neighborhood, or small
city must be in perfect balance. Dublin's neighbors have approved projects expected
°to result in a'substantial surplus of jobs over housing in the Tri-Valley area, contrary
the intent'of state law.
''Environmental Impact Reports on these projects must
examine possible mitigations and mitigations must be required if feasible.
If Tri'Valley gains outstrip housing additions,
will enjoy increased nearby
-job choice and homeowners may benefit•from rapidly.rising real estate values, but all
`.:Valley residents are likely•to suffer from traffic congestion, higher housing costs, and
reduced ability•to finance needed public services.`,Dublin is c is jobs/housing
balance now and could plan to maintain this balance—but to little purpose if neigh-
boring communities choose imbalance. If Dublin wants the Tri-Valley to plan for
balance, it will have to exert political or legal pressure.
POLICY OPTIONS
=fb1. Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri Valley jurisdictions identify housing
additions that will balance.job additions.
S�QPo�T 2. Insist that EIRs for major projects in Tri Valley jurisdictions identify transporta-
tion mitigations that will avoid misuse of Dublin's street system by commuters
attempting to avoid freeway interchange congestion.
3. Acknowledge gains in nearby job opportunities, sales tax, and real estate values
that would result from an excess of jobs over housing opportunities and assume
that state, regional, and local funds will provide increased freeway and transit
capacity as the need becomes acute. .
This option requires no action by the City.
-3-
3. HOUSING
Housing options must be considered in light of the state's requirement that the City
make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic seg-
ments of the community. The Housing Element also must identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes. The three
main parts of the Housing Element are: a housing needs assessment and inventory of
resources and constraints relative to meeting identified needs; a statement of goals,
y quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance,'improvement, and
;;development of housing; and a;five year program to'implement policies and achieve
goals '
The extent to which,Dublin is "responsible" for providing homes for would-be Tri
Valley residents attracted by development in other jurisdictions poses a difficult
question:`°Another question Dublin faces relates to the city's character. .For many,`.
Dublin's predominance of single-family homes is ad esirable feature and one that helps
to define the community. Since the construction of San Ramon Village in the 1960s,
the community has been composed of families with moderate incomes, typically earn-
ing 80 to 120 percent of the Bay Area median. Today's moderate income households,
.however, cannnot afford today's new single-family homes, forcing the City to choose
between attempting to maintain its traditional type of housing and maintaining a
community with housing available to its traditional residents.
Affordability is the major issue to be addressed by the Housing Element. As moderate
income households are faced with increasing difficulty in purchasing homes, house- -
holds with less than 80 percent of area median income (low income) are finding it
more difficult than ever to obtain housing. The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) has just published figures allocating 1980-1990 regional housing needs by city.
ABAG's quota for Dublin is 1,956 units, including 665 units for low and very low
income households. Since the low holding capacity figure calculated for this paper is
well above ABAG's projected need (see Table 1 and map following page). Dublin has
land available to provide its share if the market is strong enough. The target for units
available to low and very low income households will prove unrealistic unless federal
subsidy programs for new construction are revived. Regardless of Dublin's interest in
meeting this need, households having 80 percent or less of median income must have
substantial subsidies to be able to afford to live in an area where nearly all housing is
:less than 20 years old.
: We assume that there will be a market for as many units as can be produced in the
city, although the time required to build-out might vary between 5 and 20 years
depending on the economy. The critical choices, then, are those relating to types of
units, with the principal issues being desired proportions of multi-family owner-
occupied housing, rental housing, and affordable housing. The state requires quanti-
fied objectives as a part of the housing program, so these choices among housing types
will have to be made as numbers of units sought in each category.
If the City decides that it needs a given proportion of rental and affordable housing,
how can this be achieved? For the purposes of discussion, there are basically three
types of strategies available. First is federal or state subsidy of units that are either
unprofitable or less profitable than market-priced housing. Second are incentives such
as density bonuses to encourage low and moderate income housing. Third are stan-
dards that require construction of a specified share of affordable housing. If these
required units are less profitable or unprofitable, the result is decreased profits to the
developer or subsidy by the purchasers of market-rate units in the same development.
-4-
_ t
r
Imo �
...' % .
61-1o^% ,
ft/
0
C)
//v/' �/i;;�%��.� '� a � ,Pp.: a 11I `I 11 �I �: / �, //,��// �i;,i//i/,i./�j j/;;/%•:;�' /y'`i
.••+. /. .:i.j: ?'ii%:' ;a�i/// /il7r p �/c :._ � 1� I :///i. / � � ����/// //ii r/ :i///i;•iii „
!�. �- /,/�T•i :.// � /,,r,/,%///�,/ -� 3: <�: ?t C:( ►t k�. trt� y `2 /,/,., •,,.
FREEY
..,; %,,<!%,iii// / •,�. .r j j
WA - 0
ON DG O VE
/RP eel E �I Dublin Planning Area
/ /' '//,%', '•%< %" / � i!i' / !. Development Potential
>� ; ;/%j; %'>%%?;? ' s:•:!ij/jj�/%/// /�ir. ® Slopes 309.and Greater
Developed Area
111
Approved Development
''•'/ Public Lands '
0 1 mile
_ Open Land With Development Potential
TABLE 1
CITY OF DUBLIN CURRENT AND POTENTIAL
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION -LOW PROJECTION
Cumulative
Total Single- Multi- Percent Estimated
Units Family Family Multi-Family Populations
Existing occupied o� 4,428 .4,042 386 9 13,700
previously occupied
c
Approved or under 2 023 . '. 894 1,129 23 5 250
considerati on
4
Potential units on
unsubdivided land:'.
E of San Ramon Rd 420 420 0 1,350
W of San Ramon Rd. 256 ` 113 143 _ 650
TOTAL 7,127 57469 1,658 . 23 201950
CITY OF DUBLIN CURRENT AND POTENTIAL
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION -HIGH PROJECTION
Cumulative
Total Single- Multi- Percent Estimated
Units Family Family Multi-Family Populationa
Existing occupied orb 41428 4,042 386 9 131700
previously occupied
Approved or under 2,023 894 1,129c 23 51250
consideration
Potential units on
unsubdivided land:e
E of San Ramon Rd. 1,356 0 1,356 27700
W of San Ramon Rd 1,033 : 0 1 033 2,050
TOTAL 8 840 ,
4936 3,904 44 23,700
aAssumes 3.2 persons per single-family unit and 2.0 per multi-family unit.
bEstimate by U.S. Postal Service, May 1983.
clncludes 129 units outside of city on Nielsen Ranch, Tract 4859.
dLow projection assumes single-family densities of 2-5 d.u. per acre and multi-family
densities of 13 d.u. per acre; high projection assumes 15-18 d.u. per acre.
eAssumes multi-family residential development on five parcels not currently zoned for
residential use.
NOTE: These tables supersede Table 3 in Working Paper #1, and are based on
topographic mapping that was not available when the earlier table was prepared.
-5-
The League of California Cities recently completed a survey on housing development
incentives used by California cities. Of the 433 cities in the state, 124 (29 percent)
responded to the survey, which was tabulated by the Department of Housing and
Community Development to find out how extensively various housing incentives are -
being used. The survey showed that:
= 42 of the 124 cities (34%) use density bonuses; `
40 of the 124 cities (32%) usereduced processing time;
=`.40 of the 124 cities (32%) use a city-sponsored bond program;
33 of the 124 cities (27%) use parking requirement modifications,
:..:
28,of the,124 cities (23%) use land write-down and/oraand lease;
23 'of.the 124 cities (19%)_use city=provided off-site improvements; and
20 of the.124 cities an inclusionary housing program (mandatory share
dfordable'units). E
POL Y OPTIONS
ELltiltN�T� :.:.:{�Z•ESER��. •�U.f�UN S �rST6N(S. �tlSl�C�
1. etain ubl&s single-family character. ST�C .
Recent debate on multi-family development proposals has evoked references to
Dublin's existing single-family character. - Although Dublin now has only 9 percent
multi-family units, other Tri-Valley communities with larger multi-family shares
(Livermore 12 percent, Pleasanton 15 percent in 1980) are perceived by most as
predominantly single-family. If all units authorized by approved tentative maps are
built, 23 percent of Dublin's housing will be multi-family or single-family attached
units. This approaches the 33 percent average for Alameda County cities in 1980.
During the last 10 years, 42 percent of all units authorized in Califorrnia have been
multi-family, so most cities have increased their multi-family percentages.
Our high projection of potential housing units shows 44 percent multi-family units at
build-out; our low projection yields 23 percent multi-family. (See Table 1 for
assumptions.) :,..
Whether Dublin could retain a single-family character with 44 percent multi-family
units depends on what each individual sees as creating character. Most of the multi-
family units would be at the east and west edges of the city, so the city's appearance-
• "'particularly as seen from the most heavily traveled routes—would not change
nificantly. To the extent that multi-family residents have different priorities for
:r.the mselves and for the`city, the increase from 9 percent to 44 percent would be
: .;:significant. ,We cannot say with any confidence how different the age, household
composition, or income of multi-family residents would kie.';:The likelihood is that
:•their incomes will be similar to those of present single-family homeowners. They will
have fewer children, but perhaps not as many fewer as has been the case in the past if
a significant share of child-rearing families cannot afford single-family detached
hom es.
��PPoct 2. Provide housing for households of Dublin's median income.
In 1979, median household income in Dublin was 105 percent of the Alameda County
median. If this relationship prevailed in 1982, the median Dublin household earned
$33,180 and would be able to purchase a housing unit costing $94,000 (assuming a
20 percent down payment and 13 percent interest on a 30-year mortgage).
-6-
While median 1983 resale prices in the $100,000 to $110,000 range indicate that many
of the existing homes sold each year could be bought by median income households,
few, if any, of the new single-family units are available to households earning less
than $40,000 per year. In the 1970s, approximately 10 percent of existing homes in -
California were sold each year, suggesting that 400 or more resale units may be
available annually in Dublin. The anticipated Tri Valley job boom will cause housing
:prices to rise faster than in the Bay Area as .a whole.
:. If Dublin wishes to make new housing available to households at Dublin median
income; it must emphasize:multi-family units as the major dwelling type to be added
din the:remaining space available' The choice is'between maintaining the traditional
housing type'or maintaining a community-with new housing available to households -":"
having incomes similar to those of current residents
3 Expand housing opportunities at both the lower and upper ends of the economic
5 ` -
scale. >
Dublin's lack of older homes means that a housing resource available to lower income
households elsewhere is virtually nonexistent in the city. Scarcity of rental and
owner/occupied multi-family units limits opportunities for moderate income house-
holds. •Lack of high-priced housing may encourage some residents to leave as their
incomes rise. Encouraging greater variety in terms of size, price, and housing type
'would satisfy the needs of a wider range of households than have found homes in
Dublin in the past.
SaPeo 4. Avoid economic segregation by city sector. ,
Citizens have expressed concern that $200,000 homes in the western foothills and
additional multi-family housing east of the SP tracks is widening an economic gap
between sectors of the city. A step toward east-west balance would be emphasis on
'higher densities for uncommitted sites west of San Ramon Road and lower densities
east of Dougherty Road. Already, approved single-family units west of San Ramon
Road will give this neighborhood even stronger identity than it now has as the higher
income area, regardless of densities designated for uncommitted sites.
,:.. . ,IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS ,
Retain single-family residential designation east of Dougherty Hills.
The"only large parcel that does not yet have an approved tentative subdivision map is
east of the Dougherty Hills. It contains,about.80 to 100 developable acres and is
zoned for 6,500-square-foot lots. Because most of the units approved east of the SP
tracks are multi-family and development costs will be relatively high for flat land,
owners of this site can be expected to request a higher density. Yet if there is con-
cern about maintaining a mix of types east of the SP tracks and for avoiding locating
all of the lower priced housing east of San Ramon Road, the single-family designation
should be retained for all or much of the area. Although the site faces Parks RFTA, it
has attractive rolling topography, a creek, a hillside backdrop, and scattered oaks.
-7-
pQ�aS� 2. Approve high density housing east of Dougherty Hills.
The 80- to 100-acre uncommitted parcel offers Dublin's major opportunity to add
1,000 to 1,200 units of housing affordable by median income households. The isolation
of the parcel and its proximity to public housing is likely to make higher density more
acceptable there than at some other locations, but development of the entire parcel at
the lower d of he rice range would furthe centuate east-west differences.
�11M1( f� SUP o h11T �DtJ,
. (..Designate sites in the western foothills for medium and high density housing.
4, ..
The County=approved tentative map for the Nielsen Ranch ad joining'Silvergate Drive
,includes 129 attached single-family units in unincorporated territory at an average :=
density of '9 units'pe- r acre .If the 27-acre surplus Dolan school site were developed at
multi-family density,'it could hold up to 400 units. Another:l6 acres of developable
land under 15 percent slope remains uncommitted, allowing as many as 240 more units.
�pPoSE 4 Designate some land for rental housing only
While zoning has not traditionally been used to regulate housing tenure, several
California cities have considered "rental only" zoning, although we know of none that
have adopted it. The planning staff of the City of Sunnyvale prepared an extensive
report on the subject, contending that the Housing Element requirements grant legal
authority for a rental zone by requiring that Housing Elements identify sites for rental
housing. Within the existing city, zoning for rental only may be ineffective due to the
limited amount of land available for residential development and the likelihood of that
land being developed in the near term by its present owners. In the case of the land
east of Parks RFTA and Santa Rita, however, it may still be early enough to signifi-
cantly aff ect land prices through the prezoning of a rental only zone.
5. Require that all or a portion of units in multi-family projects over a certain size
be offered as rental for a given period of time as a condition of condominium
tentative map approval
Some developers choose initial rental followed by sale in expectations of tax
advantage and price appreciation. If rentals are scarce, and the choice is no rental
unit additions or short-term rental additions, the City may wish to require this type of
"advance condominium conversion" limitation. If average household income is .:
..:,expected to increase, allowing renters to buy their units, or if rental units are
expected to be added continually to the market, this approach meets needs well in the
long term'. While we know of no jurisdictions with this type of requirement applied
across the board, 'a similar requirement has been made of developers of specific
projects in'the City of.Concord, where 9 of 80 units in a new condominium project will
be rented to moderate income households for five years as a condition of approval
6. Limit condominium conversions.
Though condominium conversions have not yet occurred in Dublin, there are indica-
tions that they may be a concern in the not too distant future. Several apartment
buildings in San Ramon have converted to condos, probably resulting in increased
demand for rental units in Dublin. One Dublin apartment received permission for
conversion from Alameda County prior to incorporation but has remained as rental.
Conversion regulations typically limit the number or percentage of rental units to be
-8-
converted annually or use a minimum rental vacancy rate as a trigger for conversion
permission.
Su�Po�T 7. Encourage development of second units.
A 1982 survey conducted by the Department of Housing and Community Development
found that approximately 15 percent of the state's single-family homes are under-
utilized. Given decreasing household size and the increasing cost of housing, second
units added to or converted from single-family homes may be a way to use this housing
::resource to provide needed new housing at minimal financial and environmental costs.
.... . . ....... .... . .. . :.
;;.Objections to second units have centered around a few mayor concerns character of.- j
single-family neighborhoods,'adequacy of.;water supply and sewage,.disposal, traffic
and parking problems'all related to population density. These concerns have not been
borne out by experience:"In terms of general neighborhood character.and population
'. ;_•.t.density, it is important to realize that second unitsre resent a way for homes and
• p
services to be'use'd to the capacity they were designed for,by accommodating more
households in a given number of housing units as household size decreases. Overall
density and trip generation would be lower than previous peak levels.
With the enactment of S.B. 1534 (Mello, Chapter 1440,1982), local governments are
prohibited from totally excluding second units within single-family and multi-family
zones unless certain prescribed findings are made.
If the City decides to adopt a second unit ordinance, it may designate certain areas
where second units are permitted and impose design standards and occupancy restric-
tions. A Department of Housing and Community Development survey found that the
number of applications for second units in jurisdictions with second unit ordinances has
been small, averaging one per year in the cities and seven per year in the counties.
This record raises questions about the effectiveness of second unit ordinances in
expanding the housing stock for small and low income households. If the City wishes
to use second units as an integral part of its housing program, it should consider ways
to activel o develo ment
SoPft `_CJ 50_` f�EWRITE TO WbT LD�.k . (00 UNIT I�PAfZ7MEt�7T
Require a mix of housing types an prices in all projects larger than 100 units.
This approach would broaden housing choice and opportunity in Dublin, avoid economic
. . . segregation, and have ahe advantage of not unfairly burdening individual property
owners or developers."However, the small number of parcels large enough for 100-unit
velo.rments limits the potential to three or four projects in the existing city.
$U o izT LLO w
Encourage]mixed office/residential projects adjoining downtown.
Several vacant sites on the periphery of downtown Dublin might be appropriate for
mixed-use development. These locations are at the west end of Dublin Boulevard, the
southern end of Starward Drive, and the west side of San Ramon Road. The City of
Pleasant Hill has one completed project with residential condos over offices and a
larger mixed-use complex under development. That city assisted in assembling the
site and obtaining low cost financing for the purchasers of residential units in the first
development.
-9-
SU��Op� '. 10. Pursue opportunities to receive funding assistance for affordable housing through
J{Zjlilg federal and state programs. Require developers to allocate a proportion of their
R�V1�w projects to affordable housing if subsidies are available.
Federal Programs: Section 8 funds, formerly the main federal subsidy program, have
decreased from $30 billion in fiscal year 1981 to less than $9 billion in fiscal year
1983. The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1984 includes only $514 million
in new budget authority for assisted housing under Section 8, which will be used for
-..the construction of 10,000 units nationwide for_the elderly and handicapped.
The current federal strategy is to provide assistance toAhe states through the Block r
Grant Program;shifting the burden of allocation'of a dwindling "pie:"„'As part of
Alameda County's "urban county,"::Dublin ineligible for Communit Develo ment
Y . .
p
:Block Grant (CDBG) funds:=':Though Block Grants may not be`used for housing con
.: struction at present, they.m.ay be used for site development'and other related costs.
?;-;...The Reagan Administration is proposing that new.;construction be an'eligible activity :a
'under `the'CDBG program in-1984.-."Competition for Block Grants is great, both among
„ jurisdictions and among activities. Currently;Alameda County nonentitlement cities
that are part of the urban county do not receive more than $250,000 per year. Dublin
plans to use its 1982 allocation to assist the Kaleidoscope Center for the development-
ally disabled and for Dougherty Road improvements.` These allocations indicate the
range of deserving uses to which CDBG funds can be put, and suggest that they will
not be a major source of housing subsidies.
State Programs: The California Home Finance Authority (CHFA) provides construc-
tion financing for rental properties and has a loan program for new owner-occupied
housing. CHFA's 80-20 program provides financing for private projects in which
80 percent of the units will be market rate and 20 percent will be affordable to low
income tenants. Thirty-year loans finance the entire project at interest rates of
10-1/2 to 12-1/2 percent, vs. a current rate for conventional morgages of 13 to 14-1/4
percent. Developers usually apply before filing a tentative map—the initial applica-
tion requires no site plan, but does call for a rental market study. Applications are
evaluated primarily on the basis of marketability of market-rate and affordable units
and financial feasibility. The project must remain as rental for a minimum of half of
the mortgage term. .
In its single-family home program, which includes condominiums, CHFA funds assist
first-time homebuyers through private lenders and developers. ;Developers apply to
CHFA, which evaluates the marketability of a project and the need in the geographic
"area. Af a project has 50 or fewer units, CHFA.can accept all of them under the pro-
gram.- In larger projects, up to 50 percent of the units can be included. There is a
maximum sales price allowable.under'the program; as well as.an income ceiling for
homebuyers. Interest rates offered to buyers vary depending on the rate at which the
tax-free bonds which support the program are sold, but generally vary between 10-1/8
and 11-1/8 percent.
Another state fund provides loans to local government agencies and non-profit organi-
zations for preliminary costs of developing assisted housing. Under the Urban
Predevelopment Loan Fund program, the state makes short-term, low interest loans
for start-up costs, including land acquisition or option, architectural or engineering
fees, and legal fees. Eligible projects must be assisted, with 51 percent of units to be
occupied and affordable by low income people. The maximum length of the loan is
-10-
two years; the current interest rate is 10.2 percent; pending California Senate
,app legislation would lower the rate to 7 percent.
11. Require all projects of a specified size and density to include a percentage of
aff ordable units. .
.:..An inclusionary housing program would require developers to make 10 to 20 percent of
their projects affordable whether or not state and federal subsidies are available. In
`Northern California, such programs are in effect in Palo Alto; Petaluma,and Davis.
�uQ�gRZ 12 Work with a'noii!profit deve
loper%provider of housing to expand Dublin's supply of
housing for low and very low income households
Private'non-profit housing organizations often have advantages in securing funds as
well as in reducing housing cost to the consumer.'~In the'Tri-Vall ey area and the Bay
Plain', Eden Housing has been active in developing affordable housing, and has worked
with the cities of Livermore; Hayward;"Union City'and Pleasanton and Alameda
County. :Eden Housing has experience in joint ventures, in use of surplus school sites,
and in acting in a consulting capacity as well as in developing housing. A recent
250-unit Eden Housing project on a surplus school site in Union City involved coopera-
tion with a private.developer. Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds financed the
project, which will be maintained as rental for 20 years, with 20 percent of the units
affordable to low income renters.
City cooperation with a non-profit housing organization could focus on constructing
housing on a surplus public site. The state requires public agencies to offer surplus
lands to potential recreation agencies and housing providers before offering to the
general public. While jurisdictions disposing of surplus land may sell at below market
price, they are not required to do so. In Dublin's case, surplus school sites owned by
the Murray School District, as well as parts of.the Alameda County's Santa Rita land
near I-580, may become available for City purchase or long-term lease.
13. Award density bonuses for construction of affordable units.
D State law requires a 25 percent density bonus if 25 percent of the units in a project
are for households of low or moderate income, but a number of cities offer additional
density incentives. -In Santa Rosa, bonuses as high as ,100 percent can be granted under
special circumstances. The.Bay Area Council, a private organization of major .._
employers, has designed a density bonus program for San Mateo County that uses a
new approach.' ,In exchange for construction of affordable units, developers can build
over the "base density," which is defined by the program as 1190 percent of the maxi-
mum density allowable under.existing zoning.".. Under such a program, developers who
do not include'aff ordable units in their projects are effectively penalized, and are not
able to build to maximum allowable de
�,DD SOCfbf-T 14. Issue mortgage revenue
W ITik
�90��jpN Many jurisdictions have worked to ease the housing crunch by supplying financing
generated from the sale of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds.
In Dublin, financing with bond revenues would be restricted to homes with 110 percent
or less of the average area purchase price. Since the program is intended to assist
first-time homebuyers, 90 percent of lendable proceeds must go to persons who have
-11-
not owned a home in the last three years. When used to finance new homes, bond
revenues can be made available only to households with 120 percent of the median
household income or less. For existing homes, qualifying households must earn no
more than 100 percent of the median.
Before bonds for owner-occupied units can be issued, a locality must get an allocation
---from the state Mortgage Bond Allocation Committee (MBAC). Twenty million dollars
is the minimum amount necessary for a feasible issue, The appplication process
includes a requirement for certification that the agency has on deposit or has a letter .
of deposit for ,0.5 percent:of the amount of the bond issue:"requested. Given the large' .
amount of money involved, many cities issue mortgage revenue bonds jointly There is
awaiting list_of agencies that have not yet received allocations
Industrial Development Bonds; which finance multi family rentalunits, do not require. :
state approval or allocation. 'At least 20 percent of the units financed through bond
sales must be'occupied by low income households: .The units must remain rental and
`"available to low income residents for 10 years or longer.
The jurisdictions surveyed that have issued mortgage revenue bonds have done so with
the cooperation of private for-profit developers. Agencies enlist the help of devel-
opers before the issue,'and developer contributions fund the bond issues. When
. revenue is generated from the bond progam, generally only the projects of the spon-
soring developers are eligible for financing made possible by the program.
-12-
4. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
POLICY OPTIONS
Provide land area sufficient to maximize retail sales in Dublin.
xi
Dublin is fortunate that its central location attracts retail customers from elsewhere
:". .
in the Tri-Valley. .The city's high ratio of retail sales tax receipts in relation to ser-
_
vice
needs has prevented the budget crises confrontin man other California cities
n g` y . ;
Maintaining'.the vitality of the retail area and providing for;.sa..lesi growth benefits all '
segments of the Dublin community.
The,f ollowing analysis. of sales capacity for existing and potentially expanded retail
floor area is based on approximate data that are several years old, but we believe the
'results are sufficiently accurate for planning purposes.,
A January, 1980 Alameda County Planning Department survey found 1.85 million
square f eet of floor area in the C-N, C-1, and C-2 zoning districts. If there was this
much retail floor area in 1979 when taxable retail sales were reported at $139 million,
the average annual sales were $75 per square foot. We estimate that commercial
:. floor area not devoted to taxable sales (food stores, travel agencies, offices, etc.)
accounted for at least 200,000 square feet, raising sales per square foot to the $85 to
$90 range. This is lower than the $115 median reported by the Urban Land Institute in
1980 for regional shopping centers in the western United States, but downtown Dublin
has many stores that would not be found in regional shopping centers and did not pay
high shopping center rents. The figures suggest that although downtown sales were at
satisfactory levels, they could increase by at least 30 percent in constant (adjusted for
inflation) dollars in the same floor area. The most successful 10 percent of regional
shopping centers in the national survey achieved much higher sales—averaging nearly
..$200 per square foot.
Floor area also could be increased on many sites, with a total theoretical increase of
47 percent. This figure is derived by assuming 5.8 parldng spaces per 1,000 square
feet of building area (the national median) and allowing 20 percent of the total land
area for open space. Building coverage would be 28 percent vs. the current 19 percent
on developed sites in the three-zoning districts ,
At the time of the survey, 23 percent of the 286 acres"in,the three commercial zoning
' districts was undeveloped, allowing for a theoretical 43 percent.floor area expansion if
developed to maximum one-story intensity. :Adding the three expansion factors—more
developed land, more floor area on developed land, and increased sales per square
'foot—results in a theoretical capacity to yield 2.5 times the 1979 constant dollar sales
on land currently zoned for retail commercial development.
Designation of additional retail sites might result in increased sales, but most of the
gain also could be captured by existing stores or zoned sites. Presently designated
sites are more than capable of capturing constant dollar sales increases resulting from
the 60 percent Tri-Valley population gain projected by ABAG for the year 2000,
although the limitations of the transportation system may prevent bringing 2.5 times
the present number of patrons to downtown.
-13-
ttk m� xm
�uPPOfLT
QS 2. Upgrade downtown appearance and merchandise quality to appeal to an increas-
ingly affluent trade area population.)
The first San Ramon Village houses were built as entry-level homes for persons willing
to make a long commute. Now they can be purchased only by households earning
above median income, and new homes-particularly those being built in the Contra
Costa section of the trade area=must have affluent buyers. *Downtown Dublin has
always emphasized popular priced merchandise, while upscale shops are in central
Contra Costa County-mainly,Walnut Creek. The Tri-Valley's full-line department_._
stores are in Stoneridge Mall, and a logical assumption is that the more prestigious
specialty stores"also will be there Should Dublin:attempt to_attract some of these
stores? Can Dublin retain the allegiance of customers who will have a broad choice of
shopping locations
t
>.
Downtown Dublin rs'not run-down 'For the most part, the parking lots are swept, the
plants;watered,'and the buildings painted Yet it is no a place of much':visual interest
or excitement, and, as one council member has noted, there is no place to sit and look
' at it. Major improvements—probably mainly for landscaping--would require formation
of an assessment district. Promotion and merchandising improvements also would be
part of a program to create a stronger and more positive image, but are not directly
related to the General Plan.
b�PoS 3. Emphasize variety and low prices in downtown Dublin,avoiding programs that
would increase costs to Dublin retailers.
This option rejects the preceding policy option, arguing that large expenditures might
not successfully capture a larger market for downtown and would only work a hardship
on businesses that depend on relatively low rents or do not penetrate the more afflu-
ent market. ' Dublin's commanding location in its trade area will allow it to continue to
prosper if it can retain ease of automobile access as traffic volumes increase.
=eWT 4. Provide sites that will allow Dublin offices, distributors, and manufacturers to
expand in Dublin.
Few Dublin wholesalers, distributors, manufacturers, or business park type tenants are
able to expand significantly without leaving the city because most are on small sites
;. that are fully developed....Only 74 acres of industrially zoned land remained vacant in . .
.1980
Dublin will need to encourage projects outside"the present city that permit these types
of uses and have suitable development standards and rents."
Building materials yards,
fabricators, subcontractors, truck terminals, and similar enterprises may not fit the
image of most recently announced Tri-Valley business parks, but they are important
components of the Tri-Valle econom
Savor-T tear w �NCAEASED aF�GE S ACtE
AS crease o ice employmen in and adjoining downtown.
IMiNa"(£
EV►$FD y o five employees are a dependable source of retail sales and in many older
downtowns are the essential support for retailing. There has been a reluctance of
developers (and presumably tenants) to mix offices and retailing, even in large cities.
Retailing is thought to detract from corporate dignity and offices compete with retail
parking needs, yet in the Tri-Valley where land prices will rise faster than construc-
tion costs, a one-story downtown makes no sense. Without retail and offices mixed,
the retail area will always be one story.
-14-
INIPMENTATION OPTIONS
SU�Of 1. Install standardized shopping center identification signs and map directories
downtown.
Street addresses offer little help in finding shopping center tenants and present shop-
ping center name identification is weak because there are many medium-sized centers
Nand regulations limit large identification signs. .-With broad downtown support, present
,:.shopping center identification signs could be replaced by a distinctive sign, related in
size to the size of the*center and uniform in desigii'and.location.(and therefore easily
recognizable) 'All'signs might say."Downtown Dublin" in small letters to:create unity
and erriphasize,:city identity.'.;.A`map similar:to`ahose found in large regional shopping
:-_:`centers would be keyed .to a list of all tenants and revised annually:` Enlarged seg
ments of the map mounted near parking lot entrances would help customers find
stores `
t
If too many small shopping centers or too'many nonshopping center businesses make
the scheme described above unworkable, it might be possible to get agreement on
division of downtown into subdistricts that on a smaller scale would be similar to
boroughs in London, arrondissements in Paris, or "lands" in Disneyland—half a dozen
: might be needed.':Under either system, merchants would be encouraged to advertise
their location name, rather than their address.
SU��ORT 2. . Intensify downtown activity by adding retail space and parking structures on
presently developed parcels. ..
The adage that no one is a shopper until after becoming a pedestrian speaks to a
principal downtown problem—Dublin is unfriendly pedestrian territory. Walking needs
to be made safer and more pleasant by separation from vehicular areas, and distances
between interesting things to see must be shortened by intensifying development.
Land values (now in the .$10 to $15 per square foot range) are approaching the $20
level, which justifies parking structures, yet there is no reason to build more parking
unless some of the existing open parking is converted to store or office area.
To make major changes in the block bounded by Amador Valley Boulevard, Amador
Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Regional Street would require cooperation by 10 to
15 parcel owners. .:A substantial majority would have to be convinced that they or
their tenants could increase,profits by "adding"...complimentary or. competing space.
No one can guarantee'the result,"but it appears that the retail environment never will
reach its full potential without joint action to intensify.downtown
The Downtown Concept Sketch (following page) is not intended as a plan for down-
town, but offers some ideas for consideration if downtown is to become more
intensively developed. _
5'U�Pp�T 3. Encourage mid-rise (4-to 10-story)office buildings downtown.
It is possible to drive through or by downtown Dublin on a freeway and not know you
have been there. Regional malls have visual identity by reason of size of building and
parking lot even if they are ugly, but Dublin's series of smaller buildings and lots does
not provide this. Tall buildings are associated with the downtown concept and would
be the surest way to add some pizzazz to downtown. Because parking would have to
-15-
be in a structure and building costs would be significantly higher than for the wood
frame (Type V) office buildings now in Dublin, rents would have to be higher than
elsewhere in the Tri-Valley (with the possible exception of sites that must support a
large amount of landscaped area or very high off-site improvement costs). The
question is whether investors will see these rents as obtainable downtown, but perhaps _
a first question is whether they could obtain permission to build. There are plenty of
potential sites within a.-half.mile of the freeway-to-freeway interchange where tall
buildings would not overwhelm or shadow a residential area. Any tall building would
block some cross valley views. Some may object, but others may see their outlook
becoming more interesting"."City views are prized in many parts of the Bay Area
SU ���T 4. Designate the area between Dublin Boulevard and I-�80 for office and retail
r;development rather than light industrial
The'recent trend has been toward office development,'although some M-1 industrial
zoning
and a few industrial buildings, such as the former Liberty House warehouse,'
°remain.'
p 5 , Develop a neighborhood shopping center at Amador Valley Boulevard and .
SU Q�oKC Dougherty Road in accord with zoning.
The only undeveloped parcel with commercial zoning that is not in downtown (other
.than Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, within the San Ramon Road Specific Plan
area) is 4 acres on the south side of Amador.Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. If
no store is built here, the nearest place for a quart of milk would be at Village
Parkway a mile west or Dublin Boulevard a mile south. The tributary area population
at build-out will be too small to support a 20,000-square-foot supermarket but it could
support a 7-11 type store. The site is large enough for a 40,000-square-foot shopping
center, so most of the site would most suitably be developed as housing or offices.
C� 6. Reserve freeway frontage east of Parks RFTA for high standard corporate office
:> and research facilities.
If this area is annexed to Dublin or is identified with Dublin, a green grass freeway
frontage with highly visible Fortune 500 corporate offices would enhance the city's
image. The competition for these tenants among Tri-Valley developments is expected
to be strong in view of the large total acreage proposed. However, 580 Freeway ,
visibility is available on relatively few sites and will be an important factor in some .
location decisions.' If the north freeway frontage can be developed without costly off-
site transportation improvements and with BART service close by, it may develop
bef ore sites.without those attributes.
�UQPo�T .7. Provide space east of Parks RFTA for industrial/business park development. ...
This option is not necessarily in conflict with the preceding option, although less fancy
uses on some portion of the 1,500-foot-wide strip of flat land bordering the freeway
may decrease appeal to more image-conscious users. If sites are to be provided
nearby for Dublin offices, distributors, and manufacturers that outgrow their modest
space in Dublin and must remain rent-conscious, this area appears to be the most
likely location. A highly restrictive corporate headquarters environment will not meet
their pocketbooks or their facilities needs.
-16-
5. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
POLICY OPTIONS -
SO PQoRx �� . . ADD- ..
1. Acquire additional park land AS NMOEP AT TIME 6� A�� {DNAL f� usffj&
S �EVEwPMEN7
�EUtS�� The 1978 Park and Recreation MastIerplan Update proposed a parks and open space
-,system that probably is not affordable in the post-Proposition 13 era. However, with
few parcels in the city remaining uncommitted, decisions must be made soon on ,;
whether there will be,any additions to the park system. Choosing between acquisition
of more land and improvements on`existing sites requires balancing obligations'to
present'vs.future're sid ents. ;Continuation of the present DSRSD policy o. f accepting
only fees and not land,dedieation as`a'condition of s'ubdivision approval would result in
=present parks serving.a,53 to 73 percent increase in population'at full development.
Children living in the:west foothills and the Dougherty Road areas`.would be well
` '. beyond the maximum half mile walking distance that results in'independent park use.
Dublin has excellent specialized facilities at Shannon Park (9.6 acres) and Dublin
Sports Grounds (22 acres), but only one small neighborhood park is permanently
committed to that use (Mape Park, 3 acres). Cronin Park (2.5 acres) and Kolb Park
(1.1 acres) are parts of Murray School District sites and their future is uncertain.
Under the 3 acres per 1,000 persons dedication standards set as a maximum by the
State Legislature and incorporated in the City's ordinance (same as Alameda County),
up to 19 acres might be secured as housing is added at currently designated densities,
although some of these units may already have paid in-lieu fees.
2. Retain maximum open space in extended planning area to preserve visual setting
JU QQo
of Dublin.
REv(fw Although the boundary between Dublin and San Ramon is marked only by signs, and
urban
an development will merge with Pleasanton on the south, the hills to the west and
Parks RFTA to the east give Dublin much of the feel of a freestanding community.
" While the difficulty of safely developing steep hillsides will be a major factor in
retaining this identity, the scarcity of flat land for development will prevent develop-
ment cost alone from guaranteeing preservation of the open space around the city.
There is strong political support for preserving the Alameda and.Contra Costa County
•ridgelands as open space in many of the adjoining communities.'-The history of similar
situations elsewhere in California suggests that restrictions on development will gain
support as population increases nearby and that eventually the land will be acquired as
public open space.
S�PPO� 3. Avoid visual obstruction of ridgelines.
$UT A number of Bay Area communities with topography similar to the Dublin planning
area have policies prohibiting buildings extending above ridgelines because they are
regarded as dissonant elements in the landscape. However, in steep terrain roads and
buildings are most easily located on ridges because the least grading is required. A
simple rule against rooflines above ridge elevation does not prevent silhouetted
buildings because even the definition of a ridge is subject to varying interpretations
and a building seen from below may appear to be on a ridgeline when it is not. A drive
-17-
on I-580 between Oakland and Dublin allows the viewer many opportunities to form an
opinion about ridgetop development. Implementation may pose some complex
questions; the first decision to be made is whether or not keeping ridgetops open is a
desired policy.
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
�FOCLT J1 Acquire a neighborhood or community park east of the SP tracks
The 1978 plan:gave first acquisition priority to a community park including tennis,
baseball,'and swimming f acilities.on the site.:of.the Amador Lakes Apartments project
"now.being reviewed. .All residenti al development east of theSP tracks will be'more
than'a half,mile from an`existing park, but if either.pe'destrian or vehicular access
across the tracks`at the north end of the Dublin High School site were provided, its .
recreational facilities would be available to residents on the .west side of the
Dougherty Hills. `A community park east of the Dougherty Hills and north of Amador
Valley Boulevard would be far off center for most residents, but a neighborhood park
here is even more needed than in other neighborhoods where recreation space on
school sites is available. Existing schools with surplus classroom space will serve the
Dougherty Road neighborhood.
2. Acquire or develop a community or neighborhood park west of San Ramon Road
and north or west of Siilvergate Drive.
This area is likely to have 256 to 1,033 additional housing units at build-out on slopes
less than 30 percent. Some of these units are under construction or recently were
occupied.• There is no designated neighborhood park within one-half mile of most of
the area north or west of Silvergate Drive, although 9.6-acre Shannon Park has 3 to 4
acres that could be more intensively developed as a neighborhood park.
Mape Park (3 acres), adjoining Nielsen School, was proposed by the 1978 plan to be
expanded to 7 acres with a corridor extension to San Ramon Road and Dublin Boule-
vard. Although some of this land remains open, expansion at this secluded and off-
center location does not appear cost-eff ective compared with alternatives.
The 27-acre Dolan site on Castilian Road is about to be sold by the Murray School
District. All or a major.portion would make an ideal community park (playing fields,
";.tennis courts, picnic area),-or a small area (4 to 6 acres) could be a neighborhood park
within one-half mile of.most of the remaining developable land.Unless another sur-
plus school site were acquired, there is no other potential community park site west of
the SP tracks. -There are no other potential sites for a reasonably level neighborhood
park site in the western hillside area.
Many recreation directors believe that the most efficient park service is provided at
fewer larger sites. For example, experience shows that 4 tennis courts on one site
receive more than twice as much use as 2 courts on each of 2 sites. If Dublin ever
intends to have a community park of a character different from Shannon or the Sports
Grounds, the Dolan site offers the best opportunity. Although there are many high
priced hillside residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area that are remote from parks, a
well-landscaped community park would stimulate construction of homes to the west
that are more expensive than those now being built in Dublin.
-18-
50Q�pRT 3. Secure use of_a portion of the Dublin School site as a neighborhood park.
Dublin School currently is leased for use as a private school. Children residing in 613
single-family homes between San Ramon Road and I-680 must cross San Ramon Road
to reach Shannon Park, which, although within one-half mile of most homes, is not
presently ,developed as a neighborhood park. If Shannon were developed for neighbor-
hood use and no other park were acquired west of San Ramon Road, it could become
overused .--
D Retain current county minimum 100-acre parcel size in the extended planning
area
uNcT PAR: , ''' 'HILI. �4REA o�
ho ugh parcels muc h smaller than 100'
Alt .acres can be"developed without loss of open
space character, Alameda County:experience.has been that residents of 10 or 20-acre
ranchettes" demand or require most of the'services provided to an urban subdivision
with lo ts"of an acre of less
CVOPO� S. Permit residential cluster development.on large lots in hill areas.
Development at Castlewood and at many other,locations in the Bay Area demonstrates
that it is possible to site custom homes in oak woodlands without removing many trees
or changing the 'character of the area.%.However, so small a fraction of all buyers can
afford a custom home that pressure for mass grading will be strong at almost any
density exceeding one unit per 10 or 20 acres. .-By.limiting development to 10- or 20-
acre lots or by requiring that a similar or slightly higher density be concentrated in
clusters of small lots surrounded by permanent open space on steeper slopes, the visual
open space could be preserved.
6. Retain Dougherty Hills ridgeline and slopes as open space.
Most of the Dougherty Hills is less than 30 percent slope, but development would
require heavy grading and would be highly visible. Dublin's sense of edges—of
confinement within a valley—is created by the Dougherty Hills, and most eastward
views across the urban area are made dramatic by the contrast between the city and
its golden hillside backdrop. A 1981 tentative subdivision map for the 180 acres
mainly on the western slope between the SP tracks and the ridge dedicates acres on
the steepest slopes and within 400 feet of the ridgeline to a homeowners' association
as open space. An offer of dedication to the DSRSD was declined by the District.
SUf�, pD�--. o �' :`..o�tc.on� {SEC cr�C� US>✓: 6� :. kdLE afro ���PW ..S�+ o�
-19-
6. CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT
POLICY OPTIONS
1. Retain agricultural use.
There is widespread agreement that urban development should be directed away from
prime agricultural lands, but it is•not obvious that preservation of the rangeland in the
Dublin planning area would support thispolicy. A possible result would be.to divert
development-to.more productive"farmland,elsewhere ,;A recent study liy the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service rates the flatlands an d.-gen t le'slopes east of Parks•RFTA as .:
"farmlands of local importance,";and the'remaining.hill land yet to be classified by
this study) is'rated as;prime range grazing land by the Conservation Element of the
Alameda County'General Plan:_Although much of the hill land is under Williamson Act
agricultural preserve contract, and its productivity is two to three times the
California average;the annual cash return is on the order of $15 per acre per year.
While loss of the extended planning area's rangeland, which represents about one
percent of the,Bay Area's rangeland and one one-thousandth (.001) of the Bay Area's
` total agricultural economy, is not in itself a serious loss, continued similar losses along
the edge of the metropolitan area would eventually reduce the Tri--Valley livestock
industry to below the criti cal mass necessary for survival. :
S�PPo�zT 2. Avoid development in slide-prone areas.
The high incidence of landslides in the hilly portions of the extended planning area (see
Figure 4, Working Paper #1) strengthens the argument for conservation as rangeland
open space. Even with conservation standards requiring that suspected slide areas be
avoided or stabilized, there is a high probability that occasional slides would require
expensive repairs to roads or utilities.
3. Preserve oak woodlands and riparian vegetation.
Much of the wooded portion of the planning area adjoins streams or is on slopes
greater than 30 percent, so preservation of woodlands need not significantly curtail
development. Narrow creek.easements for built or.approved subdivisions encroach on
riparian zones along Koopman, Clark, and Martin creeks where trees and plants
"requiring moisture not found on higher slopes flourish. In addition to their aesthetic
value, woodlands and riparian areas control erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
:I] PLEMENTATION OPTIONS : •:
EL1A(t1)ATE
1. Designate steep slopes (generally over 30 percent) as permanent open space.)
Slopes exceeding 30 percent (3 in 10) have been mapped for the extended planning area
to indicate areas that are not developable for other than a few isolated homes on very
large sites. (See map of geologic hazards following page.) The cost, hazards, and
visual disruption caused by development on such slopes suggest that the wisest course
might be to designate steep areas as open space. Slopes suited for urban density are
SaP�ac�-r mainly less than 15 percent. There are a few subdivisions in the Bay Area with graded
I E(�•I�T(VE DPTION TO fffgMl-" SbMC�_ G AD(OCs VJOERE STEEP 5WES M4
Mcos oU01/// /�/i/ / / o
/ � ....••�:'/:� - 4.// ///:(�i�;�i%�./: /�%//i iii' 3<j..:;:� ,�
//MOj/
>� .. ./,i. //iii/, /�/�j }iii: •o o:��////�ME /�/�/
% o
/.; /• / ii• /
•,../.�./.:�FREEV:AY 50
04,
j//j j � ��/ — �o ���1Y"' � c /\\• .....
/ // //
/ /
`• !/.•;� ,y;/i•/jai%�/ //�%� /
%/�j/� / sronenrone oR`f Dublin Planning Area.
/ / Geolo is Hazards and Constraints
'°� Slopes 301/6 and Greater
Landslide Hazard Area Boundary
�ij/f� - ti / Daln loJOrotop c Investiption noauircu
Earthquake Fault Zones
Preliminary Special Studies Zones(1973)
' 0 t mile Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones(1982)
I I
t,
i
pads on slopes of 30 percent, but most of these are widely regarded as having exces-
sive and unattractive cut and fill slopes. Some have had slide, erosion, or drainage
problems. None of Dublin's approved subdivisions are on slopes greater than 17 per-
cent, though several of the larger tracts include small areas of steeper slopes that
have been cut, filled, or lef t as open space. -
2. Retain 100-acre minimum parcel size in the extended planning area.
If current grazing activity is to be maintained, additional subdivision should not be
permitted. .:,Approximately half of._the land in the eastern part,of the planning area and
two=thirds"of the land in the western part of the°planning area is,currently under h
Williamson`Act contract, guaranteeing agricultural use for at least 10 years. In the
city's`entire proposed sphere of infl uence; six preserve owners have given;notice of
' ;nonrenew, but, most of, the land affected is steep.:,,The earliest of these nonrenewals
will result.in contract expiration in 1987; the latest in 1993. ;Contract holders can
}
:. :`notify the�County of nonrenewal at any time, and expiration occurs 10 years after
notice`of nonrenewal.
�ue��QT 3. Require buffer zones around watercourses to protect riparian zones and to guard
against flooding.
Recent subdivisions in Dublin have retained a minimum right-of-way for the creeks
and have not provided for public access or for creekside trails, although these were
proposed by the 1978 Park and Recreation Masterplan Update.- The tentative sub-
division map for the Nielsen Ranch shows grading in the riparian zone of Martin
Creek. Creek flooding has been a problem in the newly developed Silvergate area,
where water has inundated yards and basements.
SU QPd�T 4. Prohibit destruction of oak trees in the extended planning area.
If Dublin wishes to maintain the oak woodlands, the General Plan should contain a
policy prohibiting their removal. Where the woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise
could be graded and developed, the plan could permit the allowable density to be
transferred to another portion of the site.
-21-
7. PUBLIC LANDS
POLICY OPTIONS �'Vp tf, CC(Y -ID m Q=,ASF_
s�efopz 1. Request Murray School District to retain all developed school sites at least until
AS remaining residential density decisions have been made..
RF,VISE4 The history of surprises in school enrollment demonstrates the danger,of assuming that
., currently observed trends will continue. -,Dublin has classroom`capacity nearly double
current enrollment.".Dublin:and Fallon schools have been closed, and Frederiksen is
scheduled for..closure at the 'end of.the 1984-85 school year Retention or disposal of
surplus schools.b'ecom es an important planning:option,because Dublin's population may
increase by 53 fo.73 'percent;:depending on housing density`decisions ; If disposition of
` school sites were.to result in a classroom s}iorta e in 10:td 20 ears, the only recourse
g Y
,.. would be to add classrooms on remaining sites, because no additional sites will be
'available`at'that tim e
The number of housing units to be added will be'predictable within a narrow range
once densities are set, but the number of students per old or new-unit is difficult to
predict because it depends on birth rates and housing costs.:,:Will birth rates drop
below current levels?. Will Dublin's older single-family homes be recycled to younger
families? Will child-rearing families live in multi-family units because single-family
homes are too costly?
We make the assumption that single-family homes will generate 0.55 K-8 students per
unit, the current districtwide average, and that multi-family units will generate
0.34 students per unit, the same percentage of household population. These figures
are well below the historic peak of above one student per household reached during the
early 1970s. At the lower ratios, full development would produce enrollments
reaching 84 to 94 percent of the total classroom capacity of Dublin schools.
This analysis suggests a go-slow approach on disposition of existing schools. Nielsen
School is likely to be overcrowded by western hills development, but projected enroll-
ment generated west of 1-680 would not fill both Dublin and Nielsen schools. Wells
School would not accommodate the projected 7-8 grade enrollment for the entire city,
. but two 7-8 grade schools would not be needed, suggesting a possible need for a new
grade-break structure.',,,_., "r F
Decisions on residential density will reduce uncertainty about future enrollment,but
at least until those'decisions are made, we recommend that all developed school sites
be retained by the school district.`
2. Request that the Army plant a buffer strip on Parks RFTA land adjoining
Dougherty Road and improve building maintenance. .
If Parks RFTA is to be a permanent installation in the urban area, as appears likely,
the Army should accept responsibility for maintaining visual quality commensurate
with its surroundings. While Parks may never make a contribution similar to the
Presidio in San Francisco, it could provide a landscaped buffer and repair buildings
visible from Dougherty Road. Negotiation on the future width and alignment of
Dougherty Road and tree buffers to be provided on both sides would appropriately be
started as soon as possible.
-22-
�U PP�QT 3. Extend Dublin Boulevard east through parks RFTA and Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center.
Extension of Dublin Boulevard parallel to I-580 will be essential whether or not Dublin =
annexes land east of Santa Rita. The route will reduce short trips on the freeway and
.;will be important for marketing surplus Santa Rita land the.Counnty hopes to sell.
Early determination of the right-of-way is important to avoid having to purchase
improve ments,'and the location, design, and landscaping of a road through Parks RFTA
and Santa Rita*will have important effects on the quality of.development on all sides.
' h 1
f r
I
a
-23-
8. CIRCULATION
POLICY OPTIONS
1 Improve freeway access
Although Dublin is served by two interstate freeways, it has only three interchanges,
resulting in concentrated traffie and street congestion. Additional interchanges would
r` spread demand and reduce total travel on city streets
u
2 - Encourage improved transit and greater,transit use. 1
�uPPoR-T 1 ,r
While nearly everyone supports transit in principle, greater use will be achieved only if
it is attractive and convenient enough_to lure riders who have cars available. BART
rail, with'the'potential .to relieve;projected freeway congestion by carrying up to , _
25 percent of peak=hour travelers, would need to be"convenient for work trips to and
from•Dublin.
v�POR-� 3 Provide an expanded system of public streets serving downtown Dublin.
Lack of through streets south of Dublin Boulevard and reliance on parking lot aisles to
reach many destinations between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard
creates two problems. The downtown street system is difficult for the driver to
visualize and understand, and turning movements are concentrated at a few inter-
sections rather than being distributed more evenly over a complete street system.
(Possible solutions are described in Section 4, Commercial/Industrial Development, of
this working paper.)
�OPPoRT 4. Minimize residential street frontage carrying traffic in excess of "environmental
capacity."
As a largely built up community, Dublin has few options for redesign of its street
system. Amador Valley Boulevard and a few other streets now have or will have
traffic volumes creating an undesirable environment for the residents of fronting
single-family homes. One policy would be to use traffic controls or build new street
links to divert these volumes, but the usual result would be to increase traffic in front
of other homes. :The alternative policy is to minimize the length of affected frontage.
Residential streets that now carry relatively heavy traffic would continue to serve the
i aame function and traffic would not be diverted to raise more street frontage above
"environmental capacity."
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS.
Su PQo�-� 1. Provide new access to downtown from I-680.
Traffic headed to downtown from the north must travel over 1.5 miles of surface
street from the Alcosta interchange or must use the I-580 interchanges. The first
choice solution would be an interchange with I-680 at Dublin Boulevard, but freeway
ramps would conflict with the Village Parkway-Dublin Boulevard intersection. An
interchange at Amador Valley Boulevard would be disruptive and would induce more
-24-
traffic past homes fronting on Amador Valley Boulevard east of the freeway. The
most likely solution appears to be ramps connecting from Village Parkway and Amador
Plaza (see Downtown Concept Sketch). This new access point would relieve congested
intersections on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road.
=ff 2. Redesign Alcosta Boulevard interchange.
,;`When traffic signals are installed at interchange ramps, problems will result from .
:proximity to the.Alcosta-San Ramon Road intersection. _TJKM recommends relocation
of the southbound ramps to intersect with San Ramon Road rather than Alcosta Boule-
7 ^ vard c
OpppS� 3 Provide new access to downtown from I-5 80
Congestion'at the`Dublin Boulevard intersections with San Ramon Road and with
Dougherty Road is the pro blem'. :In'"addition to relief provided by,a new 1-680
connection described abo-ve,'the`proposed Hacienda Drive interchange midway
between the Dougherty and Tassajara interchanges will help.
.There is not enough room between the San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road inter-
. changes to add an access point to I-580, and there will be even less distance when the
freeway-to-freeway interchange is reconstructed to add double-lane direct connection
ramps.
1��pPoS� 4. Lobby for improved BART express bus service to the BART Bayf air Station with
parking lots at two or more stops serving Dublin.
Although in conflict with the stated policy of providing rail service, BART could offer
high quality bus service at much less cost than rail and therefore could provide it
much sooner. Although it is widely held that rail service offers stronger attraction to
riders and can stimulate transit-dependent development, express buses could offer
similar comfort and travel times.
5. • Locate a BART rail station on Golden Gate Drive serving downtown Dublin.
.This is the only potential station site that would be convenient to Dublin residents and
-that would provide service to downtown, thus stimulating office development and :
: increasing retail sales.`In a 1977 survey of shoppers in Walnut Creek, 30 percent of
-'.:,'the shoppers using the area less than three years said that BART was the reason they
' : had begun to patronize it.
`.':Dublin should insist that BART provide adequate parking to meet demand. Access will
be needed from two of three of the stub streets'extending toward I-580 from Dublin
Boulevard (see Downtown Concept sketch). The I-680 ramps connecting to Amador
Plaza Road and Village Parkway would be highly desirable for station access.
6. Do not locate a BART rail station in downtown Dublin
1 1 If.the BART line is built and Dublin rejects a downtown station, the number of cars
and buses entering downtown will be reduced and parking and congestion problems will
be less. A probable result would be a Stoneridge Station at the same freeway median
location but with access only from the Pleasanton side. Stoneridge retail sales and
-25-
Enclosed Mall \ o °✓l
Specialty Shops ;
e
' WARDS
MF-RVYN'S
_
00 00 U
BART1
r x.\ `. .
,j ` . . / •-BART
New Street to Disperse
BART Traffic
.Downtown Concept Sketch
Parking
® Mid-Rise Office
Ground Floor Retail
office rental demand would benefit disproportionately and Dublin patrons would travel
2 miles east to the Hacienda Drive Station or would use Foothill Road or 1-680 to the
Stoneridge Drive interchange and Stoneridge Station. The possibility of congestion at
the Hacienda Drive Station would be increased because its service area would be =
larger, but Dublin BART patronage probably would be somewhat lower than with a
Dublin station because of the 4 miles of out of direction travel required via the Dublin
Boulevard extension, adding about 8 minutes to a daily commute for Dublin residents.
Downtown Dublin employees would have to transfer to local transit to reach their
�.- gobs •,� '..
l� 7 Designate the SP right-of-way as:a light ra�1 transit route j
Light raq transit using partially separated.right of way is enjoying renewed popular
rty, with projects built or scheduled in S' an',Diego;Sacramento, and San Jose
` The
existence o f the SP right-of-way reserves the otential;for a connection between
g Y P p. . ...
-Dublin and Walnut Creek.. The Hacienda BART station would be'a potential transfer
:.` point, and a Dublin station might be at Amador.Valley Boulevard. Grade separations
at Dougherty Road and the Dublin Boulevard extension would be desirable.
8. Connect Dougherty Road with Village Parkway in the vicinity of Davona Drive as
�Q an alternative route to Amador Valley Boulevard.
�EV(EW Except for northbound trips using the planned extension of Stagecoach Road to
Alcosta Boulevard, build-out of the largely undeveloped portion of Dubin east of the
SP tracks will place heavy demands on Amador Valley Boulevard. Freeway-bound trips
will use Dougherty Road, but most other Dublin trips will have to be accommodated on
the 80-foot right-of-way of Amador Valley Boulevard, which also provides access to
more than half a mile of single-family home frontage.
One possible alternative would be a new road crossing the Dougherty Hills at 10 per-
cent grade and hugging the northern boundary of,the Dublin High School site to an
`.'::'intersection with Village Parkway at Davona Drive. No homes would have to be
acquired, but traffic would be added to Davona Drive unless it were made discontin-
uous west of Village Parkway using barriers or similar means. The new east-west
route would be strongly opposed by developers east of the SP tracks because it would
require redesign of their,projects and because they would be the only likely source of
funding.'If one-third of the 23,000 daily vehicle trips,that maybe generated by 2,300 -
additional dwelling units east.of the SP,tracks'use Amador Valley Boulevard,'current
volume will double.<"
SUPfa�T 9•, Provide for two or more future connections to the western ridgelands from the
Dublin street system. .
If residential development on the ridgetops is planned, it will seem a part of Dublin
only if it is accessible from the present city by a route other than the freeway or a
frontage road. Access could be provided from three stub streets on the approved
tentative subdivision map of the Nielsen Ranch or from Hansen Drive as well as from
Dublin Boulevard, the frontage road. For fire safety, at least two routes should be
provided.
-26-
9. PUBLIC SERVICES
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL =
The discussion of sewage disposal capacity in Working Paper #1 indicates a probability
that development in Dublin,will be temporarily suspended at some point during the
next several years unless prompt decisions are made on expansion of sewage disposal
capacity f or the Tri-Valley.',,;The options are technically and politically complex and
cannot be resolved within thetime schedule for General Plan adoption. ,The high cost
of expanding:disposal.capability.will increase development costs and may slow the'rate
of development 2
3 3 ) l L
r t `
Policy Options {
I -
Ol Do not approve disposal capacity increase,but allow available"capacity to limit
expansion of the Tri Valle housing supply and jobs.
;. xpans Y .. .� uPP Y. � .. • ..
2.:., Expand capacity for export of treated sewage effluent by constructing a parallel
i line through Dublin Canyon or a new pipeline through the San Ramon Valley.
3.`:.'.Allow development at urban densities using on-site treatment and disposal
: . systems.
This is the proposal for Las Positas New Town, but large-scale on-site disposal may
not be environmentally acceptable.
4. Allow limited development in hill areas at densities that can be served by
individual septic systems.
WATER -
Dublin's water is distributed by DSRSD, which purchases water from Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which, in turn,
imports it from the Sierra via the South Bay Aqueduct. Supply may become a problem
;''.in the 1990s if no new sources become available. .. . ;
t a
Policy Option
f
SaP�o RA 1. -: Base planning decisions on the assumption'that water supply will be adequate and ,
that local wells can be used to supplement imported supply if necessary.
SUPPDf�T DDE� O�floN . D C� E(ZlN(s P UtS'�T(orJ f
WA TF M EBMuD.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Problems relating to extension of fire and police services to presently unserved areas
rarely have been a controlling factor in decisions on the type, timing, or density of
development in California urban areas. The usual issue is the method of meeting costs
if the new development would not ordinarily contribute revenues equal to costs.
Working Paper #1 discussed provision of fire protection to the extended planning area.
-27-
Poll ,}.
_ cy Options
pPPos� 1. Do not expand the city or do not expand it to hilly terrain.
Any expansion area would be more costly to serve than the present city. High sales or
property tax revenue from 'certain types of development may, of course, offset higher
costs.
SUQtoRT 2 Establish a system of charges for services to annexed areas that will allow
1 provision at a break-even level
State law authorizes Community Services Districts that could levy charges to meet
i :higher costs.
-28-