HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Technical Revisions Dublin General Plan (2) AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting
September 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Amendment to the City of Dublin General Plan to Incorporate
Various Technical Revisions
PREPARED BY: l renda A. Gillarde, Project Consultant
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Dublin General Plan Technical Revisions,
dated August 13, 1992
2. Resolution for City Council Adoption of
Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment
3. Negative Declaration, dated February 25, 1991
4. Planning Commission resolution 92-45, recommending City
Council adoption of the general plan amendment, dated
August 17, 1992
5, General Plan Technical Appendices, dated February 1984
RECOMMEND TION:
1. Open public hearing and hear staff presentation
2. Take public testimony
3. Ask questions of Staff and the public
4. Close public hearing
5. Discuss general plan amendment
6. Approve the resolution
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Cost to prepare amendment (graphics and printing) estimated at
$2,320. Funds are available in the FY 92-93 budget.
BACKGROUND:
A-recent review of the City's current general plan (adopted February 1985) has
revealed that certain information should be added in conformance -with Government
Code provisions for general plans. The City used the 1990 General Plan Guidelines
published by the California State Office of Planning and Research for guidance in
this general plan revision effort. Most of the changes involve adding statutory
references, cross referencing statutes, or updating text to reflect statutory changes.
Some implementing policies have been added to strengthen existing City programs.
In addition, policies adopted by previous City general plan amendments have been
included with this general plan amendment and physically inserted into the general
plan document.
The above changes have been made to the plan and are now proposed for
incorporation into the document (Attachment 1). This would be accomplished by
the adoption of a resolution amending the existing city general plan (Attachment 2).
A negative declaration was prepared for this project and was circulated to the
appropriate agencies (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this item August 17th and passed a resolution recommending City
Council approval of the revisions. (See Attachment 4 for Planning Commission
resolution.)
1
____COPIES TO: Project Planner -----------
Agenda File
Application File
ITEM N0. CITY CLERK �
FILE y
hJl I
DISCUSSION:
A. Technical Revisions to the Plan
As discussed above, language has been added to the Dublin General Plan that
generally explains or clarifies certain sections of the plan. In some instances,
information has been added that was previously lacking for specific areas, such as
intensity standards for each commercial land use category.
The additions are to bring the plan into better conformance with the 1990 State
General Plan, Guidelines. The changes do not affect the policy direction of the
plan and it remains as adopted in 1985. The most important- technical revisions to
the plan are outlined below by general plan chapter. Attachment 1 contains the
actual text changes, indicated by underlining and strikeetA.
Chapter 1.0 Background
Several paragraphs have been added to the introduction to clarify the format of the
current general plan and where certain information can be located. Reference is
made to current planning studies underway in western and eastern -Dublin. Note
has been made that the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment- and Specific Plan
was recently approved by the City. Pages 1-6 through- 1-7 contain additional
intensity standards for commercial development, as required by the Government
Code and discussed in the State General Plan Guidelines.
Chapter 2.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Land Use Element
-
Paragraphs have been added to-the introduction clarifying the required scope and
content of a general plan land use element. The location-of certain required
information such as density and intensity standards, distribution of land uses and
open space is also provided in these introductory paragraphs.
Table 2.2 has been updated to reflect current potential housing sites. -Explanatory
language was added to pages 2-4 and 2-5 about the Downtown Specific Plan which
was adopted in 1987.
Chapter 3.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Parks and Open Space
Explanatory language was added to the introduction describing -the required contents
of an open space element. On page 3-2, language was added describing the City's
current park facilities and additional implementation policies added to page 3-3 that
would further promote acquisition of needed outdoor recreation sites.
Chapter 4.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Schools, Public Lands and Utilities
Element
Explanatory language was added to the introduction specifying the -required contents
of this portion of the land use element. Additional implementing policies were
inserted on page 4-1 to ensure provision of adequate school facilities in the
Extended Planning Area.
The discussion of solid waste was updated to reflect current legislation for source
reduction and recycling. Accordingly, implementation policies were added to ensure
2
current city programs are enforced. An implementation policy was also added to
the sewer treatment section (page 4-4) to ensure the availability of adequate
treatment prior to construction.
Chapter 5.0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element
This chapter contains the most extensive technical revisions. In addition to
language added to the introduction describing the required contents of a circulation
element, a complete set of street standards has been added (see pages 5-2 through
5-7). On page 5-11, a brief description of -funding -for road improvements has been
inserted. While these revisions are fairly extensive, they do not alter the current
policy direction of the general- plan. The standards were included for the purpose
of better defining the City's current and future roadway system.
Chapter 6.0 Housing Section
This section has been deleted from the document since it was recently -updated in
1990. A reference is provided indicating where the revised housing element can be
obtained.
Chapter 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element
The major changes to this element -are the addition of explanatory language to the
introduction (page 7-1); similar language added to the section addressing stream
corridors -(page 7-2); and expansion of the open space section to include language
and. measures that further strengthen open space acquisition and maintenance (pages
7-5, 7-6).
Chapter 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and
Safety Element
Explanatory language has been added to -the introduction (page 8-1); clarifying
language about-fire service (page -8-4); further-explanation about flooding (pages
8-51 8-6); and an implementation policy about hazardous waste (page 8-7).
Chapter 9.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Noise Element
Language was added to the introduction specifying the required contents of a noise
element (page 9-1). Discussion was added about future noise sources created by
the proposed BART stations (page 9-1). The BART EIR was referenced for further
information.
B. Incorporation of the Technical Appendices
Although the Technical Appendices are contained in a separate document
(Attachment- 5), they contain information relevant to the general plan elements and
should be adopted-as part-of-the plan. A section has- been included in the attached
resolution that would formally adopt the Technical Appendices as part of the
general plan, with the exception of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. This
part of the technical appendices should not be part of the adopted portions of the
general plan.
3
C. Incorporation of Previously Adopted Policies
Prior to this proposed general plan amendment, there were several previous general
plan amendments which added certain policies to the City's general plan. These
policies were never- physically inserted into the plan document. This current
general plan amendment provides the opportunity to do this and so they have been-
included in the August 1992 amended document. They are located on the following
pages:
Addition of the Low-Density Single Family land use category, page 1-6
Guiding Policy G� page 5-8
Guiding Policy A, page 7-5
Implementing Policies -B through G, pages 7-5 and 7-6
Implementing Policy B, page 8-5
A section has been included in the resolution that would physically incorporate
these statements and policies into the City's general plan document.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the- public hearing and after close
of the public hearing, Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution
adopting the technical revisions general plan amendment.
[s/gptrspl4]
4
D R A F T G E N E -R A L P L A N A M E N D M E N T:
T E C H N I C A L R E V I S I O N S
T O T H E
C I T Y O F D U B L I N
G E N E R A L P L A N
A U G U S T 13, 1992
ATTACHMENT 1
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
1 .0 BACKGROUND 1-1
1 . 1 Introduction 1-1
1 . 2 Development History Of Dublin 1-2
1 . 3 Nature Of The General Plan 1-2
1 . 4 Primary Planning Area and Extended Planning Area 1-3
1 . 5 Public Participation 1-3
1 . 6 Report Organization 1-4
1 . 7 Subregional Development Projections 1-4
1 . 8 General Plan Map 1-5
1 . 8 . 1 Land Use Classification 1-5
2 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
LAND USE ELEMENT 2-1
2 . 1 Residential Land Use 2-2
2 . 1 . 1 Housing Availability Policies 2-2
2 . 1 . 2 Neighborhood Diversity 2-2
2 . 1 . 3 Residential Compatibility Policies 2-3
2 . 1 . 4 Extended Planning Area Policies 2-3
2 . 2 Commercial and Industrial Land Use 2-4
2 . 2 . 1 Downtown Dublin Policies 2-4
2 . 2 . 2 Automobile Dealerships Policies 2-5
2 . 2 . 3 Neighborhood Shopping Centers Policies 2-5
2 . 2 . 4 Business Parks Policies 2-6
3 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 3-1
3 . 1 Open Space For Preservation Of Natural Resources
and For Public Health and Safety Policies 3-1
- i -
t.
J'
3 . 2 Agricultural Open Space Policies 3-2
3 . 3 Open Space For Outdoor Recreation Policies 3-2
4 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES ELEMENT 4-1
4 . 1 Public Schools Policies 4-1
4 . 2 Public Lands Policies 4-2
4 . 3 Solid Waste 4-2
4 . 4 Sewage Treatment and Disposal Policies 4-3
4 . 5 Water Supply Policies 4-4
5 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT 5-1
5 . 1 Trafficways Policies 5-1
5 . 2 Transit Policies 5-9
5 . 3 Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-way Policies 5-9
5 . 4 Bicycle Routes Policies 5-10
5 . 5 Truck Routes Policies 5-10
5 . 6 Scenic Highways Policies 5-11
5 . 7 Financing Road Improvements 5-11
6 .0 HOUSING SECTION:
HOUSING ELEMENT 6-1
7 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
CONSERVATION ELEMENT 7-1
7 . 1 Stream Corridors and Riparian
Vegetation Policies 7-2
7 . 2 Erosion and Siltation Control Policies 7-3
7 . 3 Oak Woodlands Policies 7-4
7 . 4 Air Quality Policies _ 7-4
7 . 5 Agricultural Lands Policies 7-4
- ii -
T 7
7 . 6 Archaeologic and Historic Resources Policies 7-4
7 . 7 Open Space Maintenance/Management Policies 7-5
8 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENT 8-1
8 . 1 Seismic Safety Policies 8-1
8 . 1 . 1 Structural and Grading Requirements 8-2
8 . 1 . 2 Required Geotechnical Analyses 8-2
8 . 1 . 3 Existing Structures 8-3
8 . 1 . 4 Data Review and Collection 8-4
8 . 1 . 5 Earthquake Response Plan 8-4
8 . 2 Safety 8-4
8 . 2 . 1 Emergency Preparedness Guiding Policy 8-4
8 . 2 . 2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection Policies 8-4
8 . 2 . 3 Flooding Policies 8-5
8 . 2 . 4 Hazardous Materials Policies 8-7
9 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
NOISE ELEMENT 9-1
APPENDIX A
Previous General Plan Amendments A-1
FIGURES
1-1 General Plan Land Use Map - Primary Planning Area 1-9
1-2 Extended Planning Area 1-10
2-1 Sites for Housing Developments 2-8
2-2 Development Potential 2-9
2-3 Downtown Intensification Area 2-10
3-1 Parks and Open Space 3-5
5-1 Projected Traffic Volumes 5-12
5-2 Bikeways 5-13
8-1 Geologic Hazards and Constraints 8-8
8-2 Potential Flooding Map 8-9
9-1 1983 Noise Exposure Contours 9-4
9-2 2005 Projected Noise Contours 9-5
i 7
TABLES
Table 1 . 1 Community Facilities 1-8
Table 2 . 1 Potential Housing Units & Population -
Primary Planning Area 2-3
Table 2 . 2 Potential Residential Sites -
Primary Planning Areas 2-7
Table 9 . 1 Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Environments Community Noise
Exposure (dB) 9-3
iv -
1'A BACKGROUND
1 . 1 INTRODUCTION
The-Bublin-General-Plan-eonsists-o€-the-text-and-plan-traps-in-Volume-1;
Eity-o€-Bublin-General-Plan:--Plan-Polieies---The-reader-who-wants-to
determine-eonsisteney-of-a-proposed-pro3eet-with-the-plan-need-consult
only-the-volume---VOlUme-11;-Eity-o€-Bublin-General-Plan:--Teehnieal
Supplement-and-Environmental-lmpaet-Report-fE1Rt -eontains-the
baekground-information-on-the-issues-that-resulted-in-the-plan
policies .---The-EIR-must-be-eertified-as-eomplete-be€ere-the-plan-is
adopted;-but-Volume-ll-material-other-than-the-detailed-Housing-Element
frequired-by-lawt-is-not-suitable-far-adoption-as-policy;-though-some
o€-the-in€ormation-may-become-the-basis-far-ordinanees-or-programs-to
implement-the-General-Plan.---Volume-l-will-be-re€erred-to-as-uPlan
Polieiesu-and-Volume-ll-will-be-referred-to-as-the-uTeehnieal
Supplement'-
The Dublin General Plan consists of the text and plan maps in Volume l :
City of Dublin General Plan: Plan Policies and Volume 2 : Technical
Supplement The reader who wants to determine consistency of a
proposed project with the General Plan should begin by consulting
Volume 1 . Volume 2 contains background information on the issues that
resulted in the plan policies . Volume 2 is also the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and is a part of the
certified EIR for the General Plan.
The City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element Portion-of-Volume-2:
Teehnieal-Supplement-is-the-detailed-Housing-Element-for-the-Eity---1t
contains-the-policies-and-information-neeessary-to-complq-with-State
law--was updated June 1990, and is contained in this a-separate
document--available-f rem-the-City-o€-Bublin-Planning-Department.
Policies for the Extended Planning Area are being formulated through
general plan amendment and specific plan studies currently underway for
the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas . These documents are
expected to be completed in 1992 . As of July 1992 , a General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted for the Western Extended
Planning Area and are available from the City Planning Department .
The text and plan maps adopted by the City Council in Volume-l:--Plan
Polieies-of-the-General-Plan-eonstitutes this General Plan constitute a
guide for the day to day physical development decisions that shape the
social, economic, and environmental character of the city and its
extended planning area. State Law requires Dublin to adopt a General
Plan within 30 months from the time it commenced operation as a city on
February 1, 1982 . The law (Government Code 65300) directs each
jurisdiction to include "any land outside its boundaries which in the
planning agency' s judgment bears relation to its planning. "
Consequently, the Dublin Planning Area, including the Extended Planning
Area, covers 24 . 9 square miles, 9 square miles of which are currently
in the city.
1 - 1
T
J
r
1 .2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF DUBLIN
Most of the land in Dublin and San Ramon was granted in 1835 to Jose
Maria Amador, one of the area ' s earliest settlers . In the 18501s,
Amador sold portions of his 16 , 100-acre holding to James Dougherty,
Michael Murray, and Jeremiah Fallon, forming a hamlet that grew slowly
during most of the next century.
During World War II , the Navy built Camp Parks Military Reservation to
house 10, 000 servicemen. The Tri-Valley had few tract homes or
commuters until 1960 when the Volk-McLain Company began work on San
Ramon Village building several thousand moderately-priced homes
advertised as "city close; country quiet. " Urban services were
provided by annexation of San Ramon Village to what is now the Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) . By 1970, four-fifths of Dublin ' s
present homes were complete.
In 1967 , an effort to incorporate Dublin was denied by the Alameda
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as contrary to County
policy supporting only one city in the west valley. A subsequent
referendum on annexation of Dublin to Pleasanton failed in Dublin.
Before the 1981 incorporation election was held, consideration was
given to detaching Dublin from DSRSD and making it a full-service
city, but keeping the existing arrangement was simpler and the "full-
service" choice did not appear on the ballot. In November 1981, 75
percent of the votes cast were for incorporation.
1 . 3 NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan provides a policy framework for development decisions .
It has three functions :
1 . To enable the City Planning Commission and City Council to reach
agreement on long-range development policies .
2 . To provide a basis for judging whether specific private
development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the
policies .
3 . To allow other public agencies and private developers to design
projects that are consistent with City policies or to seek changes
in those policies through the General Plan amendment process .
The plan must be:
Long-range: However imperfect our vision of the future is, almost any
development decision has effects lasting more than 20 years . In order
to create a useful context for development decisions, the plan must
look at least 20 years ahead.
Comprehensive: It must coordinate all major components of the
community' s physical development. The relationship between land use
intensity and traffic is the most obvious .
1 - 2
7.;5,
t t
General : Because it is long-range and comprehensive, the plan must be
general . Neither time nor knowledge exist to make it detailed or
specific . The plan' s purpose is to serve as a framework for detailed
public and private development proposals .
The-Plan-Policies-fmaps-and-text}-The General Plan may be amended as
often as four times each year (Government Code, Section 65358) and
should be revised at least every five years . The-Technical-Supplement
should-be-revised-whenever-new-information-becomes-available.---Except
far-the-Housing-Element;-the-contents-of-the-Technical-supplement-are
not-part-of-the-adopted-General-Plan-and-do-not-require-hearings-on
revisions .-
1 .4 PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
The General Plan includes site-specific policies for the area within .
the 1982 City boundaries and for the developable land immediately to
the west (the primary planning area) .
As mentioned in the Introduction, policies for the Extended Planning
Area are being formulated through general plan amendment and specific
plan studies currently underway for the Western and Eastern Extended
Planning Areas These documents are expected to be completed in 1992 .
As of July 1992 , a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were
adopted for the Western Extended Planning Area and are available from
the City Planning Department.
It-is-essential-that-the-City-of-Dublin-establish-guiding-policies-far
the-extended-planning-area-because-it-ubearfs}-relation-to-its
planning;u-regardless-of-when-or-whether-portions-are-annexed-to-the
Eity.--Policies-far-the-l5-square-miles-constituting-the-extended
planning-area-are-conceptual-because-the-information-available-on
environmental-constraints;-means-of-providing-services;-and-landowners1
intentions-is-not-sufficient-to-warrant-adoption-of-mare-specific
policies-at-this-time.---Text-policies-take-precedence-beeause-mapped
policies-are-in-schematie-farm---Many-or-mast-development-proposals-in
the-extended-planning-area-will-require-a-General-Plan-amendment;-but
if-they-are-consistent-with-the-text-policies;-the-hearing-process-will
focus-mainly-on-the-suitability-of-the-specific-site-far-the-type-and
timing-of-development-proposed?
1 .5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Since work on the General Plan began in March 1983, the Planning
Commission and City Council held three separate meetings and one joint
meeting to consider the plan. A Community Workshop held in July 1983
attracted about 25 participants in addition to most members of the
Commission and Council . General Plan discussions were thorough,
usually lasting more than four hours, but the number of public
participants was small - probably because most residents in a nearly
built-out community do not expect the plan to have major effects on
their lives or property. During the same period, hearings on several
controversial medium or medium-high density residential projects drew
large audiences .
1 - 3
r i
1 . 6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
State Planning Law calls for seven mandated General Plan elements :
Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and
Safety. State Law also allows cities to adopt other General Plan
elements or subjects which the City believes relate to the physical
development of the City.
A problem in organizing a General Plan is covering the state ' s seven
mandatory elements without confusion or duplication. For simplicity,
the seven elements, as well as optional elements, are grouped in three
General Plan sections :
Land Use and Circulation Section
Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Schools, Public Lands, and
Utilities; and Circulation and Scenic Highways . The Schools,
Public Lands, and Utilities Element is not mandatory.
Housing Section
Housing Element
Environmental Resources Management Section
Conservation, Seismic Safety and Safety, and Noise Elements
1 .7 SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Dublin' s 1983 population, estimated at 13, 700, represented about 8
percent of the 166 , 000 residents in the TRI-VALLEY area (San Ramon,
Livermore, and Amador Valleys) . About half of the employed residents
of Dublin and the TRI-VALLEY commute to jobs outside the area. By the
year 2005 or shortly after, planned business parks, several with large
employers assured, are projected to add about 130, 000 jobs to the
50, 000 existing in the TRI-VALLEY in 1980 . The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) has projected construction of 40, 000 additional
housing units . Unless that number is substantially exceeded, there are
likely to be more in-commuters than out-commuters .
Dublin' s primary planning area will be built-out long before the
business parks are full . Adding the extended planning area would bring
job and population totals to about 15 percent of the TRI-VALLEY totals
in ,2005 . Despite its small share of population, Dublin' s site at the
junction of the TRI-VALLEY two dominant transportation corridors will
enable it to remain the "downtown" for the TRI-VALLEY.
1 - 4
1'.8 GENERAL PLAN MAP
The General Plan Map for the Primary Planning Area proposes an
arrangement of land uses and a circulation system to serve those uses
at full development - expected to occur within 10 years . Because so
little land remains uncommitted, boundaries between uses are exact .
However, deviations in road alignments or open space configurations,
and request for approval of churches or other semi-public facilities
typically appropriate to the adjoining uses are not to be considered
inconsistent with the General Plan. Both the map and the text should
be consulted to determine consistency or inconsistency. ;-the-text-shall
govern. (See Figure 1)
1 .8 . 1 Land Use Classification
The following descriptions are intended to aid interpretations of the
General Plan map legends .
Density Measurements
Density measurements for General Plan purposes are based upon gross
residential acreage and is calculated as follows :
Gross residential acreage (GRA) shall be determined by calculating the
area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting
streets, provided that the street width used for calculation shall not
be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private streets
within the boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the
site, are calculated within the gross acreage total .
Gross acreage, rather than net acreage, is used as a General Plan
density measurement in order to account for situations in which larger
multiple family and Planned Development residential projects include
much vehicular circulation area that is not public right-of-way. In
such cases , the project site area would be larger than on smaller,
conventional sites that rely mainly on dedicated streets for access .
If allowable densities were calculated on the site area or net acreage
basis , the larger projects would have higher "effective" densities than
the smaller sites .
Example: Ponderosa Village
General Plan designation = single-family residential (0 . 9 to 6 . 0
units per gross residential acre) .
89 dwelling units (DU)
12 . 20 net acres (average lot size = 5,970 square feet)
3 . 13 street acres ( 20% of gross residential area)
15 . 33 gross residential acres (GRA)
Project density = 5 . 8 DU/GRA
1 - 5
i
Primary Planning Area
Residential (Note: Assumed residential household size is based on data
contained in the 1990 Housing Element)
Residential : Low-Density Single-family (0 .5 to 3 .8 units per gross
residential acre) . Detached units with assumed household size of 3 . 2
persons per unit .
Residential : Single-family (0.9 to 6 .0 units per gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 3 .2 persons per unit. ) . Detached and
zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range.
Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin' s western foothills at about
2 . 0 units per acre and Ponderosa Village at 5 . 8 units per acre.
Residential : Medium Density (6 . 1 to 14 .0 units per gross residential
acre; assumed household size of 2 .0 persons per unit. ) . The range
allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for
family living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit
types and densities may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires
mixed dwelling types, listed policies specific to the site govern the
location and distribution of dwelling types . Recently reviewed
projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace ( 7 . 8 ) and
Amador Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills ( 13 .5) .
Residential : Medium-High Density ( 14 . 1 to 25 .0 units per gross
residential acre; assumed household size of 2 .0 persons per unit. ) .
Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some
under-structure parking and will have three or more living levels in
order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements . Examples of
medium-high density projects include The Springs ( 17 . 8)_ and Greenwood
Apartments ( 19 . 8) .
Commercial/Industrial
Retail/Office (FAR: . 25 to .50; employee density: 200-450 square feet
per employee. ) . Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and
professional offices, motels, service stations, and sale of auto parts
are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded
except in the Downtown Intensification Area described in Section
2 . 2 . 1 .A.
Retail/Office and Automotive (FAR: .25 to .50; employee density: 220
to 490 square feet per employee) . This classification includes all
retail/office uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and
similar uses . Residential uses are not permitted.
Business Park/Industrial (FAR: . 30 to .40; employee density: 360-490
square feet per employee . ) . Uses are non-retail businesses (research,
limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative
offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due
to emissions , noise, or open uses .
Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor
area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping
1 - 6
requirements and typically result in . 35 to .40 FAR' s . Examples : Clark
Avenue, Sierra Court.
Business Park/Industrial : Outdoor Storage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee
density: 360-490 square feet per employee. ) . In addition to the
Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification
includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as
mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett
Court.
Public/Semi-Public (FAR: . 50; employee density: 590 square feet per
employee)
Public/Semi-Public Facilities . Uses other than parks owned by a public
agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from
adjoining uses are labeled. Development of housing on a site
designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered
consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing
should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable
density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples : Public and private
schools, churches, Civic Center.
Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation
facilities .
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision
maps , slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors,
woodlands, and grazing lands .
Extended Planning Area (See Figure 1-2 )
Residential and Open Space
See General Plan Map and Sections 2 . 1 . 4 , 3 . 1, 3 . 2 , and 3 . 3 .
Commercial/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial : Low Coverage (FAR: .25 to .40; employee
density: 360-490 square feet per employee) . This classification is
intended to provide a campus-like setting with open plazas and
landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses described in the Business
Park/Industrial classification for the Primary Planning Area and to
allow retail uses to serve businesses and residents . Maximum-flear
area-ratio-fbuilding-€leer-area-as-percent-cf-let-area}-to-be
determined-by-zoning-regulations-should-be-between--25-and--37-
See General Plan Map and Section 2 . 372 .4 .
Business Park/Industrial . Same as in Primary Planning Area.
Public Lands
Large holdings such as Parks RFTA, Santa Rita, and Tassajara Creek
Regional Park.
1 - 7
l
T A B L E 1 . 1
C o m m u n i t y F a c i l i t i e s
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES
1 . Valley Christian Center
2 . John Knox Presbyterian Church
3 . Nielsen Elementary School
4 . St . Raymond' s Catholic Church
5 . St. Philip' s Lutheran Church
6 . Murray Elementary School
7 . Dublin Elementary School
8 . Lutheran Church of the Resurrection
9 . BART Parking
10 . Civic Center
11 . Cronin Elementary School
12 . Wells Middle School
13 . Parkway Baptist Church
14 . Fredericksen Elementary School
15 . Dublin High School
16 . Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints
PARKS/RECREATION
17 . Alamo Creek Park
18 . Dougherty Hills Park
19, Stagecoach Park
20 . Dublin Sports Grounds
21 . Cronin Park
22 . Dublin Community Swim Center
23 . Kolb Park
24 . Shannon Park and Community Center
25 . Dolan Park
26 . Mape Park
27 . Heritage Park
1 - 8
S'8p\ RRR P
asrAe(s°`A .$8asab+sw\0 apy�4�m q�P\e
' aat,s aAn we o e tea r y�`P p��Qa ,R
. � � ;`owad 6 O< e e�!,6��� \�;f t4�°;q,' $ •
/•/• �,cR�\e�� eP a aosr�re•ora� � }<, Qee #a�'' s��
\\\\\\\ � /a�u'A�' %/� .e•SUr 'Yw �•a6+�a d�.jA} 9}c '.�QQ A_�..,..�oN Ap��"
��a•Pao�;eya 66�B a o qr w®rah `ep, sees bo �qa, ���'� �'r aaae�l � � (
�•n6R�psy$d6r, x°° u9a°0f py Poe egg P°o0?d�oa°abo as°°ssaexax t0ly 0. war Yi a svxe
�1•� SWB�-°� ���'�,A.,�, Wog/ • a a"e a4�a a8a gt.qo� ��at I�- ✓�Am II,�,.,.,.{�o �.. �x
Wk
B,d i� 69 a.✓a �® n'°ka o �,• O n as Y°
.. �vg�a.'b •ea+. •9p\.ml�° ai°w-Fao ay P Po y9fa6►
i'a•.i'O., ,��� �p®� a'00f ago��,}ee r��{"°M°° � rerr�P�'�"sBA:F�m OmaQ Mesgeasi m��� rP MW a�
r.-q ® �0 e�� 9." 1 aA ISO axxsi a pp y
�°-• gg i� .�'0.o sf \@q a m« o�f'p� A�,Qae�l: B 1r6�'s�'.� g a�l
'�si*
�Y
•. @4��®at$��'pip8d1�$•i1��y,.°44��aA6 MNxe�f sQ S�HyB,�a °��°� �7• °�4 ?s i �'atlld`S L -'��{,o �j0 a �••
84�p6� �qR�p spa°de'�� .o 4D _sP�po4'�Orbro a.Ziyr .'.•�! {� n��I :aoQ ° C was 'ea7 •a ��`. d
r q �'��06��A�a�(G ' �O °`�' w'°°� o 'q��q �ry{Q � '4 Q��O'� .�✓�gy
���«.e4 ���gg� •R��vgY°'+a. ,69art�q�a�'6�h��� .,��I�1 � 4'07 I°��rr � -.�. a. �� �,1 �a°�� � fi���'
�$,9'aw�i➢j 8�"•oOa.�o.�b Dyige,F. -`�"�'i ��( 6SS Qaa � 1 a+
:i• do dx. fir$. w' „�`,6aA° �^.,`d e s `F.
I
e.
/d 6
Y�.
ndA
..p e
@ d tlM. xb `°"'gyp .b o l •fi.•:.•.ev:•rxi•:•
��®�w .w e+a'wB.°•a'C7Yam e�te 4RF�-'.,'( •9° +8V6 s - �����o� :('. '} \_` o�' ` .A
rba b'�JR x >a �$ei � �(�•' e a // � r t f
��9t�+7AlOO gaogx° w ., o i� � ��_/� o•P'r/° P� .+ r
t$4ov // \1 /// �� ►i
k VAR
�eta BQ
���4 a�-- �g�pyg'p•�iYe//.� .��a�YQ Ae±
W �/ �•�\,>> ���o,
8��$ffif► 9,►��/ (Q�A4f_ g`� ` • � r,•�.''�.. \ \ r aqB,; j .�
�A® �I• 46� 0�qa T a�, "`.C�' R.aa � 'II"� � /j \\� //i di q <• 3 \��4�.���
�:� a Q9BV. 4��P�@ a ey��'�S"s�,� ��' � , ;`� : °/ /�+ ��/����'•��\��� '� V,PO +aea�( ' �\\►....�
_ .:..,q9,4g. ggg�' � �pa.°5 .�•;S / / / �/ / , o.,./ w '�ov -30+a� ►.bb�..v.;
,:@ B 71�Ofy .�i'e. �e �a.' /��� y�/• /.•/� \\\�••� ,era ,� 3��G:����f�.�.���:.•
WIF
ON
VON'
® / ./ _-iv %/✓ji / i�':,'•.• 'i'�:.Q- ��t�4wr�.��'.
ice,% i%J// / :... � \.: `�i•�,i'�r►'►`i•����
SS.,<.!}��vQaa a••��•sg���,�,F./ ;,j rye / �,,/
:Q\•.�,Opg4ba.��i►./ "ffi.�l��a�♦
w-♦.O.•,
�rq• ►.i
<' ?ISCb'^a Qea��+ssppa 4 yl�l!��s9ga�wes�sc` �,. �•s% •-/ /% % "�,yt>�'ts7'-.�.p,��\ bis��q�bgi��b�►�bib�b�►i
\SM, ����bb�(�.�����'►.�•
�',��� Qs�B��D�yPA ��d •�aea a 9 «1 { i•�/� i%% %�•`� / /�1 � ( � �� � \��.A �\4�..►4�../��.,
i��� �1°a�k�a�.'a�'w $`$�6 ",�� ��, y:;.i� r�/,j j �\ ��,f. �•���s�`\\�\,} '�".+►��.��.�0►�i.�•i�i�i�•.,
•
WA 0b'®fig® q e t '�•a°a e� /4 ,r/ % / /� �i
. 8°�0�' °`0�q,��rt�g���\�°g,�'ort•na �9E��-°'�!%' i �%/%4;�j 0.' 1,jam„
m�mm�m: n:a.n:rt:r n w.v rt:mrnnvrsnnomnr..
i Figure 1-2
LAND USE
Extended Planning Area
C , I
Residential/Open Space
® Business Park/industrial:
Low Coverage
— — Dublin City Limit/Primary
iPlanning Area Boundary
-------•Public Lands
Extended
9<OON GStP GGUNP`PMEDP COVNSV•• ••= Planning Area Boundary
7 GGN:ap C°..
F9 qfl \
@A
EASTERN
'1 E%TENDED PLANNING AREA
MaEa,.b1 -- ----------i a
WESTERN
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Z J V(L W
11MT1 o. LIWIA
--•j PFf�P p i
INTERSTATE 0
580 2�q
T D
O �
STONERIDGE DR a _
90 0
i
1 MILE 2 MILES
11•IV'I�
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Revised February 1992
1-10
2 . 0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: LAND USE ELEMENT
The-band-Use-Element-contains-polieies-far-the-loeation-and-intensity
of-residential;-eommereial;-and-industrial-land-uses .---Policies .
relating-speeifieally-to-open-spaee;-parks-and-schools-appear-under
these-headings-
Government Code sec 65302 (a) identifies the required content for land
use elements A land use element must first designate the proposed
distribution of specified uses and facilities . It must identify
po ulation density and building intensity standards for each land use
district It must identify areas subject to flooding and review those
areas annually. Finally, it must create a timber production land use
category where appropriate.
Each of these required features is included in Dublin' s adopted
General Plan, although not all are present in the land use element.
Dublin' s General Plan Maps for the Primary and Extended Planning
Areas , Figures 1-1 and 1-2 , summarize the proposed distribution of
residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses . The maps
also show existing schools and other public buildings and qrounds .
Policies further defining the location and intensity of residential,
commercial , and industrial uses appear in this land use element.
Policies relating to open space and parks appear in the Parks and Open
Space Element, sec 3 . 0; while policies relating to schools, and solid
and liquid waste disposal facilities appear in the Schools, Public
Lands and Utilities Element, sec . 4 . 0 . Background information
supporting the adopted policies is located in the corresponding Land
Use, Open Space, and Schools, Public Lands and Utilities sections of
the Technical Supplement.
Population Density and building intensity standards are presented in
sec 1 . 8 . 1 . of General Plan Volume 1 . Areas subject to flooding and
appropriate land use policies are presented in sec . 8 . 2 of the Seismic
Safety and Safety Element. Dublin' s General Plan contains no timber
production land use category because no timberland as described in
Government Code sec 65302 (a) occurs anywhere in the city' s planning
area.
Beeause Ninety-nine f99t percent of the primary planning area has been
developed since 1960 or has development approvals; therefore, the Land
Use Element focuses on the remaining uncommitted sites and on the
potential for more intensive use of existing sites . Land use changes
in the extended planning area will be more dramatic, but urban
development there is likely to occur mainly after the mid-1990 ' s .
The primary planning area is expected to be built-out within ten
years , ( 1994) adding a potential 3,500 housing units, 8,400 residents,
and 2 ,400 jobs to the 1983 totals . Except for downtown
intensification, the General Plan does not envision highly visible
changes in Dublin' s primary planning area, but it does provide for
more than a 60 percent gain in population. Housing unit and
2 - 1
r
population projections for the primary and-extended planning area are
presented in the tables on the following page.
2 . 1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
2 . 1 . 1 Housing Availability
Guiding Policy
A. Encourage housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet
current and future needs of all Dublin residents . (Same as
Housing Element Goal #1 . )
Implementing Policy
B. Designate sites available for residential development in the
primary planning area for medium to medium-high density where
site capability and access are suitable and where the higher
density would be compatible with existing residential development
nearby. ( See Table 12 . 2, Bevelepment Pa1ieie57-Pa9e-8 and Figure
2-1 . )
2 . 1 . 2 Neighborhood Diversity
Guiding Policy
A. Avoid economic segregation by city sector.
Implementing Policies
B. Allocate medium and medium-high residential densities to
development sites in all sectors of the primary planning area.
Require some of the units approved east of the Dougherty Hills to
be single family detached. (See-Table-l;-Development-Policies;
Page-2-3-1
C. Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects . (See
Table-l;-Development-Polieies;-Page-----
-�
2 - '2
TABLE 2 . 1
POTENTIAL
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION - PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
(AS OF MAY 1983)
Total Units Multifamily Units Population'
Existing, May 1983 4 ,428 386 13, 700
Approved, as of
November 1983 1,800 1, 100 4 , 400
Potential Additional
Development 1, 700 1,200 4 , 000
TOTAL2 7 , 900 2 ,700 22, 100
'Assumes 3 . 2 persons per single-family unit; 2 . 0 persons per
multifamily unit. (Based on data contained in the 1990 Housing
Element)
'Totals rounded.
2 . 1 . 3 Residential Compatibility
Guiding Policy
A. . Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development
and higher density development on adjoining sites .
Implementing Policies
B. Require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of
residential development nearby.
C. Require a planned development zoning process for all
development proposals over 6 . 0 units per gross residential
acre .
2 . 1 . 4 Extended Planning Area
Guiding Policy
A. Consider residential development proposals ( including
support facilities such as neighborhood shopping centers,
schools and parks) on moderate slopes, with multi-family
densities typically considered on flatter land and next to
business park areas .
Many potential sites are under Williamson Act contract requiring
open space use for at least 10 years .
2 - 3
Implementing Policies
B. The location, extent and density of residential development will be
determined when municipal services can be provided and through General
Plan refinement studies . '
C. Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will
require determination that:
- Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban
standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and
businesses .
- Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the
ridgelands .
- Timing of development will not result in premature termination of
viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands .
- 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.
2 .2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
Dublin' s central location has made it the Tri-Valley commercial center, with
more than 600 retail businesses and a wide variety of distributors, busing
service providers, builders and building subcontractors, manufacturers,- ai.
region-serving offices . The City' s ability to provide municipal services
depends on the income generated by business .
2 .2 . 1 Downtown Dublin
Guiding Policy
A. Intensify Downtown Dublin.
The present collection of adjoining shopping centers can become a downtown
with the variety, convenience, and visual prominence that is rarely found in
communities built since the automobile became dominant. (See Figure 2-3,
Downtown Concept Sketch)
A Downtown Specific Plan was prepared in July, 1987 . This plan details how
the City' s downtown area could be enhanced to create a more unified,
pedestrian-oriented focal point for the community. Provisions will be made
to accommodate a future transit station (BART) in the downtown area . Special
emphasis will be placed on pedestrian connections between the central
shopping area on Amador Plaza Road and the future BART station.
The plan encourages ground floor retail with offices and residential uses on
upper floors Development standards within the plan would allow an increase
of approximately 30% in building area to facilitate the introduction of
higher density pedestrian-oriented developments .
2 - 4
A number of urban design improvements are contemplated including entry ways
o downtown, theme elements in the medians and a potential plaza or structure
which would be used as an informal gathering place as well as for public and
civic events (Refer to the plan for further details . Available from the
City of Dublin Planning Department. )
Implementing Policies
B. Designate a Downtown Intensification Area on the General Plan Land Use
and Circulation map, Figure 1-1 .
C . 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.
D. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures
with ground floor retail space. Create store-lined pedestrian
connections between existing shopping centers .
E . Make downtown more understandable to the first-time visitor by
installing standardized identification signs and directories . soon.-
2 .2 .2 Automobile Dealerships
Guiding Policy
A. Keep automobile dealers in Dublin.
Implementing Policy
B. Allow for the creation of an auto center east of Camp Parks Military
Reservation.
If or when downtown land becomes too costly for car dealers they will have
the opportunity to relocate in an auto center with freeway frontage.
2 .2 . 3 Neighborhood Shopping Centers
Guiding Policy
A. Strengthen existing neighborhood shopping centers .
Competition from downtown and from north of the County line leaves no trade
area within the primary planning area for neighborhood shopping centers other
than Dublin Square, San Ramon Village Plaza, and Village Square.
Implementing Policy
B. Require a planned development proposal at the southwest corner of Amador
Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road to include medium-high density
residential, retail/office, or a mix of these uses .
2 - 5
2 .2 .4 Business Parks
Guiding Policy
A. Consider providing space for new businesses and for expansion of
existing Dublin firms .
Implementing Policy
B. Designate a 600-acre business park on Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
property in accord with Alameda County' s long-term plans for site use,
with the 200+ acre portion fronting I-580 to be business park/industrial
low coverage
C . Consider sites for business parks east of Camp Parks Military
Reservation. Retail uses to serve nearby businesses and residences will
be determined by General Plan refinement studies prepared in cooperation
with property owners .
D. Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than 9 , 000
( 22%) of the potential jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more
Specific Area Plans shall be developed to designate sufficient land for
housing in reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being
proposed; and to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be
provided.
2 - 6
TABLE 2.2
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SITES - PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
(as of March, 1992)
Sitesi Min.-Max.
Site Map No. Acres Units General Plan Residential Designations
Dublin Housing Authority, 4 6± 36 to 84 Medium Density (6-14 du/ac)
southwest portion of site
Valley Christian Center 3 15± 90'- 210 Medium Density (6-14 du/ac)
Downtown Intensification 5 na (200) Estimate of units is tentative and could increase
Area significantly if mid-rise, mixed-use buildings
achieve market acceptance
Donlan Canyon 1 197 300 Medium High Density (14.1-15 du/ac)
17 Low Density Single Family ( .5-3.8 du/ac)
Hansen Hills Ranch 2 147 180 Low Density Single Family ( .5-3.8 du/ac)
TOTAL 370 723-787
1 Sites Map Numbers correspond to numbered areas on Figure 2-1: Sites for Housing Development.
2 - 7
Figure 2-1
SITES FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
Primary Planning Area
'• • �, Low Density y Single Family
Residential(0.5-3.8 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential
(6.1 - 14.0 units per acre)
...j\.:. ............. Medium-High Density Residential
:•.;:. \'. (14.1 -25.0 units per acre)
.... _ = Downtown Intensification Area
1. o
°- — — Dublin City Limit/Primary
\��•�\ \ •••^_•••^'••^ (°ga°g �„ ,�•' Planning Area Boundary
...E
...,
NOTE: See,Table on opposite PP Page for
description of numbered areas.
t r
I
o
W ,
0 2057' 4114'
ILI VJf
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Revised February 1992
Figure 2-2
f DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
Extended Planning Area
1
R Slopes 30% and Greater
Developed Area
Approved Development
• I
Public Lands
Open Land with
°o JPSY� Development Potential
Dublin City Limit/Primary
g Goy:• /
Planning Area Boundary
---------- Public Lands
Extended
Planning Area Boundary
j
/
j \\.\\\\�.\:fAWT'M:�UNEOA:• i
\\\�\\ ; ,`� ✓i///iii j
• O '
f NEPIDGE °PNE o
to
�O
Q
1
I
. I
I
I
I �-,\ D 1 XI LE 2 MILES
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Revised February 1992
2-9
Figure 2-3
Enclosed Mall
Specialty Shops
I%Ilk 0
o 0
TARGET ; � •--.
WARDS •,� O �
goo. �a
Q � MERWN'S �5
J
,Y
BART /
1 00 i
BART
New Street to Disperse
BART Traffic
Downtown Concept Sketch
Parking
Mid-Rise Office
Ground Floor Retail
2-1n
3 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT
State-planning-law-ealls-€or-an-inventory-and-polieies-€or-preserving
and-managing-four-eategories7of-epee-spaee-lands:
Government Code sec. 65302 (a) requires land use elements to designate
open space for recreation, agriculture, visual enjoyment and natural
resources . Government Code sec. 65560 calls for an inventory of open
space resources and for policies to preserve and manage four
categories of open space lands_
( 1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources .
( 2 ) Open space for the managed production of resources .
( 3) Open space for outdoor recreations .
(4 ) Open space for public health and safety.
Government Code sec . 65564 requires local open space plans to include
action programs with specific programs to implement open space
policies . Public Resources Code sec. 5076 requires that demand for
trail oriented recreational uses be considered when developing the
open space programs . It further requires that the open space plan
consider integrating local trails with the state trails system.
Policies and programs to provide open space both within and apart from
development projects are included in this parks and open space
element . Related provisions to protect particular natural resources
through open space planning are included in sec. 7 . 0, Conservation
Element . Background information upon which open space and
conservation policies are based is located in the corresponding Open
Space and Conservation sections of the Technical Supplement.
The Government Code requires discussion of several resources which do
not occur in the Dublin planning area and therefore, have not been
analyzed. Accordingly, the open space plan for preservation of
natural resources does not address ecological or scientific study
areas, bays , estuaries, coastal beaches or lakeshores . Similarly, the
open space plan for managed production of resources does not address
bays, estuaries, marshes, commercial fisheries, or mineral deposits .
Flooding is addressed in the Safety Element, section 8 . 2 . 3 .
3 . 1 OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Subsequent to adoption of this general plan, the City began
preparation of specific plans for the Extended Planning Area. These
documents should be completed by the end of 1992 . Refer to these
documents for specific information on open space, parkland and
recreation facilities in the Extended Planning Area.
3 - 1
Guiding Policies
A. Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks
as open space for their natural resource value.
B. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent (disregarding minor
surface humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public
health and safety.
Also refer to Policy 7 . 3 .B in the Conservation Element.
Implementing Policy
C. Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open
space as a condition of subdivision map approval .
3 .2 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE
Excluding parcels fronting on I-580, a major portion about-98-percent
of the extended planning area is under Williamson Act Agreement
(Government Code Section 51200, et. seq. ) , and Alameda County zoning
sets minimum parcel size at 100 acres . Under the Williamson Act,
property taxes are based on the agricultural value of land rather than
its market value. The contract automatically renews each year for the
new 10-year period unless the owner or the County gives notice of non-
renewal .
Guiding Policy
A. Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural
preserve as rangeland, provided that specific proposals for
conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be
considered not sooner than two years prior to contract
expiration.
Implementing Policy
B. Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract
shall require findings that the land is suitable - for the intended
use and will have adequate urban services and that conversion to
urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining
lands remaining under contract.
3 . 3 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
Dublin currently has three major outdoor recreational sites : the
Dublin Sports Grounds ( 23 acres) , Shannon Park and Community Center
( 10 acres) , and Dublin Swim Center ( 3 acres) . Additionally, there are
five neighborhood parks totaling 21 . 75 acres (Dolan, Mape, Kolb,
Stagecoach, and Alamo Creek) and 90 acres of undeveloped open space
(Dougherty Hills) . Refer to Figure 3-1 for location of park and open
space areas . The need for recreation facilities will increase as
population grows and new development occurs .
3 - 2
The City' s existing trail network consists of bikeways located along
Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road and Dougherty
Road.
Bublin-eurrentlp-has-three-main-eutdeer-reereational-sites;-the-Sports
Grounds-f23-aeresl;-Shannon-Park-and-eommunity-eenter-f}A-acres};-and
Val ley-eemmunity-Swim-eenter-f3-aeresI---Additionally;-three-small
neighborhood-parks-adjoin-schools-fMape;-erenin;-and-Relb}---The-need
€er-reereatien-€aeilities-will-inerease-as-population-grows-and-i€
surplus-seheel-sites-are-sold;-there-will-be-ne-public-play-space-near
the-homes-of-many-ehildren-
The City has recently undertaken a Parks and Recreation Master Plan
study which encompasses both the primary and extended planning areas .
This plan updates and quantifies the City' s need for recreation
facilities . It is expected this plan will be completed in 1992 .
Readers should refer to this plan for additional information on city
park and recreation facilities, as well as action and acquisition
programs .
Guiding Policies
A. Expand park area to serve new development.
B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities at existing schools_ and
at-BSRSB-reereatien-sites-
Implementing Policy
e----Acquire-three-five-acre-neighborhood-parks-
-------East-of-Dougherty-Hills-as-land-i5-subdivided7
-------en-Fallen-Seheel-site-(enlarging-Relb-Parkt-when-the-site-is
sold-by-Murray-Seheel-Bistriet-
-------Bn-Bolan-Seheel-site-when-the-site-is-sold-bp-Murray-Seheel
Bistriet-
CH. Work with Dublin Unified-BSRSB-and-Murray School District to
enhance BSRSB school district facilities for community use. and
Scheel-District-park-and-recreation-faeilitp.
DE . Promote inclusion of hiking, bicyclinq and/or equestrian trails
within designated open space areas .
EF . Continue the city' s program to require dedication of land or in
lieu fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of
approval for subdivision maps pursuant to the Quimby Act, .
Government Code sec . 66477 .
3 - 3
F. Complete and adopt the Park and Recreation Master Plan in a
timely manner.
Guiding Policy
G. Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above
major ridgelines .
The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary
planning area are an essential component of Dublin' s appearance as a
freestanding city ringed by open hills .
Implementing Policy
H. Use subdivision design and site design review process to preserve
or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from
freeways ( I-580 or I-680) or arterial and major streets (Dublin
Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Village
Parkway, Dougherty Road) .
3 - 4
Figure 3-1
(200;r
s� C
l 3-
=L
O C
P`G09 Al
G
0 4 C
ONA DR * 7 OC
a 3
S� B
j -C
� R C
* Oh DRIVE 9
r 3 w
C �
JbW = O > y O
L !7
� E
6* 0 I4 M4R'4cK DRIVE
<
s * Z c S pV�E
O a
FC. 7 O
O
Iry U ��OR
�O
C a * 2 MPQO
a ID ti� Q a
a Z ��N `~cs • 8
c
2
N
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - 21.75 acres COMMUNITY PARKS & FACILITIES - 36 acres
1 - Dolan Park 5.00 acres 6 - Shannon Park & Community Center 10.00 acres
2 - Mape Park 3.00 acres 7 - Dublin Swim Center 3.00 acres
3 - Kolb Park 5.00 acres 8 - Dublin Sports Grounds 23.00 acres
4 - Stagecoach Park .75 acres
5 - Alamo Creek Park 8.00 acres OPEN SPACE - 90 acres
9 - Dougherty Hills Park 90.00 acres
SOURCE: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Department, July 1992.
'1_q
4 .0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND
UTILITIES ELEMENT
This-non-mandatory-element-is-ineluded-in-the-General-Plan-as-a-means
of-expressing-the-policies-of-the-Eity-of-Bublin-coneerning-lands-and
serviees-eritieal-to-the-growth-and-development-of-Dublin-that-are
operated-by-independent-units-of-government-
Government Code sec . 65302 (a) and (b) require that schools , public
lands and public utilities be addressed in the land use and
circulation elements . Dublin has included these three concerns in a
separate element because they generally are operated by independent
units of government, whereas most of the other development related
concerns addressed in the statutes involve city regulation.
Information supporting the schools, public lands and utilities
policies is located in the Technical Supplement, sec . 2 . 3 .
4 . 1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Enrollment in the Dublin Unified School District has been increasing
since 1990 with a current enrollment of 3206 students Murray-Sehool
Bistriet-tgrade5-K-8�-has-been-deelining-sinee-1973 . Currently, three
K-65 schools (Nielsen, Murray and Frederiksen Eranin) and one two 67-8
schools (Wells Middle School) , one high school (Dublin High School, 9-
12 ) and one continuation high school (Valley High School, 10-12 ) and
Frederieksent accommodate Dublin students . Frederieksen-Sehool-is-to
be-elosed-in-1985 .----The-General-Plan-envisions-that-Bublin-Sehool;
new-leased-to-a-private-school;-will-need-to-be-re-opened-as-a-publie
school-as-new-homes-west-of-San-Ramon-Road-are-oecupied-
Bublin-High-Sehool (Amader-Valley-Joint-Union-High-School-Bistriet)
will-eontinue-to-serve-Bublin-
Guiding Policy
A. Cooperate with Murray-Sehool-Bistriet the Dublin Unified School
District to ensure preservation of surplus sites compatible with
surrounding land uses and Housing Element objectives .
B. Cooperate with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure
provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning Area.
Implementing Policy
CB. Initiate preparation of site plans or specific plans jointly with
the Dublin Unified School District prior to sale.
D. As a condition of project approval in the Extended Planning Area,
it is required that logical and buildable school sites be offered
for dedication according to the State' s Board of Education
guidelines and acceptable to the Dublin Unified School District.
4 - 1
This type of cooperation will achieve harmonious relationships between
new development and existing residential areas and new park sites (See
Open Space Element) .
4 .2 PUBLIC LANDS
The Federal and County governments and-the-East-Bap-Regional-Parks
Histriet have large holdings in the Eastern Extended Planning Area
that are vital to Dublin' s image and its eastward expansion.
Guiding Policies
A. Maintain communication with military administrators and
congressional representatives to urge that Camp Parks Military
Reservation be developed and operated as a good neighbor to
Dublin.
B- Support-retention-and-development-a€-Tassajara-ereek-Regional
Park;-or-i€-it-is-re-aequired-by-the-Army;-replaeement-by-East
Bap-Regional-Park-Histriet-lands-in-or-adjoining-the-extended
planning-area-
B. Require strict adherence to the land use provisions of the City-
County Annexation Agreement for the Santa Rita Property owned by
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority.
E- Request-the-Alameda-Eountp-Board-a€-Supervisers-and-Eountp
Planning-Eommission-to-formally-reeognize-Dublin1s-direct
interest-in-uses-and-development-standards-€or-portions-o€-Santa
Rita-Rehabilitation-Eenter-that-are-to-be-sold-or-leased-for
private-development-
Implementing Policies
CB. Negotiate participation by Camp Parks Military Reservation in
design of Dougherty Road improvements and establishment of a
landscaped buffer strip.
DE . Negotiate reservation of an alignment for Dublin Boulevard
extension across Camp Parks Military Reservation and Santa Rita
land. Consult with the Federal and County governments concerning
appropriate uses and development standards between Dublin
Boulevard extension and I-580 .
4 . 3 SOLID WASTE;-AND-SEWAGE-TREATMENT-AND-BISP6SAL
Planning-for-solid-waste-disposal-€aeilities-is-eondueted-on-a
eountywide-basis .-
Historically, planning for solid waste disposal was conducted on
a countywide basis . In 1989 , however, the legislature passed AB
939 , the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The Act
completely reorganized the state ' s solid -waste management
4 - 2
planning process to require each jurisdiction to prepare a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element and a Household Hazardous Waste
Element. While these elements are not required to be part of a
city' s general plan, planning_ policy nevertheless should be
guided by the elements since solid waste disposal is a necessary
service for new development.
The City of Dublin currently has a Franchise Agreement with Oakland
Scavenger Company for residential and commercial garbage collection.
Solid waste is deposited at the Altamont Landfill .
The owners of the landfill are currently pursuing an expansion which
would provide 350 million cubic yards . As of March 1992, estimated
remaining capacity at the landfill is 24 . 5 million cubic yards . This
is anticipated to provide landfill capacity for eight years . This
assumes a countywide increase in the amount of solid waste disposed of
at 0 . 8 percent per year.
Guiding Policy
A. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available
to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin
General Plan.
Implementing Policies
B. Continue to enforce the City Source Reduction and Recycling/
Household Hazardous Waste Elements .
C . Cooperate with Alameda County, as necessary, for adoption and
implementation of the County Solid Integrated Waste Management
Plan.
D. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that
capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their
project prior to the issuance of building permits .
E . Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that
demonstrates how they will contribute toward the City' s State
mandated diversion requirement.
4 .4 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Sewage treatment and disposal capacity for the City of Dublin is
limited. The existing Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
sewage treatment plant adjoining I-680 in Pleasanton could be expanded
to four times its present size, but the Livermore Amador Valley Water
Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipeline that carries treated effluent from
Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is
nearing capacity. Currently, approximately 2 , 900 dwelling unit
equivalents of wastewater capacity are available on a first-come,
first-serve basis . The Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority is working to
obtain additional capacity from the Central Contra Costa Sanitation
4 - 3
District. If the capacity is obtained, approximately 59 , 000 dwelling
unit equivalents of additional wastewater capacity would be available.
Growth-will-be-eurtailed-within-two-to-€ive-pears-unless-valleywide
voter-approval-€or-expansion-is-obtained.---Studies-leading-to-speei€ie
proposals-to-inerease-wastewater-disposal-eapacity-are-underway-in
early-1984-
Guiding Policy
A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid
constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policies
B. Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that
adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal
facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of building
permits .
4 .54 WATER SUPPLY
Dublin' s water is distributed by Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) , which purchases water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, which, in turn, imports it
from the three sources : Sierras State water project, local runoff from
the Arroyo Del Valle watershed (stored in Lake Del Valle) and from
natural recharge of the groundwater basin. DSRSD may seek water
sources other than those listed above to meet future needs . via-the
South-Bay-Aqueduet- The supply may run short in the 1990 ' s if no new
sources become available.
Guiding Policies
A. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies
will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to
supplement imported water if necessary.
Implementing Policy
B. Consider obtaining water service from the East Bay Municipal
Utility District and other sources .
4 - 4
5 . 0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: CIRCULATION AND SCENIC
HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
5 . 1 TRAFFICWAYS
Government Code sec . 65302 (b) requires that circulation elements
include diagrams, policies and programs for existing and proposed
major thoroughfares , transportation routes, terminals and other public
utilities and facilities . The statute further requires that these
circulation and public services features be correlated with the land
use element . That is, the General Plan must propose circulation and
public services adequate to meet the needs of the population planned
for in the land use element.
Dublin' s proposed road system for the Primary Planning Area is shown
on Figure 1-1 , the General Plan map for Land Use and Circulation.
Proposed traffic and roadway policies are presented below_ in this
element. Information supporting the policies is located in the
Technical Supplement, sec . 2 . 4 , Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element . The-proposed-road-system-and-planning-polieies-will-be
determined-through-the-East-and-West-Dublin-Extending-Planning-Area
Speeifie-Plan-Studies-for-the-Extended-Planning-Area.- The policies and
standards in this element also pertain to the extended planning areas .
In addition, the general plan amendment and specific plan studies
being prepared for the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas
should also be consulted for guidance on circulation. These documents
are expected to be completed in 1992 .
Proposed public utilities and facilities are addressed in sec . 3 . 0 ,
the Parks and Open Space Element, and in sec. 4 . 0, the Schools , Public_
Lands, and Utilities Element. Information supporting these policies
is located in the Technical Supplement, sec. 2 .2 , Open Space Element
and sec . 2 . 3 , Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element.
The street network described in this Circulation Element was designed
to accommodate peak period traffic demand and minimize excessive
delays and congested conditions during peak hours . The street design
standards specify the width and other design features necessary to
ensure there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate future
travel on Dublin streets .
Guiding Policy
A. Design streets to accommodate peak period traffic demand and
minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation.
Implementing Policy
B. Design streets according to the standards set forth in paragraphs
1 through 8 below, as well as the listed Additional Design
Criteria. If average daily traffic (ADT) is greater than the
stated approximate maximum ADT, design the street to a higher
functional classification, per approval of the City Engineer.
5 - 1
Exceptions to these standards may be granted by the Public Works
Director if a finding(s) can be made that the exception is
consistent with all applicable circulation policies and does not
compromise public safety or access .
1 . SIX-LANE PRIME ARTERIALS
Design ADT 50,000
Minimum design speed 55 mph
Curb-to-curb 102' (includes a 14' median)
Right-of-way 122'
Maximum grade 7%
Minimum curve radius 1,200' with 4% superelevation
to 2,000' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
The prime arterial streets are designed to distribute localized
trips . Typically, intersections with median openings shall be
spaced no closer than 660 feet. Any other intersections without
median openings may be approved by the City Engineer. A raised
median is required to separate the two directions of travel and to
improve the visual appearance of the travel corridor.
Approaches to intersections shall be widened as required by the
City Engineer in order to provide for additional lanes for left
turn and/or right turn movements .
Access to and from six-lane prime arterial streets from abutting
commercial properties shall be controlled but not restricted. No
direct access from single-family residential homes is allowed.
Parking on these streets shall be prohibited with the exception of
emergency parking. Bike lanes shall be provided. Pedestrian
crossings should be carefully selected to direct pedestrians to
designated crossing points at signalized intersections .
EXAMPLES : San Ramon Road from I-580 to Amador Valley Boulevard;
Dublin Boulevard east of Dougherty Road and Tassajara
Road south of Dublin Boulevard ( future roads) .
2 . FOUR-LANE MAJOR STREETS
Design ADT 30,000
Minimum design speed 50 mph
Curb-to-curb 78' (includes a 14' median)
Right-of-way 98'
Maximum grade 7%
Minimum curve radius 1,400' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
5 - 2
Major streets are primarily designed to distribute localized
trips . Typically, intersections with median openings shall be
spaced no closer than 660 feet. Any other intersections without
median openings may be approved by the City Engineer. A raised
median is required to separate the two directions of travel and
to improve the visual appearance of the arterial corridor.
Approaches to intersections shall be widened as required by the
City Engineer in order to provide for additional lanes for left
turn and right turn movements .
Access to and from four-lane major streets from abutting
commercial properties shall be controlled but not restricted. No
direct access from single-family residential homes is allowed.
Parking on these facilities shall be prohibited with the
exception of emergency parking. Bike lanes shall be provided.
Pedestrian crossings should be carefully selected to direct
pedestrians to designated crossing points at signalized
intersections .
EXAMPLES : San Ramon Road from Amador Valley Boulevard to Alcosta;
Village Parkway, and Amador Valley Boulevard, west of
Village Parkway.
3 . CLASS I COLLECTOR STREETS
Design ADT 27,000
Minimum design speed 45 mph
Curb-to-curb 76'
` Right-of-way 92'
Maximum grade 8%
Minimum Curve Radius 1,100' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
Class I collector streets serve primarily to circulate localized
traffic and to distribute traffic to and from arterials and major
streets . Class I collectors are designed to accommodate four
lanes of traffic; however, they carry lower traffic volumes at
slower speeds than major streets , and they have a continuous left
turn lane separating the two directions of traffic flow.
Typically, intersections shall be spaced no closer than 660 feet
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and potential
signalized intersections shall be spaced at intervals of 660
feet.
Medians shall be striped in special cases if no abutting property
access is allowed (minimum of 4 mile) , the striped median can be
reduced to 4 feet with approval of the City Engineer.
Left turns into driveways near an intersection ( 2001 ) will be
prohibited by a raised median.
EXAMPLES : None yet existing in Dublin.
5 - 3
4 . CLASS II COLLECTOR STREETS
Design ADT 12,000 -
Minimum design speed 30 mph
Curb-to-curb 52'
Right-of-way 68,
Maximum grade 88 commercial, 128 residential
Minimum curve radius 450' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
Class II collector streets with two-way center turn lanes serve
primarily to circulate localized traffic and to distribute
traffic to and from arterials and collector streets . They are
designed to accommodate two lanes of traffic; however, they carry
lower traffic volumes at slower speeds than Class I collector
streets . This type of facility provides access to properties and
circulation to residential neighborhoods . Minimum distance
between intersections shall be 250 feet. Deviation from this
minimum distance requirement may be approved by the City Engineer
only if it can be demonstrated that left turn demands do not
create an adverse traffic condition.
Access to and from Class II collector streets from abutting
properties shall be permitted at locations approved by the City
Engineer. Parking on this facility shall typically be allowed.
However, parking at critical locations may be denied as deemed
appropriate by the City Engineer. If a bike lane is provided and
parking is retained, an additional 10 feet of right-of-way will
be required to allow for a 10-foot widening of the roadway cross
section.
EXAMPLES : Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road
5 . RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREETS
Design ADT 4,000
Minimum design speed 30 mph
Curb-to-curb 40' (34' single loaded)
Right-of-way 56' (47' single loaded)
Maximum grade 12%*
Minimum curve radius 4450' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
*Maximum grade up to 158 may be allowed under special conditions and approval by City Engineer. Grade
segments in excess of 128 shall not exceed 300 feet in length. Average grade over any 1,000 foot segment
shall not exceed 108.
Residential collector streets also circulate localized traffic as
well as distribute traffic to and from arterials and other
collectors to access residential areas . Residential collector
5 - 4
streets accommodate low volume levels and the use of this
facility as a carrier of through traffic should be discouraged by
its design.
Minimum distance between intersections shall be 250 feet.
_ Deviation from this minimum distance requirement may be approved
by the City Engineer only if it can be demonstrated that left
turn demands do not create adverse traffic conditions .
Parking on this facility shall typically be allowed. However,
parking at critical locations may be denied as deemed appropriate
by the City Engineer. If a bike lane is provided on this
facility and parking is retained, an additional 10 feet of right-
of-way will be required to allow for a 10-foot widening of the
roadway cross section.
EXAMPLES : York Drive, Vomac Road
6 . RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Design ADT 1,500
Minimum vertical design speed 25 mph
Curb-to-curb 36' (32' single loaded)
Right-of-way 52' (45' single loaded)
Maximum grade 12%*
Minimum curve radius 200' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
*Maximum grade up to 15% may be allowed under special conditions and approval by the City Engineer. Grade
segments in excess of 12% shall not exceed 300 feet in length. Average grade over any 1,000 foot segment
shall not exceed 10%.
Residential streets circulate localized traffic as well as
distribute traffic to and from arterials and collectors to access
residential areas . Residential streets accommodate low volume
levels and should not be used to carry through traffic .
Minimum distance between intersections shall be 150 feet.
Deviation from this minimum distance requirement may be approved
by the City Engineer only if it can be demonstrated that left
turn demands do not create an adverse traffic condition.
Examples : Beverley Lane, Ironwood
5 - 5
7 . CUL-DE-SACS
Minimum design speed 25 mph
Curb-to-curb 34' (32' single loaded)
Right-of-way 50' (45' single loaded)
Maximum grade 12%*
Minimum curb radius 200' with no superelevation
Public utilities and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
"Maximum grade up to 15% may be allowed under special conditions and approval by the City Engineer. Grade
segments in excess of 12% shall not exceed 300 feet in length. Average grade over any 600 foot segment
shall not exceed 12%.
The length of cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 600 feet. The
turnaround curb radius shall be a minimum of 35 feet.
EXAMPLES : Lancaster Court, Tina Place
8 . INDUSTRIAL ROADS
Design ADT 4,000
Minimum design speed 30 mph
Curb-to-curb 52'
Right-of-way 68'
Maximum grade 7%
Minimum curve radius 450' with no superelevation
Public utility and landscaped
buffer area easement 10' on each side of right-of-way
These roads serve traffic within industrial development . Minimum
distance between intersections shall be 300 feet unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Turnaround curb radius shall be a
minimum of 50 feet.
EXAMPLES : Sierra Court.
ADDITIONAL DESIGN CRITERIA
1 . No lane transition shall be allowed on horizontal curves except
upon approval of the City Engineer.
2 . Horizontal curves shall be used for all horizontal changes of
centerline direction.
Vertical curves shall be used when change in grade exceeds 1% in
sags and 0 . 5% on crests .
3 . The angle between centerlines of intersecting streets shall be as
nearly right angles as possible, but in no case less than 70
degrees or greater than 110 degrees . Streets shall intersect
only in tangent section. The tangent length shall extend a
5 - 6
minimum of 200 feet and maximum grade of 6% from the point of
curb return (PCR) on each leg of the intersection except as
approved by the City Engineer. The tangent length of 200 feet is
not required for residential streets intersecting another
residential or collector street if an adequate intersection sight
distance is provided.
4 . Intersection sight distance shall meet CalTrans Highway Design
Manual criteria.
5 . A minimum of one on-street parking space (20 feet) shall be
provided along the frontage of each residential lot. However, in
cases where the minimum on-street parking space requirement
cannot be met, credit shall be given for surplus on-street
parking in front of nearby lots upon approval of the City
Engineer. With approval of the City Engineer, residential lots
which provide three or more off-street parking spaces shall be
'exempt .
6 . No gates or controlled access devices are allowed on any public
or private street.
7 . Compound curves shall not be allowed.
8 . All box-landscaped planters along a raised median shall be placed_
no closer than 3 feet from the face of the median curb.
The I-680 freeway is to be widened to eight lanes within the next five
years and the freeway to freeway interchange will be rebuilt as both
freeways and the arterial street system experience heavy new demands
from development in adjoining communities .
Guiding Policy
C. Improve freeway access .
Implementing Policies
D. Provide an additional interchange on I-680 north of I-580 to
provide better access to the downtown area.
B--.-Add-an-1-688-interehange-at-or-near-Amador-Valley-Boulevard-
Access to downtown from the north and south along Interstate 680 is
needed at a point closer than Alcosta Boulevard. The entire central
portion of the City needs an alternative to congested Dublin Boulevard
intersections at San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road.
E . Work with the City of San Ramon to increase the capacity of the
Alcosta Boulevard interchange. This may be achieved by
relocating southbound I-680 ramps to intersect San Ramon Road
north of Alcosta.
5 - 7
Guiding Policy
F. Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to
allow arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected
traffic with the least friction.
The Daily Projected Traffic Volumes map (Figure 5-1) shows existing
and projected flows and lane requirements . The General Plan does not
include more detailed street improvement proposals .
G. Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the
Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of
Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not
be worse than LOS D.
Implementing Policies
H. Develop an alignment plan line for a six-lane divided extension
of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Camp Parks Military
Reservation boundary.
6----Reserve-right-a€-wap-€er-Hansen-Bride-extension-te-the-western
hills ..
This route will be the only non-freeway connection between the present
city and new residential and business park development east of Parks
RFTA.
lf-residential-development-in-the-extended-planning-area-is-te-be-part
of-Bublin;-this-is-the-pre€erred-eenneetien-
I . Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART station
south of Dublin Boulevard.
The proposed new street parallel to Dublin Boulevard is needed to
serve intensive development of a 100-acre commercial area and to
distribute BART station traffic to three Dublin Boulevard
intersections .
J. Design Dougherty Road as a six-lane divided arterial street.
Development in Contra Costa County will contribute more than half the
traffic; so the full cost should not be borne by Dublin users .
K. Prevent misuse of residential streets by through traffic .
L. Continue the city' s program of requiring developers to contribute
fees to help fund off-site improvements related to their
projects .
Traffic controls will be considered to correct specific problems .
5 - 8
5 .2 TRANSIT
BART currently operates two bus lines serving BART rail stations and
providing limited local transit service. Dublin taxpayers have been
paying their full share for direct rail service as shown on the
original BART plan, but other extensions competing for funding have
received stronger support from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission staff . The rail service proposal was revised in 1983 to
indicate BART in the I-580 freeway median with stations in downtown
Dublin (West Dublin/Pleasanton station) and at Hacienda Drive East
Dublin/Pleasanton station) .
The Pleasanton/Dublin Short Range Transit Plan (December 1983)
proposes a nine-bus fleet providing local service on routes within
three blocks of 85 percent of Dublin' s residents .
Guiding Policies
A. Support a compact multi-story downtown BART station and a second
station to the east along I-580, provided the BART rail line is
extended at least to the eastern limits of the City of
Pleasanton.
B. Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban
environment, particularly for residents who do not drive.
Implementing Policies
C. Urge BART cooperation in maintaining availability of station
sites and develop standards for review of public and private
improvements in the vicinity of BART stations that take account
of both future traffic needs and development opportunities .
D. Pursue formation of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with
neighboring jurisdictions to enable use of Transportation
Development Act funds to begin improved local transit service
late in 1984 .
The proposed bus loop would start at San Ramon Road and Dublin
Boulevard, proceeding via Dublin Boulevard, Hansen Drive, Silvergate,
Peppertree, Shannon, San Ramon Road, Alcosta, Davona, Village Parkway,
Amador Valley Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and San
Ramon Road, to Stoneridge and Pleasanton.
5 . 3 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties are considering means of preserving
the Southern Pacific right-of-way. Track has been removed from the
San Ramon Branch line between Pleasanton and Pleasant Hill . Recent
studies have proposed future use for light rail transit or as a
busway.
5 - 9
Guiding Policy
A. Support preservation of the Southern Pacific right-of-way as a
potential transportation corridor.
B. Consider potential recreational use in conjunction with
transportation use.
Committed development will require additional transportation capacity
in the San Ramon Valley corridor, so all options should be kept open.
5 .4 BICYCLE ROUTES
Guiding Policy
A. Provide safe bike routes along arterials and major streets See
Figure 5-2 ) .
Implementing Policy
B. Complete the following bikeways system:
San Ramon Road Existing separate bike path.
Village Parkway Existing bike lane north of Amador
Valley Boulevard; provide bike lane to
the south of Amador.
Dougherty Road Incorporate separate bike/jogging path
in new design.
Amador Valley Boulevard Maintain existing bike lanes .
Alamo Creek Bike path along creek.
Bublin-Boulevard Designate-sidewalk-
Southern Pacific Incorporate bike/jogging path
Right-of-Way in design.
Transportation Corridor
5 .5 TRUCK ROUTES
Guiding Policy
A. Designate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential
arterial streets .
Implementing Policy
B. Restrict through trucks to I-580 and I-680 .
5 - 10
5 .6 SCENIC HIGHWAYS
I-580 , I-680 , San Ramon Road, and Dougherty Road were designated
scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966 . These are the routes from
which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the
city; so it is important that the quality of views be protected.
In the Eastern Extended Planning Area, Tassajara Road and Doolan Road
are designated by Alameda County.
Guiding Policy
A. Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General
Plan and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by
through travelers .
Implementing Policy
B. Exercise design review of all projects within 500 feet of a
scenic route and visible from it.
5 . 7 FINANCING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
The City has a five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which
includes a section on streets . The most recent CIP ( 1991-92 ) lists 17
street improvement projects along with estimated costs and financing
schedules . The monies to fund these projects come from several
sources including the City' s operating budget, state/federal funds,
development fees, grants and loans . (A copy of the Dublin 1991-92 CIP
program is available from the City Manager' s Office. )
Currently, development plans are being formulated for the Eastern and
Western Extended Planning Areas . Construction of necessary roads will
be funded by the developers . Developer contributions will also be
required for existing city roadway projects which will be impacted by
traffic from developments in the extended planning areas .
5 - 11
pure 5-1
v� r is"'•• �
9 - v� 4LD /..
3 F 20.000 t r.
4LD 2 mo 30,100 iVO. _ 4LD
13,0000
��G05t n o 10.700
17.600 o P \' - - - 15.000 o
w. 2L 2L
_.2L 2.700` 3.400 ¢
~'
4,300 °-.2,800 3,500
`.4.800 �' / • w
2L 2L(6LD)
2.300 2L o 3.100
\ 4LD 2,800 4,600 5,400
\ 16,200 4,700 �: 2LD
24,400 •- 5,700
.> 4LD 8,400 4PP0
�. .a
15.500
e
i 2L w 16,400 �y0
2,300 J
,I +` 2L
_ 2.800 -'
400 ¢Fo-°
_ 1,800 2L• 7 2LD
1.600
5 500 5.300
.... ... .
\ ` -• 1.700 9,000-
- 18,000 9,700
25
2L ,500 s •<19000 2LD
\
Y-1 Z .;. 2.400 � ..19,800 8.000
`2,600- .14,000 2L
4LD' 3100- :2,200 •••0.7,600 5400. 16100 tv 2,300 9500D) $ i
1j,41- 2L NS24,800 4 .-:4LD 15,100
. 2.100 LD\ 15_000 •,•�
2.00 0 i 2,400 ' 16,800 20,400 •��E,
l 5900 6LD
6.900
2L
..
18,300 ... 6,20 v.c 4LD(6LD) •�•.,•
32,000 "< ......
'4LD• •i11 900 6LD < 13,000 '•;\ "'�
15.800•.*.,' 18,0006
1 6LD }(;';:': . . 5LD 24.100 .•••........�?�o...nSu..
22,800 `•'.•17.100''`30,70�� >`4LD`:' Up '23,100 . a„•a• '\
i.. i..r - '•22,000. (.try po
�- 6LD ' r.2L4""^..t 1`hr'30500'� /4LD /(�y1f 27,000 '`41_000
..) 6.400 / 25.100 1U
�- 18.600 •,`� _
35,100 12,100 0
27 700 44,100
' 4LD
6LD .27,70 19,000 :\
20,000 2L t^�
2LD'' .; ;: 752 22,600
1.500 61-13 ...:32.300 -
2L'
12.000 600-
`•21 000 ....
FVP 4LD
..` ,.gOV1,• 5500 42000_ 2L \, .. .
2L -v�tN 3LD 00
2L 5,800 29,400 \ 2 2
8 000
I� . 900 3,000 17,500 11 900
�.. . -' is- • •, \::._ .... .. . •.
./..�I 16.000
inrrnsrArt 580 Future Lane Requirement(4 lanes divided)` 4LD
1983 Estimated Average Daily Traffic 5,000
10,000. '
Source:TJKM Transportation Consultants 2005 Estimated Average Daily Traffic
0' 2000'
I 1 �•
FEBRUARY 7992 REVISION NOTE: See Figure H1 for 1983 and 2005 Daily Projected Traffic Volumes rD Ln
amended City Limit/Primary Planning Area Boundary.
i
Figure 5-2
BIKEWAYS
Primary Planning Area
EXISTING:
•••••• Class I
+��� - ■■■■■■■ Class II
`:':•. is PROPOSED:
00000c Class 1
000000 Class 11
Class III
M.
o �
f1 CLASS 1 BIKEWAY(BIKE PATH):
o •
Provides a completely separate bike path
' ••• o �
facility from elreala or sidewalks for
o 1
•,,,, -... o.R� ,, .,;; [ (, il,' \�. � the exclusive use of bicycles.
• o a �i ,u L-- CLASS II BIKEWAY(BIKE LANE):
I, 0•', Y \ : I , , l gip , �Y,1� 1 •\\\ ..no.....rz x.rr.sue....,w Provides a striped lane for one-way
\1`,1 0 ��' 1Ur' \� '3'r.\'// •. l �I l / bike travel on street.
CLASS III BIKEWAY(BIKE ROUTE):
Provides for shared use with either
pedestrians on the sidewalk or
` .•�,'. __ motor vehicle traffic on the street.
u
0
_ �..
�\\\
NOTE:Locations of Proposed Bikeways
:.1 t
((tl ( approximate only.
i e
- _.
!II/l
0 2057' 4114'
N
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Revised February 1992
6 .0 HOUSING-SEETleN: HOUSING ELEMENT SUMMARY
The current Housing Element, which was updated in 1990, is
contained in a separate document. This document entitled "City
of Dublin General Plan Housing Element" is available from the
City of Dublin Planning Department.
6 - 1
7 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Government Code sec. 65302 (d) requires that conservation elements
plan for the conservation, development and use of natural
resources . The statute lists resources that must be included and
suggests other resources that may be included in the element.
Finally, the statute specifically requires that countywide and
any other water development, control or conservation agencies be
included in the element ' s water analysis .
Dublin' s Conservation Element addresses the following statutorily
required elements : water resources, agricultural and other
soils , rivers and streams, and wildlife habitats . Other
important resources discussed in this element are air quality and
archaeological and historical resources . Many conservation
related resources are also important in the context of other
elements . For example, agricultural and other open spaces are
discussed in sec. 3 . 0 Parks and Open Space and sec. 4 . 0 Schools ,
Public Lands and Utilities Elements . Soil conditions related to
earthquakes and flood hazard from local streams are discussed in
sec 8 . 0 Seismic Safety and Safety Element. Each of these
elements ' counterparts in the Technical Supplement may also be
consulted for information and background on resource related
planning policies .
Still other statutorily required resources do not occur in
Dublin ' s planning area and are therefore not discussed.
Specifically, Dublin is an inland city which contains no
artificial or natural harbors . Likewise, the planning area
contains no fisheries nor mineral extraction areas .
Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley' s
most difficult conservation issues affecting urban growth, even
with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater
Management Association (LAVWMA) pipeline, and significantly
improved air quality. The extent of anticipated development now
draws greater attention to other conservation issues --
conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; loss of open
space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide-prone
areas; increased runoff; and erosion and stream siltation.
Additionally, the prospect of renewed or intensified air quality
and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans approved or under
consideration that would result in up to 200, 000 jobs in the Tri-
Valley.
6pen-spaee-resaurees-are-diseussed-in-the-apex-spaee-element;-the
seismie-safety-and-safety-elements-eensider-natural-hazards-
This-section-and-its-counterpart-in-the-Teehnieal-Supplement
consider-hpdrolegp;-habitats;-agrieultural-open-spaee;-air;-sail
resaurees7-and-arehaeelogieal=and-historie-resourees-
7 - 1
The planning area includes three zones that are distinct in terms
of topography, vegetation, and soils . The urban area within the
city' s borders and the undeveloped area just north of I-580 east
of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land
east of Camp Parks Military Reservation and Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center and south of the county line consists of
grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the
westernmost part of the planning area is composed of ridgelands
covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands on steep
slopes and in winding canyons . (These zones are referred to
below as the valley, eastern hills, and western hills portions of
the planning area, respectively. )
The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from
Contra Costa to Santa Clara counties, established as an area of
regional significance by a 1980 National Parks Service study.
The ridgelands have been the subject of preservation efforts over
the years, and also have been protected by the difficulty of
development on the steep slopes and ridges . The ridgelands of
the western hills are characterized by good quality grazing land
and woodland and forest habitats with high natural resource
values . Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of a
greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban
spread.
The eastern hills are not as valuable as the western hills in
terms of habitat, but do include grazing and hay-growing land of
unusual high quality. Throughout the extended planning area,
most of the land is under Williamson Act contracts- that prohibit
development for a minimum of ten years while providing tax
advantages to landowners .
7 . 1 STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION
The primary planning area is in the Livermore drainage unit of
the Alameda Creek watershed. Of the many streams in this
drainage area, one flows through the City -- Alamo Creek. The
creek runs along the eastern side of Dublin near Dougherty Road.
A major portion of the creek is channelized and remaining
sections have mostly been improved as a result of subdivision
developments .
The Extended Planning Area lies within other watersheds . Several
significant streams traverse the Extended Planning Area -- Hollis
Canyon and Martin Canyon Creeks in western Dublin and Tassajara
and Cottonwood Creeks in eastern Dublin. Refer to the following
documents for information on these water courses (available from
the City Planning Department) :
Western Dublin Environmental Setting - November 27, 1989
Western Dublin Draft Specific- Plan - December, 1991
Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment - December, 1991
Western Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report - December, 1991
7 - 2
Eastern Dublin Environmental Setting - November, 1988
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and
Environmental Impact Report - to be published in 1992
Guiding Policies
A. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for
stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic
resource.
B. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational
use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as
necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of
property abutting stream corridors .
Implementing Policies
C. Enforce watercourse ordinance in developed areas of city.
D. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect
all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent
flooding caused by blockage of streams .
E. Require revegetation of creek banks with species
characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where
construction requires creekbank alteration.
F. Complete and adopt the Western and Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Studies in a timely manner.
7 .2 EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL
Guiding Policies
A. Maintain natural hydrologic systems .
B. � Regulate grading and development on steep slopes .
Implementing Policies
C . Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance
establishing performance standards in relation to
maintenance of water quality and protection of stream
courses .
D. Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control .
E . Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface
runoff .
F. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
7 - 3
7 .3 OAK WOODLANDS .
Guiding Policy
A. Protect oak woodlands .
Implementing Policy
B. Require preservation of oak woodlands . Where woodlands
occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed,
permit allowable density to be transferred to another part
of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be
considered through the project review process .
C. Develop a heritage tree ordinance.
7 .4 AIR QUALITY
Implementing Policy
A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to
establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
Information on localized carbon monoxide problems will not be
available unless monitoring is conducted within the city.
7 .5 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Guiding Policy
A. Prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands . (See
Open Space policies, page 7-5 . )
Implementing Policy
B. Approval of urban development shall require findings that
the land is suitable for the proposed use and will have
adequate urban services; and that conversion to urban use
will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining
lands remaining under Williamson Act contract.
7 . 6 ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Guiding Policies
A. Continue the City' s current efforts to preserve Preserve
Dublin' s historic structures .
Seven sites in Dublin are listed in the California Historic
Resources Inventory:
the Green Store _
7 - 4
the original Murray School House
the old St. Raymond' s Church
the Alviso Adobe
The Amador Adobe
The Green Home and
The Palomares School
Refer to City of Dublin Technical Supplement, January, 1985 for
additional information on historic resources in Dublin. -ehureh
and-seheel-en-the-grounds-of-the-heritage-park.
B. Follow State regulations -- Public Resources Code Sections
21083 . 2 (c) and (d) -- regarding discovery of archaeological
sites, and Historic Resources, as defined in Section 5020 . 1
of the Public Resources Code.
7 .7 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT
Acquisition of existing open space has been accomplished through
Planned Developments and subdivision approvals . Since the
existing City is mostly built out, there will be no additional
major areas set aside for open space.
In the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas , substantial
amounts of open space will be designated for open space. Refer
to the Western Dublin Specific Plan for additional information.
The Specific Plan for eastern Dublin is expected to be completed
in 1992 It will contain designated areas of open space and
mechanisms for maintenance and management.
In addition, the City' s Park and Recreation Master Plan (to be
completed in 1992 ) will contain information on open space
acquisition and maintenance.
Guiding Policy
A. Require open space management and maintenance programs for
open space areas established through subdivisions and
Planned Development districts . Programs should include
standards to ensure control of potential hazards;
appropriate setbacks ; and management of the open space so
that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image.
Implementing Policy
B. Require that land designated as open space through
development approval be permanently restricted to open space
use by recorded map or deed.
C . Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes .
D. Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low
maintenance costs in revegetation-of cut and fill slopes .
7 - 5
E . Access roads (including emergency access roads ) , arterial
streets and collector streets that must pass through open
space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the
maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological
and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space
area.
F. Prohibit development within designated open space areas
except that designed to enhance public safety and the
environmental setting.
G. Complete the City' s Park and Recreation Master Plan in a
timely manner.
7 - 6
8 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENT
8 . 1 SEISMIC SAFETY
Government Code sec . 65302 (8) requires safety elements to propose
policies and programs to protect communities from unreasonable
seismic, geologic, flooding and fire risks . The statute requires
that seismic and geologic hazard areas be mapped. It also
requires the element to address evacuation routes , peakload water
supply, minimum road widths and structural clearances for
geologic and fire hazards identified in the element .
Accordingly, Dublin' s Seismic Safety Element assesses the risk of
ground shaking, rupture, and failure due to earthquakes . The
element discusses landslide, subsidence and liquefaction hazards .
It also discusses flooding, and urban and wildland fires .
Related discussion and analysis of these hazards is located in
the Technical Supplement, sec . 4 . 1 Conservation Element and sec.
4 . 2 Seismic Safety and Safety Element.
The planning area offers examples of most of the geologic hazards
commonly found in California, but only two -- downslope movement
(mainly landslides) and earthquake fault surface rupture -- are
significant constraints on the location of urban development.
Downslope movement includes landslides, rockfalls, debris flows,
and soil creep. Factors affecting downslope movement are
groundwater, rock and soil type, slope angle, propensity to
erosion, seismic activity, vegetation, and grading or other human
alterations .
The Calaveras Fault is the major active fault in the planning
area with rupture potential and runs parallel to and just west of
San Ramon Road. The Pleasanton Fault, near the west edge of Camp
Parks, is difficult to locate precisely. The State has
established Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones along both
faults, requiring detailed studies of rupture hazards prior to
construction.
Few potential building sites within the City of Dublin or the
extended planning area are without geologic impact or hazard.
The hazard may be actual, such as an active landslide or
proximity to an active fault, or potential, such as a proposed
cut that might activate a landslide. Mitigation of hazards may
increase construction cost, but will reduce long-term costs to
both property owners and the city. '
8 - 1
Guiding Policy
A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be
located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve
life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial
risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that
would result from damage to poorly located public
facilities .
Implementation Policies
8 . 1 . 1 Structural and Grading Requirements
A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated
in the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance.
A "design earthquake" shall be established by an engineering
geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a
significant design factor.
B. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50
feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and
storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These
distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to
accurately locate the fault trace.
C. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential
rupture zones , although certain low-risk facilities may be
considered. Critical facilities that must cross . a fault,
such as oil, gas, and water lines, should be designed to
accommodate the maximum expected offset from fault rupture.
Site specific evaluations should determine the maximum
credible offset.
8 . 1 .2 Required Geotechnical Analyses
A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for
all subdivisions . Any other facility that could create a
geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside
terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards
described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be
evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a
registered engineering geologist.
B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative
subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide
Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints
map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary
investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard.
Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage.
The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard
Area Boundary must consider:
8 - 2
cumulative effect of new development on a partially
developed slide;
effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and
altered drainage patterns;
impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault
through or under landslide deposits;
debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially
common east of Dublin) . Care must be taken not to
locate structures in the path of potential debris
flows .
Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or
Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development,
their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the
proposed development on the area' s stability must be
evaluated by a soils engineer.
C . If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential,
an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to
mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all
structures planned for human occupancy.
D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with
all soils reports and design recommendations formulated
where the potential is present. These analyses and
recommendations shall include public streets and utilities,
in order to reduce future public repair costs .
E . A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of
California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act) ,
shall be required for all development within the Revised
Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and
Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be
conducted after building sites are specifically defined.
Sites situated outside of this zone but within the
Preliminary Zones (Slossen,. 1973) shall be evaluated if
proposed for multi-family dwellings or for public or
recreational facilities .
F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be
significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils
conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or
soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of
those conditions . In addition, any conditions discovered
during excavation or grading that significantly depart from
the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be
evaluated.
8 . 1 . 3 Existing Structures
A. Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing
structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are
incorporated. -
8 - 3
8 . 1 .4 Data Review and Collection
A. A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be
established with the Alameda County Geologist or a
consulting engineering geologist shall be retained as -
reviewer. This individual shall participate in the review
process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of
the project.
B. A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans
shall be maintained as reference material for future
planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent
sites .
C. City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards
to present and future occupants and property owners .
8 . 1 .5 Earthquake Response Plan
A. In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response
Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency
Operations Plan (updated March 1980) . The directive applies
fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract
cities . Dublin will adopt the-Eounty-directive-or-will
formulate-its-awn-plan.-its own multi-hazard response plan.
B. The City will prepare a route plan for evacuation of Dublin
in the event of a major seismic event.
8 .2 SAFETY
Policies relating to landslides, a significant geologic hazard,
are included in the seismic safety element, although not all
slides are likely to be induced by earthquakes . Fire, flood, and
hazardous materials are the remaining safety concerns addressed
in the General Plan.
8 .2 . 1 Emergency Preparedness Guiding Policy
A. Develop an emergency preparedness plan in coordination with
other public agencies .
8 .2 .2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection
The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) -Bublin-San-Ramon
Serniees-BiBtriet provides urban fire protection with a sworn
staff of 3850 responding to over 1, 250 calls per year from two
stations . The "3" insurance rating given to the District is the
best reasonably achievable.
For fire protection, the Authority requires 1,500 gallons per
minute for two hours, which equates to- 180, 000 gallons . Dublin
8 - 4
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) supplies water to the City of
Dublin. Currently, the District has a capacity of 10, 500 gallons
per minute On a peak day, 5,250 gallons per minute is used for
domestic purposes, leaving 3,750 gallons per minute for fire
fighting or other uses . According to the Fire Authority, there
has been sufficient water to accommodate fire calls in the City
of Dublin (Personal Communication, Harold Ritter, former Fire
Chief, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, January 23 , 1992 . )
Steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in
the western hills . Major personnel and equipment additions would
be needed to protect development in the extended planning area.
DRFA BSRSB does currently provide protection to Camp Parks
Military Reservation and to Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
under contract with the County of Alameda. and-is-not-able-to
serve-these-areas-at-present-
Guiding Policy
A. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of
development approval in the western hills outside the
primary planning area.
Implementing Policies
B. A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the
perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to
undeveloped open space land.
B.-C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying
----------Fire-retardant-roof-materials;-spark-arrestors;-water
storage;-and-vegetation-elearanee-around-structures-
Sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes
response time from a station.
D. Continue to enforce the City' s Fire Safe Roof and Spark
Arrestor ordinances .
Guiding Policy
E-E. Prepare and implement a plan for facilities and personnel at
one or more fire stations east of Tassajara Road as a
condition of development approval in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area.
8 .2 . 3 Flooding
Figure 8-2 delineates flood prone areas in the existing City
limits The areas shown identify the 100 and 500 year flood
zones Since this map was published, the City has implemented_
some downstream improvements and the map will ultimately be
amended by the Flood Emergency Management Agency.
8 - 5
Most of the areas in the 100 year flood plain have been built
upon. Any new construction in flood prone areas is required to
construct the floor above the floodplain level, per the
requirements of the City Public Works Department.
Flooding has not been a major problem in Dublin. In 1983 , heavy
storms carried debris down from the western hills blocking drains
and causing flooding of backyards and several homes in the
Silvergate area . Drains were cleaned and the situation was
alleviated.
Some channel improvements were made in the Scarlett Court area in
1983 and improvements were also implemented along Alamo Creek,
adjacent to Dougherty Road. There are currently (as of January
1992 ) no major flood improvement projects needed or planned for
in the city of Dublin.
Heavy-storms-in-early-1983-earred-debris-dawn-€ram-the-western
hills-bleeking-drains-and-eansing-flooding-a€-baekyards-and
several-homes-in-the-Silvergate-area-
Guiding Policy
A. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by
preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek
channels with ample right-of-way for maintenance and for
maximum anticipated flow.
Implementing Policies (See also Conservation Element policies,
page 7-3 . )
B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition
of subdivision approval .
C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of
woodlands . Removal of an individual oak tree may be
considered through the project review process .
D. Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and
assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be
completed as needed prior to approval of development in the
extended planning area.
E. Continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency' s (FEMA) flood insurance program.
F. Prepare an annual update of flood prone areas and related
issues and present to the City Council for their information
and appropriate action, if any.
8 - 6
8 .2 .4 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are transported on the freeways and some are
used by Dublin industries . DSRSD, Fire Department and the Dublin
Police Department form the City' s hazardous materials team.
Guiding Policy
A. Maintain and enhance ability to regulate use, transport, and
storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify
substances and take appropriate action during emergencies .
Implementing Policy
B. Consider formation of a hazardous materials team consisting
of specially trained personnel from all Tri-Valley public
safety agencies .
C. Implement the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, when it is approved by the State.
D.E.- Adopt an ordinance to regulate handling, transport, and
storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
8 - 7
I
i Figure 8-1
Dublin General Plan
V.
All
CIA- or
vlj%il ... :,
T i
G
4`m _ X��,,,.,,•, Pte' / / %. j•/ /
A ,
/ %/% i x \ a /////
0.' 0
OGeologic azards and Constraints
Extended Planning Area
o t tulle ® Slopes 301/6 and Greater
I I
l_arjdslide Hazard Area Boundary
Defiled Geologic Investigation Required
Earthquake IaultZones
Preliminary Special Studies Zones(1973)
® Algl 1st-Priolo Special Studies Zones(1982)
FEI RUARY 1992 REVISION NOTE: See Figure Y2 for
amended City Limit/Primary Planning Area Boundary.
R_R
Figure 8-2
_ _ CONTRA COSTA CO "
/ 2 .
,°`--- ALAMEDA CO
-------- -- — t' — —
��_� •{ �.`-_ye o �� r'' I iisH—6-WAY
KEY TO MAP
S00-Year Flood Boundary -� pp�+ t)NE B tl s K \' ^•^_"<• 14'ii( y7, y's°"+y 4�q \ � �I 1
100-Year Flood Boundaryi ° t'
Zone Designations-
100-Year Flood Boundary yl 'I ^r.� ? 1 1
500-Year Flood Boundary
Base Flood Elevation Line 513 \ \ """� I `ra •�. __! 'fir S I `r
With Elevation In Feet••
d � •� �� F,�,II 4,i :�"`t = �oN�d°.-�„� <,,.•. 1 ..<_...,, Greek/,tee/ i
<iiReferenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Dalum of 1929 \a �a, \ 'F � y ,p",[ .! •,,,,,,, 0 �1 �3,k#'
3 Cme! P j
_ F 5 y' p• §
*EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLANATION p
I :rt ( ¢ 9 S d !�wsnECO�
Al-A30 Areas of 100-Year deter base flood elevations and R =vee ' $ \ 't zonEC
flood hazard Iuiors determined. a:yyY�-zW9vE 88 ,iF � Me `-ij ff
B Areas between limits of the 100 Year flood and 500- p3
year flood;or«rwin areas subject to I00-yew flood- y I ---'y, g' ,/' -z-n,• � .� sss<•F4»-;
Ing with average depths less than one(1(tool nr whore
the on vibufing drainage area Is less than one square nqr M I 251 �1 Cpr1:y Ly, a,• F a' sI is
mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flooJ. J 1 X333 6P [o 4
o
(mdmm shading) `l
\�° \ � o o-:}_ � 4 .... d za'8"� �.•,_ �. n ��Q� Ye°..`>.` Qom® �... «7/,
I,
(1 ^^a
VALLEY
/ HlNSEH__0.11'F J t-
/ Ftzh C
Line
os
l —� bk
•
s
FIRM - \..• , h � ,
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP �� ` '"`° // ' � � ` A
/ I of %
r,I Dublin GYee,C ��' ✓ \ a � tP ``� s 5k
of
CITY OF a s _ _. _=
DUBLIN,
I
CALIFORNIA ��
t b
' 1
ALAMEDA COUNTY V'iM1 ;i_• -:
EFFECTIVE DATE: �'Q ' Eo
FEBRUARY 1992 REVISION NOTE: See Figure N1 for "`; =_:, __; -.I`', e
AUGUST 18, 1983 amended City Limit/Primary Planning Area Boundary. ..........3a
«,1; rD
a 00
Federal Emergency Management Agency ro
1
9 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION: NOISE ELEMENT
Government Code sec 65302 ( f) outlines statutory requirements for
noise elements Recognizing the State Office of Noise Control
(ONC) guidelines, noise elements must quantify current and
projected noise levels for local noise sources . Among the noise
sources to be evaluated are highways, freeways, arterials and
major streets, railroads and rapid transit systems, airports and
heliports , industrial plants, and any other local sources .
Traffic noise and potential light rail noise are the only major
noise sources in Dublin' s planning area. The focus of this noise
element, therefore, is the effect of traffic and transit noise on
locating categories of land use and developing projects within_
those categories . Information supporting_ the adopted noise
policies is located in the corresponding Noise Element section of
the Technical Supplement. The planning area contains no
railroads , airports, heliports or industrial plants . Since these
noise sources are not a factor in Dublin' s planning, they are not
addressed.
Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin.
Noise exposure contours have been plotted for 1983 (based on
noise measurements and current traffic data) and projected to
2005 based on traffic volume increases (see Figures 9-1 and 9-2) .
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) described 24-hour
average noise levels measured in decibels (dB) taking account of
the increased sensitivity of people to noise during evening and
nighttime hours . Sound levels between 7 : 00 and 10 : 00 p.m. are
penalized 5 dB and those between 10 : 00 p.m. and 7 : 00 a.m. are
penalized 10 dB. The dB scale is logarithmic; a 3 dB difference
normally is discernable and a 10 dB increase is subjectively
heard as a doubling in loudness .
The other potential significant noise source is the two proposed
BART stations . Based on best available information (as of
January 1992 ) one station will be located in downtown Dublin,
near existing commercial development. The other station will be
located on Alameda County property, west of the Hacienda
interchange.
Noise im a� cts from these two stations were addressed in the
"Draft Environmental Impact Report - Dublin/Pleasanton Extension
Project, " September 1989 . This document was certified on
February 8 , 1990 . A copy of this document is available from the
City Public Works Department. No areas near the Dublin stations
were identified where noise or vibration would exceed acceptable
standards .
The Land Use Compatibility Table provides the basis for decisions
on location of land uses in relation to noise sources, and for
determining noise mitigation needs . For noise issues in the
Western and Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Areas, refer to the
9 - 1
individual specific plan and environmental documents being -
prepared for these areas . These documents are expected to be
completed and adopted in 1992 .
Guiding Policy
A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated
by Table 9 . 1 : Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments .
Implementing Policies
B. Request Caltrans to provide noise walls at least seven feet
high along both sides of I-680 between Amador Valley
Boulevard and the Alcosta interchange when additional
freeway lanes are constructed.
Future noise, if not mitigated, will subject about 2 ,700
residents to levels exceeding 65 CNEL. The noise wall would
reduce noise by 10 dB, making this the most cost-effective noise
reduction project in Dublin. Actual wall height would be
determined during project design.
C. Encourage homeowners west of San Ramon Road who are affected
by I-580 noise to construct noise barriers on their
properties where these would be effective and require such
barriers for new development. This policy also applies to
sites adjoining the west side of San Ramon Road at higher
elevations .
Where the noise source is below the receptors, only barriers near
the receptor will be effective. About 5 dB noise reduction could
be achieved.
D. Support unified action by residential owners on the east
side of San Ramon Road and along Village Parkway to install,
repair, or extend noise barriers .
Much of this frontage was developed before effective noise
barriers were required as a condition of subdivision approval .
Because construction for a single lot is costly, relatively
ineffective, and potentially unattractive, the City should assist
in the formation of assessment districts or otherwise promote
group action where there is consensus that a problem exists .
E . Design Dougherty Road improvements and adjoining residential
development for compliance with noise standards .
This corridor offers the opportunity to do it right the first
time without continuous walls . Berms, open space, garages near
the road, and noise-conscious site planning can be used.
9 - 2
F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be
analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant.
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation
features in building design. Conventional construction, but with
closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning
will normally suffice.
Source: California Office of Noise Control, 1976, as modified by
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
G. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to
approval of light rail or bus service in the Southern
Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation Corridor.
A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could
make light rail a good neighbor.
H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the
projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise
standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room) as required by
State law.
Because the General Plan designates almost all residential sites
subject to 60 or greater CNEL for multi-family development, this
standard will be effective in Dublin. Project designers may use
one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures :
site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise
source, for example) , noise barriers, or construction
modifications .
TABLE 9.1
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB)
Conditionally
Acceptable
Land Use Normally (Noise Insulation) Normally Clearly
Category Acceptable Features Required Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80
Schools, churches,
nursing homes 60 or less 60 - 70 70 - 80 Over 80
Neighborhood
parks 60 or less 60 - 65 65 - 70 Over 70
offices: retail
commercial 70 or less 70 - 75 75 - 80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 70 - 75 Over 75
9 - 3
Figure 9,-1
• f
=f=
60
C'
hj
W
f�
s
70 75
BS
-fJ es
_p es
Z.
J
Y• y�
t 9
did$
�4�" ±��"$kmkmYkakaszmd
t {
es mkkmqg BgYy+mmkkk88kk89mk8mk8Yk8tsm8kk
a*
55 M
70 ter,
a L \ /
70
FEBRUARY 1992 REVISION NOTE: See Figure M1 for
amended City Limit/Primary Planning Area Boundary.
Source: Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc.
Lo
1 z000 1983 Noise Exposure Contours
rigure 9,2
s `
ti i' •
V^
L
.. 75 ,.
4
65 _ fYYfPAi#YA#X i I
p1tY.....#Y#APAX9A(#PaY....1 A#X
:: i 70 >• i
i :::_ - : ^+++• �w<-,-«.w..- 76.E--�._
es
• �i
ro \
it
j
\� FEBRUARY 1992 REVISION NOTE: See Figure #1 for
amended City Limit/Primary Planning Area Boundary.
Source: Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc.
0' 2000'
I � i 2005 Projected Noise Exposure Contours
N
APPENDICES
v
r
APPENDIX A
Previous General Plan Amendments
The following amendments have been made to the Dublin General Plan
since its adoption in 1985 .
Approval
Dates
Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. 55-87 7/21/87
Hansen Hill Ranch Resolution No. 21-89 2/27/89
Civic Center Resolution No. 81-89 6/26/89
Donlan Canyon Resolution No. 98-89 8/14/89
Revised Housing Element Resolution No. 74-90 6/11/90
Dougherty Regional Fire District
Resolution No. 86-91 8/26/91
Dublin Meadows/JL Construction (Housing Element
Revision) Resolution No. 92-91 9/9/91
A - 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
TECHNICAL REVISIONS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Recitals
1 . As part of a periodic review of the 1985 General Plan, the
City Staff has prepared certain technical revisions to the 1985
General Plan.
2 . The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated August 13 , 1992 ,
designates the proposed amendments to the text of the 1985 General
Plan. The General Plan Amendment also includes adoption of Technical
Appendices (excluding the Draft EIR) as part of the General Plan.
3 . Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law,
it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the
City's General Plan.
- 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment on August 17 , 1992 .
After considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-045,
recommending City Council's adoption of the draft Technical Revisions
General Plan Amendment.
5 . The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
draft Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment on September 14 ,
1992 .
6. A Staff Report dated September 14 , 1992, was prepared for
the Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment, which report described
the amendment and identified issues related to the amendment.
7. The Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment was reviewed
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act through the preparation of a Negative Declaration. On
September 9 , 1991 , by Resolution No. 91-91, the City Council approved
the Negative Declaration.
8 . The City Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and all written and oral testimony submitted at
the public hearing held on September 14 , 1992 .
9. Certain policies have been added to the City's General Plan
by prior amendments but have not been physically incorporated into the
general plan document. These include the following: Low-Density
Single Family land use category (p. 1-6) , Guiding policy G (p.5-8) ,
Guiding Policy A (p. 7-5) , Implementing Policies B through G (pp. 7-5
and 7-6) and Implementing Policy B (p. 8-5) .
/gptech2
ATTACHMENT Z
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby
approve the Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment including tent
changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council adopts the Technical
Appendices (except for the Draft Environmental Impact Report) dated
February 1984 as part of the City's General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council directs staff to
edit, format and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all
City Council approved revisions, including the addition of the Low
Density Single Family land use category (p. 1-6) , Guiding Policy G (p.
5-8) , Guiding Policy A (p. 7-5) , Implementing Policies B through G
(pp. 7-5 and 7-6) , and Implementing Policy B (p. 8-5) .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shall become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September, 1992 ,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
/gptech2
'J CITY OF DUBLIN
PO. Box 2'�0, Dublin, Calrcrr, C,y Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin. Caiifcr:._ _ �oG
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR:
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. )
LOCATION: Citywide and assessors parcels 941-2765-82 to 296
DESCRIPTION:
1. Adopt Volume 2 , Technical Supplement as part of the General Plan
and make appropriate text changes to the Background section of the
General Plan.
2 . Correct typographical/editorial errors in the Background section
of the General Plan; the Parks and Recreation and Circulation and
Scenic Highways Elements of the General Plan and the Technical
Supplement to the General Plan.
3 . Add statutory discussion and references to the introductions c-f
the Land Use; Parks and Open Space; Schools, Public Lands and
Utilities; Circulation and Scenic Highways; Conservation; Seismic
Safety and Safety; and Noise Elements of the Gener&l Plan. Add
notation where statutory requirements do not apply to Dublin.
4 . Add implementation policies reflecting existing City programs in
the Parks and Open Space Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways
Element and the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the General Plan.
5 . Add text to the Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element to
reflect recent statutory changes.
6 . Amend maps and/or text of the Background section of the General
Plan and the Land Use Element to make the General Plan internally
consistent.
7 . Amend the Housing Element of the General Plan to allow fees to be
paid in-lieu of a requirement by Housing Element Policy IIIE which
requires a percentage of units in large multifamily projects (i .e. ,
projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period o-
time.
8 . Adoption of an ordinance to allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a
requirement that a percentage of units in large multifamily projects
be rented for a specified period of time.
Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415)833.6605 • Finance (415) 833-6610 Building Insoec"on (415) 833-66=C
Coda Enforcement (415) 833.6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415) 833-6610
Police (1.5'! 833-6670 • Put'..'A!__r<.s (417)Z3.32-6630 • Recreation (415) 833.6615
. 9 . Adoption of an ordinance allowing an inclusionary housing policy
and payment of in-lieu fees as permitted by Program IB of the Housing
Element.
10 . Adoption of an ordinance permitting a density bonus program as
permitted by Program IA of the Housing Element and Sections 65913 . 4 ,
65915 and 65917 of the Government Code.
11 . Planned Development rezone for Dublin Meadows PA 91-001 to allow
fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement that a minimum of 10% of
multifamily units be maintained as rentals for a period of five years.
NAME OF PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 91-01 , related implementing
actions and Planned Development Rezone (Dublin
Meadows)
PROPONENT: City of Dublin.
FINDINGS' The project will not have a significant
impact on the environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a
brief discussion of the following environmental
component.
1) Housing
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 833-6610 .
t'_�k SIGNATURE'
•Laurence L. Tong, la ning Director
DATE: February 25 , 1991
LLT/DHC:
/JLGPAND
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 045
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION REO,,OMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF TECHNICAL REVISIONS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Recitals
1 . As part of a periodic review of the 1985 General Plan, the City
Staff has prepared certain technical revisions to the 1985 General Plan .
2 . The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated August 13, 1992 ,
designates the proposed amendments to the text of the 1985 General Plan.
The General Plan Amendment also includes adoption of Technical Appendices
as part of the General Plan, except for the Draft Environmental Impact
Report .
3 . Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it
is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin
to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City' s General
Plan.
4 . A Staff Report dated August 17, 1992, was prepared for the
Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment, which report described the
amendment and identified issues related to the amendment .
5 . The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment on August 17 , 1992 .
6 . The Technical Revisions General Plan Amendment was reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
through the preparation of a Negative Declaration. On September 9 , 1991,
by Resolution No. 91-91 , the City Council approved the Negative
Declaration.
7 . The Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony
submitted at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends City Council approval of the Technical Revisions General Plan
Amendment including text changes and adoption of the Technical Appendices
dated August 17 , 1992 .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 1992 , by the
following vote:
AYES : Commissioners Barnes, Burnham and North
NOES : None
ABSENT: Commissioners Rafanelli and Zika
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
I
Planning Director
/gptech ATTACHMENT
/,i X11
19 ® ' ® 82,
IFOR���
Lieneral Plan
t;lty of Dublin
Volume 2: Technical Supplement
�J
j
Draft
February, 1984
ATTACHMENT
SCH #84011002
I-Al ..: QA 945M
9
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT AND
- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
D R A F T February 8, 1984
Prepared for the City of Dublin by
Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners
TJKM, Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek
Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Emeryville
Charles M. Salter & Associates, Inc., Acoustical'Consultants, San Francisco
w.J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
LISTOF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LISTOF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1. PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2. GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND WORKING PAPERS . . . . . . . . . 1-1
SECTION 2: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1. LAND USE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.1. Residential Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.2. Commercial and Industrial
Development: Retailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-2
2.1.3. Commercial and Industrial
Development: Offices . 2-5
2.1.4. Commercial and Industrial•Development:
Manufacturing and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.2. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2.1. Agricultural Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2.2. Open Space For Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3. SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES
FACILITIES ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.3.1. Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.3.2. Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.3.3. Sewage Treatment and Disposal . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.3.4. Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.3.5. Solid Waste Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 4
•
2.4. CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
2.4.1. Daily Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service . . . . . . . • • • • 2_22
2.4.2. Projected Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
2.4.3. Freeway Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . 2_22
2.4.4. Traffic Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . 2_23
2.4.5. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
2.4.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.7. Status of Major Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
3.0. HOUSING ELEMENT . 3-1
3.0. HOUSING ELEMENT (detailed Table of Contents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-i
4.1. CONSERVATION ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.1. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.1.3. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.1.4. Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.1.4. Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4.1.6. Archaeologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
i
i f
4.1.7. Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.2. SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.2.1. Geomorphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.2.2. Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.2.3. Tectonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.2.4. Downslope Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 -
4.2.5. Liquefaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.2.6. Shrink-Swell Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.2.7. Lurch Cracking and Lateral Spreading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
4.2.8. Differential Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
4.2.9. Seiche and Tsunami. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
4.2.10. Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
4.2.11. High Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25
4.2.12. Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25
4.3. NOISE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26
5.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Draft Environmental Impact Report (detailed Table of Contents) . . . . . . . . I
Project Staff
ii
i
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
2-1 Comparative Taxable Sales, 1979 vs. .
1982 (Third Quarter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2-2 Park Sites Within the City of Dublin . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2-3 Popular Activities . - o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2-4 Murray School District: Current and Potential Enrollment
at Buildout Proposed General Plan and Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2-5 Estimated 1983 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on
SelectedStreets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2-6 Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Conditions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
4-1 Biotic Communities of the Livermore Amador Valley. . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4-2 Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station
and Contaminant: 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4-3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
4-4 Relationship Between Magnitude, Intensity and
Peak Ground Acceleration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
4-5 Major Historic San Francisco Bay Area Earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
4-6 Recent San Francisco Bay Area Earthquakes of
Magnitudes Greater than 5.0 since 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
4-7 CNEL Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27
-- 4-8 Result of Noise Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
4-9 Typical Sound Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
4-10 1983 and Projected 2005 Noise Exposure. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32.
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
3-1 Sites for Housing Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 3-32
4-1 Geologic Map - Within City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
'4-2 Types of Fault Movement 4-14
4-3 Active Faults and Earthquake Epicenters
in the San Francisco Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
4-4 Study Area Landslide Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4-5 Development of Man-Made Bedrock Landslides .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4-6 Four Ways to Make a Stable Cut Slope Unstable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4-7 Schematic Landslide Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
111
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
This volume contains three items:
1. Background data and analyses used in preparation of the Plan Policies Report
(which together with the plan maps constitutes the adopted General Plan for
elements other than the Housing Element).
2. The Housing Element, which by law must include in its adopted form data and
analyses that exceed the level of detail appropriate to other elements of the
General Plan.
3. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which must be certified as com-
plete by the City Council prior to adoption of the General Plan. Most of the
information required for the EIR appears elsewhere in this volume and is incor-
porated in the EIR by ref erence.
The reasons for separating the material in this volume from the Plan Policies report
are clarity and brevity. A person attempting to understand the City's adopted policies
should not have to search through long analyses or descriptions of existing conditions.
Also, it makes no sense to adopt background material as part of city policy. The
Technical Supplement is intended to serve as a resource for persons who wish to exam-
ine in detail the rationale for the proposed plan policies and as a data base for.future
planning work in Dublin. The sequence of the Technical Supplement follows that of
i the Plan Policies report to facilitate cross reference.
1.2 GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND WORKING PAPERS
The proposed General Plan was prepared by Blayney-Dyett, incorporating data and
advice received from members of the public and the City staff as well as decisions
(choices among planning options) by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
following working papers, portions of which appear in this volume with revisions,
served as the basis for discussion at public meetings:
Detailed Work Program, May 2, 1983; revised May 25, 1983
Working Paper 1: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues,
June 21, 1983; revised September, 1983
Working Paper 2: Analysis of Planning Options, August 17, 1983
Working Paper 3: Description of Alternative Sketch Plans,
November 17, 1983
Some sections of the Technical Supplement include a list of "Planning Issues." These
are excerpted from Working Paper 1 and are included to indicate the kinds of ques-
tions that were explored during the General Plan preparation process.
1-1
_.J
SECTION 2
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
- 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT
/ 8.1.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (Residential land use is discussed in the Housing
Element)
2.1.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: RETAILING
Virtually all of Dublin's commercial and industrial development is contiguous, extend-
ing north from the I-580 Freeway at the south edge of the city. In 1980, the total
floor area in commercial districts was 2.3 million square feet and 78 percent of the
355 acres of commercially zoned land were developed. Most of the retail outlets are
in one of the eleven shopping centers—many adjoining and none with strong separate
identity. Only one, San Ramon Village Plaza, a neighborhood center at San Ramon
Road and Alcosta Boulevard, is entirely removed from the grouping that forms down-
town Dublin. Downtown is perhaps the only true multi-ownership central business
district that has been built in in Northern California since World War II, having about
twice as many stores as a typical regional shopping center. It was built at a time
when the development community thought only in terms of shopping centers, but
because the market grew slowly there never was the potential for a dominant shopping
center until Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center opened in Pleasanton in 1981.
Dublin's anchor tenants are Mervyn's, Ward's, Gemco, and K-Mart, while Stoneridge
has attracted the usual mainstays of a Bay Area regional center—Macy's, Emporium/
Capwell's, and Penney's.
It appears that Stoneridge may have opened "early"—either with the expectation that
growth would be faster or because of a desire to preempt a maket. The overall impact
of Stoneridge on Dublin has not been severe, and some Dublin merchants may have
been helped by the additional customers attracted to the area. There are few retail
vacancies in downtown Dublin, and sales tax figures show sales gains three times the
East Bay.average during the 1979-82 period, despite low population growth in the
trade area, the opening of Stoneridge, and the effect of recession on consumers. Tax-
` able sales in 1982 are estimated at $265 million, based on third and fourth quarter
reports of transactions.
Dublin's 251 retail outlets held 39 percent of the total sales tax permits and accounted
for 77 percent of the dollar volume subject to sales tax. Table 2-1 compares Dublin
sales with those in competing cities. Dublin's share of total taxable sales in Alameda
and Contra Costa counties increased nearly 25 percent since 1979—moving from 1.8 to
_ 2.2 percent. During the same period, Pleasanton doubled its share with the opening of
Stoneridge, but its total was still below Dublin's.
The following analysis of sales capacity for existing and potentially expanded retail
floor area is based on approximate data that are several years old, but the results are
sufficiently accurate for planning purposes.
2-2
TABLE 2-1
COMPARATIVE TAXABLE SALES,
1979 VS. 1982 (Third Quarter)
Percentage
Sales in Share of Total
Millions of Dollars Sales in East Bay
Percent Percent
City 1979 1982 Change 1979 1982 Change
Oakland $447 $480 +7.4 18.2 17.3 -4.7
Hayward 218 216 -0.9 8.9 7.8 -12.3
Concord 168 203 +20.8 6.8 7.3 +7.9
Fremont 133 159 +19.5 5.4 5.7 +6.4
Walnut Creek 103 136 +32.0 4.2 4.9 +17.0
Pleasant Hill 51 73 +43.1 2.1 2.6 +25.6
Dublin 45a 62 +37.8 1.8 2.2 +24.5
Pleasanton 22 51 +131.8 0.9 1.8 +100.8
Livermore 35 46 +31.4 1.4 17 +18.7
East Bay (Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties) 2,454 2,767 +12.8 100.0 100.0 -
aSales estimate for 1979 is from Board of Equalization for businesses within city
limits. Third quarter sales are estimated from annual sales, applying 1981 statewide
average of 25.4 percent.
Source: California Board of Equalization.
Sales Capacity
An Alameda County Planning Department survey in January, 1980 found 1.85 million
square feet 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. Commercial floor area not de-
voted 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
2-3
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 f oot.
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 parking 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, al-
though the limitations of the circulation system may prevent bringing 2.5 times the
present number of patrons to downtown.
Strengths of Downtown:
Dominant location (with Stoneridge) to serve 160,000 present residents and a
potential population of 250,000 plus a secondary market area including Alamo,
Danville, and Tracy. Santa Clara County, a saturated market, supports one
regional shopping center for each 135,000 residents.
— Large enough trade area and low enough rents for one-of-a-kind stores serving
trade area such as pianos, coins, wigs, trophies, and dictating equipment.
Dominant auto sales, service, parts, and accessories concentration for trade area.
Dominant building specialties center.
— Trade area's largest restaurant choice within small area.
In summary, Dublin offers many of the advantages of the traditional downtown-
_ variety, wide rent range, and accessibility.
Weaknesses of Downtown:
One story buildings and dominance of paved areas make downtown much like a
commercial strip despite its relatively compact form.
2-4
i
i
— Lack of public street frontage and lack of strong shopping center identity make
many stores hard to find for first-time shoppers.
— Aside from difficulty in finding specific establishments, the overall layout is
difficult to comprehend and offers the newcomer few points of orientation.
— Lack of public streets concentrates traffic at a small number of intersections.
— Vehicular circulation between parking lots of adjoining shopping centers in some
instances is inconvenient or not well-defined. Little provision is made for
pedestrian convenience and security.
2.1.3 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: OFFICES
Dublin attracted the first regional headquarters offices in the Tri-Valley. Its proven
efficiency as an office location for firms doing business throughout the Bay Area has
given impetus to the major business park projects underway in Pleasanton. Dublin
offices may lack the high-style corporate image available at other Tri-Valley loca-
tions, but they can be pleasant—as many are—and will probably continue to maintain
rents below and occupancy above the Tri-Valley average. In the near term at least,
Dublin office tenants will have the best choice of restaurants and most convenient
business services.
2.1.4 COMMERICAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTION
By 1980 two-thirds of Dublin's industrially zoned land was developed. It is significant
that total floor area in industrial districts represented 28 percent of developed land
area, indicating little opportunity for expansion on partially developed sites. With
parking and minimal landscaping, a floor area to site area ratio of 35 percent is close
to the maximum attainable. A few sites east of Dougherty Road have low intensity
uses that could be replaced by more intensive development.
With only about 60 acres of undeveloped industrial land remaining, Dublin continues to
lose manufacturers and distributors as they outgrow their space and are unable to find
larger space in Dublin. The availability of a variety of small spaces and the relatively
low cost basis for Dublin industrial buildings makes them very attractive for new and
young industries, allowing Dublin to function as an incubator and ensuring high occu-
pancy.
The 23 percent of Dublin's taxable sales that are contributed by the 393 businesses not
classified as retail outlets is evidence of the importance of Dublin as a location for
manufacturers and small businesses that make some sales to final consumers—building
supply houses, building subcontractors, auto repair establishments, and miscellaneous
repair services.
Any business park development on the north frontage of I-580 east of Santa Rita would
be directly competitive with Hacienda Business Park and similar projects in Pleasan-
ton and Livermore that must carry high start-up costs for streets and utilities and
possibly for mitigation of environmental impacts. Build-out probably would require
2-5
20 years or longer, although industries desiring freeway visibility might snap up the
frontage. About 700 gross acres would be available, extending to an average depth of
1,300 feet from the freeway. Assuming 30 employees per acre, this north freeway
frontage could accommodate up to 21,000 jobs.
PLANNING ISSUES
1. Future character of downtown retailing—continue as low-priced retail center or
make effort to attract more high-end stores.
2. Means of improving downtown identity, clarity of organization, and ability to find
stores.
3. Potential for cooperative efforts among shopping center owners to improve
appearance and circulation between centers.
4. Potential for long-term intensification of downtown by adding stores, offices,
parking structures, and possibly housing in multi-story buildings.
5. Comparative contributions to vitality of downtown Dublin from housing and office
development on sites near downtown where either use is viable (both west of San
Ramon Road and elsewhere).
6. Potential for adding office space through intensification of downtown development
by adding parking structures or mid-rise buildings.
7. Type and timing of development of north I-580 frontage east of Santa Rita.
2-6
1 1
2.2 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
2.2.1 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE
Most of the unwooded portions of the extended planning area are used for grazing.
Typical yields are three times the state average for rangeland. Alameda County, in
the Conservation Element of its General Plan, places the entire western portion of the
planning area in the PR, prime range land, classification. The portion of the planning
area east of the city is classified as prime rangeland in the hill areas near the county
line, and PA, prime agricultural land, in the flat area near I-580. A preliminary Draft
Important Farmlands Map prepared in 1983 by the Soil Conservation Service desig-
nates most of the extended planning area as "Farmlands of Local Importance," exclud-
ing the lands of greater slope in the area east of the City.
No survey of the acreage committed or the number of animals grazing is available, but
based on studies elsewhere in Northern California, the probable rental value per acre
of grazing land is in the $10 to $20 per year range. Since all such land except steep
slopes has a market value in excess of 10 times these amounts, it is clear that owner-
ship is motivated in different instances by some combination of personal satisfaction,
expectation of capital gain, or desire to tax shelter income from other sources.
Excluding parcels fronting on I-580, about 90 percent of the extended planning area is
under Williamson Act agreement (California Land Conservation Act, Administrative
Code Section 51200 et seq.). Under this law, an owner agrees not to develop for
10 years and pays taxes based on the agricultural value of the land rather than its
market value. Since virtually all land in California has a market value far above its
capitalized agricultural income yield, the Williamson Act has been extremely popular
with owners who do not anticipate near-term development, particularly before Propo-
sition 13 cut agricultural property taxes by about one-half.
Williamson Act contracts automatically renew each year for a new 10-year period
unless the owner or the County states an intention to terminate at the end of the
current 10-year period, i.e. contract expiration occurs ten years after non-renewal.
Cancellation and immediate removal, even under liberalizing legislation effective
since 1982, requires findings that would be difficult or impossible to make in most of
the extended planning area (no discontinuous urban development would result, no
proximate noncontracted land is available, etc.).
Although the Williamson Act probably has not reduced the total amount of agricultural
land converted to urban use in California, it provides justification for regulation to
keep Alameda County's ridgelands undeveloped. Some owners may view the contract
as a means of low-cost land banking until the market is right for sale for urban use,
but if local governments determine that agricultural open space is the appropriate
long-term use, the availability of the Williamson Act avoids a charge that government
is taxing on one assumption (development potential) and regulating on another (desira-
bility of retaining agriculture).
Much has been written on the desirability of preserving agricultural open space, but
the case for preservation of low yield lands such as those in the extended planning
area must rest on benefits to the Bay Area as a whole rather than to agricultural
2-7
operators in the planning area. Over the long term, regulation to retain open space
_ must be based on characteristics of the land that make it unsuitable for urban deve-
lopment. Because both the environmental quality of the Bay Area and continued
viability of agriculture are dependent on retaining substantial areas of developable
land as open space, public acquisition eventually will be necessary as development
pressures increase.
2.2.2 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has developed all of Dublin's six
parks, and it owns all but Kolb and Cronin parks, which are on Murray School District
property (see Table 2-2). In the early 1970s, voters approved a $2.3 million bond issue
for improvements and a special tax for equipment and maintenance. In 1978 a de-
tailed Park and Recreation Master Plan Update, prepared with broad community
participation, recommended an ambitious program of acquisition and development.
Shortly after, passage of Proposition 13 eliminated the tax override and the possibility
of additional bond issues. A subsequent advisory election on restoring a parks tax
failed.
Currently, the only sources of DSRSD revenue for parks are capital improvement fees
_ levied as a condition of residential subdivision map approval. These fees, authorized
under the State's Quimby Act, are determined on the basis of the value of the property
being developed. Recent fees have been used to finance capital improvements such as
lighting at the Dublin Sports Grounds and solar heating for the Swim Center. No
additional acquisition funds are currently available. Maintenance funds come from
property taxes and are at approximately one-third of their pre-Proposition 13 levels.
The 1978 Master Plan identifies five of six neighborhood parks as below accepted
acreage standards. Additionally, when the planning study compared District resources
to National Recreation and Park Standards, it found Dublin's neighborhood parks to be
deficient in acreage by over 80 percent and community parks to be lacking by over
18 percent. National standards suggest one neighborhood center for each 10,000
people and one community center for each 25,000 people. By these measures, Dublin
presently.is 100 percent deficient in neighborhood centers and up to standard for
community level centers.
2-8
TABLE 2-2
PARK SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Site Acres Description Ownership/Maintenance
Shannon Park 9.6 Community Center building, Developed, owned, and main-
11600 Shannon Avenue lighted lawns, parking and tained by DSRSD. Building
paved pathways, tot lot, and operated by SRVCC Inc.
picnic tables.
Dublin Sports Grounds 22.7 Five soccer fields, one lit; six Developed, owned, and main-
6800 Dublin Boulevard baseball fields, two lit; tot tained by DSRSD.
lot; restrooms; and snack bar.
Valley Community Swim Center 3.0 Lighted pool with tot and Developed, owned and main-
s' 8157 Village Parkway competition areas, solar tained by DSRSD.
C°. heating, restrooms, and
showers.
Mape Park 2.5 Tot lot and picnic area. Developed,_owned, and main-
11711 Plata Way tained by DSRSD.
Cronin Park 2.5 Tot lot and lawns. Developed by DSRSD, main-
Penn & York Drive tained b�Murray School
District.
Kolb Park 3.0 Tot lot, lawns, picnic area,
Brighton Drive & Bristol Road and two lighted tennis courts.
aAmador Valley Joint Union High School District property.
bOn Murray School District property.
Source: Dublin San Ramon Services District.
A March, 1983 survey conducted for the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee ranked the 20 most popular activity facilities:
TABLE 2-3
POPULAR ACTIVITIES
No. of
Rank Activity Respondents
1 Aerobicsa 100
2 Concertsa 94
3 July 4th Celebrationa 87
4 Teen Centera 81
5 Computer Classa 75
6 Longer Pool Hoursa 75
7 Tennis 72
8 Gymnastics 68
9 Horseback Ridinga 65
10 Hiking Trailsa 57
11 Soccer 53
12 Crafts 52
13 Tennis Courts - additional 51
14 Ceramics 49
15 Ballet or Tap Dance 45
15 Additional.Park Spacea 45
15 Bike Trails 45.
16 Family Picnic Areas 43
17 Painting Classes 42
18 Little League 35
allot currently available through public programs.
Although additional park space did not rank near the top as a separate item, additional
tennis courts, family picnic areas, and possibly some of the other activities would need
more park space.
In its Master Plan, the District identified new types of facilities that should be deve-
loped, and adopted standards for parks in the city. The Board of Directors established
policies to provide one 5-acre neighborhood park within one-half.mile of each home,
and to acquire lands adjacent to school sites if possible. Additionally, the Board
assumed responsibility for a community beautification program, to be achieved in part
through the development and implementation of a formal street tree planting program
and the preservation of scenic open spaces in its existing and proposed jurisdiction.
The Board also listed as policy objectives the adoption of cultural arts programming as
the primary area of emphasis for provision of new services and the development and
implementation of a districtwide bikeways system on streets and through open space
in existing and future areas of jurisdiction. None of these objectives have been met.
2-10
The 1978 acquisition recommendations were as follows:
1. Ridgetop (Dougherty Hills) trail between Amador Valley Boulevard and OW .
Ranch Road.
2. Mape Park Expansion (9.2 acres), with trail easement along creek to San
Ramon Road.
3. Dolan School Site (23 acres). Develop 12 acres as community park; retain
11 acres as open space.
4. Major community park in Dougherty Hills(37 acres). Site mapped is east of
SP tracks adjoining county line.
The State Education Code (Article 5, Section 39390 et seq.) establishes that if a
portion of a school site or other land owned by a school district has been used for
recreation or as open space for eight years or longer and is declared surplus, it may be
acquired by a city or park agency at a favorable price if there is no alternative site
for the same uses. In such circumstances the school district must offer to sell or lease
(at its discretion) not more than 30 percent of the District's surplus land at a cost
computed on the basis of purchase price, cost of living adjustments, and cost of im-
provements. For its part, the parks and recreation agency interested in acquiring the
school surplus land must make a finding of inadequate public land and have a plan for
the purchase of surplus school-property. The School District has a right to reacquire
land at any time, based on the same cost computation.
DSRSD operates two small parks on Murray School District property, including Kolb
Park adjoining the recently closed Fallon School. The provisions of the Education
Code described above may prove essential.to retain this or other parks and may allow
the City or DSRSD to increase park acreage at locations that otherwise will have per-
manently "substandard" park service.
PLANNING ISSUES
t
1. Disposition or use of undeveloped Dolan site and sites of closed schools.
2. Effect of land use and housing density decisions on school population and socio-
economic mix in school service areas.
3. Effect of decline of school enrollment and closure on park sites owned by the
Murray School District as part of school sites.
4. Use of current and prospective park fees*collected as housing is added.
5. Priority for acquistion or expansion of park lands vs. more intensive development
of existing sites.
6. Fewer larger parks vs. more smaller parks.
7. Future of parks on Murray School District property if adjoining school is closed.
8. Potential for acquisition of school property for park use.
2-11
_
2.3 SCHOOLS PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES ELEMENT
2.3.1 SCHOOLS
As in most communities that have grown rapidly, declining birth rates and a growing
proportion of empty-nest households have caused a drastic decline in Dublin school'
enrollment. School closure is always difficult because it involves loss of both a ser-
vice and the potential for new development in a long-established neighborhood. In
Dublin the case for redeveloping surplus schools is less apparent than in a fully deve-
loped community because additional housing may bring increased enrollment.
District Boundaries. Murray School District serves grades K-8 in Dublin, northwest
Pleasanton, and the hills to the west. Arroyo Vista housing on Dougherty Road is the
_ only portion of Dublin omitted. The Pleasanton Joint School District serves it and
Camp Parks, while the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District serves grades
K-12 east of Camp Parks. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District includes
both the Murray and Pleasanton elementary districts.
Murray School District. Established in 1866, the Murray School District operated until
1960 with one two-room school. Between 1960 and 1970, nine schools were built to
accommodate an enrollment that increased from 400 to 5,432. In 1971 there were
three K-6 and five K-8 schools in the district.
By 1977, in response to declining enrollment, the Board of Trustees decided to group
all seventh and eighth grade students in two intermediate schools, Wells and Frederik-
sen. That decision left Cronin, Dublin, Fallon, Murray, and Nielsen schools as the K-6
schools serving Dublin (see Table 2-4).
In addition to the sites of its 10 schools, the Murray School District owns a 27-acre
undeveloped site on Castilian Road in Dublin's western foothills.
Because enrollment decline is averaging about 7 percent per year and current capacity
is nearly twice current enrollment, the District must close schools. Dublin School has
been leased to the private Valley Christian School since 1980. Consistent with a
report by a Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Board closed Fallon School in June 1983
and will close Frederiksen School at the end of the 1984/1985 school year, holding
open the possibility that it subsequently may reopen as a K-6 school.
Table 2-4 summarizes Murray School District's potential enrollment under the pro-
posed General Plan and two alternative plans for the primary planning area. Current
enrollment in grades K-8 is .54 students per occupied housing unit, down from a high
of 1.0 per unit in the early 19701s. Because about 80 percent of the city's housing
_ stock was built between 1960 and 1970, families are growing up and further decline in
student population from existing units is expected.
Despite low initial enrollments, new single family homes are likely to have more
school age children within ten years after occupancy than existing homes. Enrollment
ratios are expected to reach the peak levels of homes built during the 1960's because
of lower fertility rates and changes in household and family structure.
Multi-family housing, which will comprise 37 percent of all units in the primary plan-
' ring area under the proposed Plgn, poses the most difficult projection problem.
2-12
1
TABLE 2-4
MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ENROLLMENT AT BUILDOUT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Grades
Potential K-6 Enrollment 7-8 Potential 7-8 Enrollment
b
Enrollment Built Planned No Draft High Planned No Draft High
Sept. 1983 Capacity Capacitya Project Plan Density Capacity$ Project Plan Density
West of I-680 583 19557 707 1,010 1,010 990 — 290 290 280
Dublin (leased) — 850 —
Nielsen 583 707 707 —
East of I-680 1,795 2,831 1,023 1,100 19200 1,230 750 317 350 350
Cronin 331 376 376 —
Fallon — 641 — —
(closed)
w
Frederiksen 400 417 — —
(closing
June 1985)
Murray 516 647 647 —
Wells 548 750 — —
TOTAL 29378 4,388 1,730 2,110 2,210 2,220 750 607 640 630
aMurray School District; Report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for School Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization.
bSee text for discussion of student enrollment assumptions. Students are assumed to be evenly distributed by grade.
Traditionally, apartments have housed few children, but the current and anticipated
inability of many families to afford detached units almost certainly will increase
enrollments. An assumption must be made as to how much. Murray School District
• reports that new housing of all types has about 0.2 children per unit.
The projections assume that peak K-8 enrollment will be reached five to ten years
after buildout with 0.2 K-8 students per all multi-family units, .6 K-8 students per new
single family unit, and .4 K-8 students per existing single family unit, producing 2,570
to 2,740 K-8 students. Built capacity of the four Murray School District schools shown
on the plans is 2,480. The discrepancy occurs west of I-680 where Nielsen School
capacity is 707, but projected K-6 enrollment is about 1,000 students. Dublin school
could be re-opened to accommodate additional students, or capacity at other sites
could be increased with use of portable classrooms as necessary.
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District. Currently, Dublin High School has
984 students in grades 9-12. The school's capacity is slightly over 1,200, and adminis-
trators expect enrollment to decline at a rate of 1.3 to 3 percent over the next several
years. The District has.no plans to change school*organization or structure and is
responding to declining enrollment through program changes and leasing some class-
rooms to Alameda County for special and vocational education.
Pleasanton School District. The Pleasanton School District has no schools in Dublin,
but does serve the residents of the Pleasanton Housing Authority's Arroyo Vista pro-
ject. Approximately 25 students from Arroyo Vista attend Fairland and Pleasanton
schools.
2.3.2 PUBLIC LANDS
Public lands having the greatest relevance to the city's future adjoin the eastern
boundary of the incorporated area. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA),
Tassajara Creek Regional Park, and Alameda County's Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center form a barrier that stretches from I-580 to the county line. The western part
of the city's proposed extended planning area contains no significant public lands.
Within the city, public lands are parks owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services Dist-
rict; flood control drainageways owned by the Alameda County Water Conservation
and Flgod Control District, Zone 7; and school sites owned by the Murray and Amador
Valley Joint Union High School Districts.
Parks RFTA
The military installation that now serves as an Army Reserve Forces Training Area
has belonged to both the Navy and Air Force at different times since its construction
in 1942. The original installation reached from Dougherty to Tassajara roads, exten-
ding northward past the county line and south to I-580. In 1964 approximately 1,400 -
acres of the Army's land was disposed to various public jurisdictions (see below) as the
installation was deactivated.
The Army is now again using Parks RFTA on a continual basis. The site includes
2,268 acres, with 1,633 acres remaining in open space and the remainder used for
2-14
administration, living quarters, and storage. Following renovation of living quarters,
use of the area increased dramatically in 1980, when activity reached approximately
94,000 "man-days." According to the Commander of the installation, activity is
expected to level off at about 100,000 man-days per year, so no major increases in
usage are anticipated. Activities are almost exclusively on weekends, with troops
generally coming in on Friday evening or Saturday morning and leaving Sunday eve-
ning.
The Army circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addressing
reactivation and development plans for Parks RFTA in April, 1982. While most of the
reactivation plans have already been implemented, one of the primary facilities deve-
lopment strategies—reacquisition of the East Bay Regional Park District's Tassajara
Creek Regional Park—is still under consideration. The Park District strongly opposes
reacquisition, which the Army favors as a way to improve efficiency and training
operations. A final EIS is pending completion of a biological assessment of the area by
the Army.
Parks RFTA facilities have been improved over the last two years as use has inc-
reased. Those training sites closest to the incorporated city 'include pistol, rifle,
machine gun, and grenade ranges; a confidence course; track; and rappel tower.
Ranges are not visible from Dougherty Road. While many buildings on the site have
been improved in recent years, a considerable number of buildings visible from Dough-
erty Road remain in a state of disrepair.
Tassajara Creek Regional Park
The 445 acres composing the East Bay Regional Park District's holding were conveyed
to the District in 1973 and held as part of its regional'land bank. In 1980 the area was
dedicated by EBRPD as a regional park, pursuant to the District's Master Plan.
Access to the park, which is essentially unimproved open space, is from Tassajara
Road.
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
Alameda County's Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is located on approximately
950 acres of land stretching from I-580 to the southern border of Tassajara Creek
Regional Park. The buildings on the county land, which are in the southern part of the
parcel, are some of those that were originally constructed by the Navy when Camp
Parks was first developed.
The County Sheriff's Department is planning to abandon the present facility and build
a new jail in the northwestern corner of the site. Completion of the new jail, which is
still in the planning stages, is expected about 1988. The new facility will house the
same number of prisoners as the existing jail. While definite plans have not been
made, the County is considering proposals to lease or sell its current freeway frontage
property when the new jail is built.
2-15
PLANNING ISSUES
1. Role public lands play as barriers to City's annexation of land in the eastern por-
tion of the extended planning area.
2. Possible negative impacts (visual, noise, etc.) Parks RFTA activity may have on
land west of Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard when it is
developed.
3. Effect of possible reacquisition of Tassajara Creek Regional Park by Army on area
parklands/open space resources.
2.3.3 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Sewage collection and treatment and effluent disposal are provided to Dublin residents
and businesses by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), a member of the
Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns
and operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipe-
line used by member jurisdictions. (Other members of LAVWMA are the cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore). -
DSRSD's treatment plant, which adjoins the I-680 Freeway in Pleasanton, can be
expanded to four times its present size, but the LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated
effluent through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is nearing capacity. Development of
additional'LAVWMA capacity in the form of another pipeline out of the valley would
require valleywide voter approval.
Current and Projected Usage
Residential: Sewage capacity is allocated by DSRSD through issuance of connection
permits. Currently, there are approximately 580 outstanding residential permits in
Dublin; i.e., permits that have been issued for dwelling units not yet hooked up to the
system. An additional 1,700 residential permits remain to be issued to users through-
out the District on a first come, first served basis.
Nonretail Commerciah. Distinct from the remaining DSRSD capacity discussed above,
the City has an allocation of 100,000 gallons per day set aside to serve new nonretail
commercial development. Since business/industrial park space varies widely in terms
of water usage, it is difficult to predict the amount of floor area this capacity will
ultimately serve.
Obstacles to Further Expansion
With remaining sewage capacity for 1,700 residential permits throughout DSRSD's
service area (May, 1983), and remaining residential development capacity in Dublin
alone allowing approximately 3,700 additional units, it seems probable that pipeline
capacity will be reached before Dublin is built out, and that growth will be curtailed
within 2 to 5 years if additional effluent disposal capacity is not available. Although a
2-16
major new system would take 5 to 7 years to construct, minor capacity increases could
be implemented soon after authorization, possibly alleviating development constraints
during pipeline expansion.
Obstacles to further expansion of effluent disposal capacity from the Valley include
needed voter approval; high cost of developing a disposal system; and development of
an environmentally sound and technically feasible disposal technique. While only
expansion of the LAVWMA pipeline requires voter approval by-law, any alternatives
would likely be controversial and would be subjected to referendum. In such a case,
the entire Tri-Valley electorate would be involved, as the Regional Water Quality
Control Board will not authorize a system serving only part of a larger natural service
area. Any major sewage disposal project would require an EIR considering possible
implications for all Tri-Valley resources, including air and water quality. The cost of
a new disposal system would surely cause a significant increase in the current $2,100
per unit residential sewage connection fee. At this time sources for funds for such a
project are uncertain, but apparent development pressures suggest that financing by
user charges will be feasible.
2.3.4 WATER SUPPLY
Dublin's original water system was constructed by the Volk-McLain Company, and was
dependent on groundwater pumped from wells along Dublin Boulevard. Today, the
city's water is distributed by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which
purchases water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conser-
vation District. Local groundwater sources have not been used since 1979 due to
water quality problems (excessive hardness and total dissolved solids).
Zone 7, the area's water wholesaler, imports water from the Sierra to the East Bay
and South Bay via the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). Zone 7's Del Valle Reservoir and
two water treatment-plants in the Livermore-Amador Valley serve the planning area.
DSRSD's water source is the Zone 7 turnout off Dougherty Road. The turnout's capa-
city is 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Water is fluoridated at the turnout.
In 1981, the firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee prepared the Water Master Plan for
Dublin, which has been adopted by the Services District. The plan assumes adequate
capacity in Zone 7 transmission facilities to provide the maximum day demands of the
District to the year 2020. However, the plan recognizes that increasing demand else-
where in the Zone 7 service area will have the affect of decreasing the pressure of
water delivered to Dublin. To address this potential problem, the plan recommends
construction of a reservoir at the Dougherty Road turnout. Other improvements
recommended by the plan will provide backup facilities should Zone 7 service be
discontinued or shut off; increase storage capacity within the .city; and increase Ares-
sure in problem areas. Total improvements recommended by the Master Plan are
expected to cost $2.4 million, and will be paid for by water connection fees.
The District's water distribution network is currently divided into two zones; the lower
pressure zone encompasses most of the city, while the upper pressure zone includes
the city's western border, servicing elevations of 390 to 520 feet above sea level. In
response to planned development both in and out of the incorporated area, the Master
Plan proposes the creation of a third zone, which will serve elevations of up to
740 f eet above sea level. This proposed third zone-will have three booster pump
2-17
stations and a reservoir. Pipes will be installed as part of subdivisions, and pump
station construction will begin in conjunction with initial residential development.
Following adoption of the Master Water Plan, the Services District expanded its
boundaries to include the entire third zone, which is not entirely within the existing
City boundaries.
Currently, all of Dublin's water demand is satisfied by Zone 7. A representative of
Zone 7 has indicated, however, that supply may become a problem sometime in the
1990s if no new sources are brought into use. Mitigation of future supply problems
may be provided by a major State-sponsored water project, or by resuming the use of
local well water, requiring extensive treatment. Another response to possible water
shortage would be implementation of a water conservation program in the Zone 7
service area. Area residents demonstrated their capacity to conserve water during
the 1976-1977 drought, when water consumption levels dropped significantly without
any major efforts on the parts of Zone 7 or the Services District. Per capita water
consumption has not returned to its predrought levels.
2.3.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
DSRSD is responsible for solid waste collection, hauling, and disposal within its service
area. The District contracts with the Dublin Disposal'Service in Livermore for gar-
bage collection and carting, and waste is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill, a
sanitary landfill under the criteria established by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The landfill, which is privately owned and operated, has enough unused
capacity for an additional 50 years of operation. Pick-up and disposal fees are set by
the Services District and collected by the disposal service.
PLANNING ISSUES
1. Adequacy of sewage treatment and effluent disposal capacity given projected Tri-
Valley development.
2. Funding and electorate approval of expansion of sewage treatment and effluent
disposal capacity.
3. Development of alternative effluent disposal plans.
4. Adequacy of Zone 7 water supply for projected Tri-Valley development.
5. Feasibility of extending all public services to the extended planning area.
2-18
2.4 CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
Dublin's trafficways system represents the state of the art of transportation planning
during the early 1960s. Within San Ramon Village, traffic was to be concentrated on
four-lane arterial streets fed by neighborhood collectors that would not attract
through traffic. Downtown apparently was designed, but not developed, as a single
huge shopping center.
2.4.1 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing daily traffic volumes (estimated, June, 1983) on Dublin arterial and collector
streets are shown in Table 2-5. The two busiest roadway sections are San Ramon Road
between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 Freeway (35,000 vehicles per day) and Dough-
erty Road between the freeway and Dublin Boulevard (41,000 vehicles per day). Most
other arterial street sections have volumes in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles
per day. Business collectors such as Regional Street, Amador Plaza, and Sierra Court
have traffic volumes of approximately 6,000 vehicles per day, whereas residential'
collector streets such as Silvergate Drive and Davona Drive have traffic volumes in
the range of 1,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day.
Typical capacities of various types of roadways are as follows:
2-lane streets: 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day
4-1ane divided streets: _ 24,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day
6-lane divided streets: 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day
Where homes front directly on the street, the acceptable traffic capacity is substan-
tially less than the physical capacity of the street. The term "environmental*capa-
city" represents a subjective determination of traffic volume levels deemed accep-
table from the residents' perspective.. "Environmental capacity" may be only
25 percent of the physical capacity. For example, a two-lane residential street with
directly fronting single-family homes can be expected to present an undesirable envi-
ronment to the residents from a traffic standpoint when traffic volumes exceed 3,000
to 4,000 vehicles per day. It can be noted from Table 2-5 that five streets are in this
category.
Table 2-6 presents a partial list of key intersections where recent peak-hour turning
movement counts have been made. At these locations, the volume to capacity ratio of
the intersection and the resulting levels of service have been determined. Levels of
Service range from A (very good) to F (totally unacceptable). . Levels of Service A, B,
and C are considered acceptable and Level of Service D is considered marginally
acceptable. Levels of Service E and F are not acceptable. Intersections nearest I-580
interchanges provide poorest service.
2-19
TABLE 2-5
ESTIMATED 1983 AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC (ADT) ON SELECTED STREETS
' Exis ' Estimated
Rat Average
Street Section Way (Feet) Daily Traffic
San Ramon Road
I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 153 35,000
Dublin Blvd. to Alcosta Blvd. 167 16,000-18,000
Village Parkway
Dublin Blvd. to Amador Valley Blvd. 100 15,000
Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr. 100 10 700-15000
Tamarack Dr. to Kimball Ave. > >
Dougherty Road
I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 100 419000
Dublin Blvd. to Sierra Ln. 80 13,000
Sierra Ln. to Amador Valley Blvd. 50 7,500
Dublin Boulevard
West of San Ramon Rd. 100 3,000-5,500
San Ramon Rd. to Clark Ave. 100 20,000-22,000
Clark Ave. to Dougherty Rd. 100 50 25,000-23,000
East of Dougherty Rd. Scarlett Ct.)
Amador Valley Boulevard 17 000
San Ramon Rd. to Village Pkwy. 108 ,
Village Pkwy. to Dougherty Rd. 80 4,100 - 7,500
Alcosta Boulevard (San Ramon) 100 209000
Near I-680
Sierra Court 68 6,000
Amador Plaza 60 6,200
Regional Street 68 6,400
Donohue Drive
Near Amador Valley Blvd. 60 5,400
Starward Drive 2,400
Tamarack Drive 58 1,600-2,300
Brighton Drive 58 2,300-4,600
Davona Drive 60 2,700-4,300
Kimball Avenue 60 3,500
Vomac Road 60 1,500
Silvergate Drive 102 1,500-4,200
West of Peppertree 80
Hansen Drive 64 29000
Source: Alameda County; TJKM.
2-20
TABLE 2-6
EXISTING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS
A.M. P.M. .
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS
San Ramon Road and Bellina 0.54 A 0.78 C
and Vomac 0.50 A 0.70 B
and Shannon 0.57 A 0.66 B
and Silvergate 0.68 B 0.60 A
and Amador Valley 0.63 B 0.83 D
and Dublin Boulevard 0.80 C 0.92 E
Dublin Boulevard and Donlon 0.37 A 0.43 A
and Regional 0.42 A 0.78 C
and Golden Gate 0.40 A 0.59 A
and Amador Plaza 0.37 A 0.56 A
and Village Parkway 0.37 A 0.76 C
and Dougherty 0.62 B 1.38 F
V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
LOS = Level of Service.
Source: TJKM
Arterial streets on which capacity is, or will soon be, exceeded include San Ramon
Road and Dublin Boulevard. Both streets are expected to have future width plan lines
adopted soon.
Residential streets having current traffic volumes considered to be environmentally
unacceptable by adjoining residents result from the creation of collector streets
conveniently serving too many homes. The most notable street section in Dublin with
an environmental problem is Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and
the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. This street is probably of arterial status but
constructed as a two-lane divided roadway with fronting homes. As growth occurs,
traffic volumes will increase on this street, exacerbating the existing problem.
Two-lane collector streets that have been the subject of residents' complaints because
of excessive traffic volumes and speeds have included Donohue Drive, Brighton Drive,
Starward Drive, Davona Drive, and portions of Siilvergate Drive. Other streets, be-
cause of their long and straight alignment, can be the subject of residents' concern
even without excessive volumes. Streets in this category 'include Tamarack Drive,
Penn Drive, Vomac.Road, and Amarillo Road.
2-21
2.4.2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TJKM prepared projections of traffic on the arterial and collector street systems
using a modification of the simulation model used for the Tri-Valley Transportation
Study (1983). Key assumptions are:
- Additional housing units in Dublin per proposed General Plan.
- Additional jobs in Dublin = 2,885 (20 percent higher than increase of 2,400
assumed for General Plan, but-reliability of any employment assumption is
much less than for housing.)
- Transit diversion (except retail area trip ends): 5 percent to local transit;
5 percent to BART.
- Carpooling: 10 percent of trip ends for offices.
- BART Station: 1,250 parking spaces; 4 trip ends per space less 15 percent
diversion to local transit.
The 1983 and 2005 Daily Projected Traffic Volumes map in the Plan Policies report
shows the volumes assigned to arterial and collector streets and the number of lanes
required. Dougherty Road is proposed as 6 lanes with median despite low assigned
volume because Contra Costa County development expected by 2005 was not 'included
in the model. Similarly, the model did not assign traffic generated by business park
and residential development north of I-580 and east of Parks RFTA to Dublin Boule-
vard extension. A four lane arterial with median is proposed.
2.4.3 FREEWAY CAPACITY
TJKM projections for I-680 and I-580 were prepared for the Tri-Valley Transportation
Study using four sets of assumptions. Scenario 2A assumes partial completion of
Las Positas by 2005 and includes 97,000 dwelling units and 145,000 jobs in the
Tri-Valley. Scenario 2B assumes full buildout of all reasonably foreseeable and con-
templated projects, resulting in 119,000 dwelling units and 242,000 jobs. TJKM.
concludes that all of the scenarios except 2B could be served by reasonable expansion
of the existing freeway system. Scenario 2B would result in LOS F along most seg-
ments of both I-580 and I-680. Thus the freeway system will acommodate demand
only if some current development proposals are not realized, if massive freeway
improvements are built, or if major changes in travel habits occur.
2.4.4 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
Most traffic accidents occur at intersections along the high volume arterials, including
portions of Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, and Amador Valley
Boulevard.
2-22
2.4.5. PAREING
Downtown Dublin has either sufficient or surplus off-street parking in most instances.
The heaviest observed use occurs in the vicinity of Gemco on Friday nights and Satur-
day afternoons when the peak demand for shopping, restaurants, and movies coincide.
As a result, patrons walk longer than normal distances and some park on streets, but
at present there is no severe problem.
On-street parking occurs throughout the city in residential districts in both single-
family and multiple-family areas. In these cases, on-street parking is typically used
out of convenience rather than necessity. One area where on-street parking occurs
regularly is near the BART feeder'line bus stops. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard
and Regional Street is the location of the bus stops serving destinations within the
valley and the BART stations. Commuters who drive to the bus stops have been noted
to park both on the streets near the bus stops as well as in some store parking lots.
Merchants have requested commuters to park.elsewhere, either during periods of peak
retail demand or at all times.
2.4.6 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Relatively high standard bicycle lanes exist on portions of Dublin Boulevard, Amador
Valley Boulevard, and Village Parkway. San Ramon Road has a separated bike path.
Both pedestrian and bicycle circulation in Dublin is hampered by the north-south I-680
freeway, which precludes east-west circulation except at Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dublin Boulevard. Access to some community facilities such as the high school
and swim club is restricted by this barrier to pedestrians and bicyclists. However,
most commercial and employment centers in Dublin are in the south end of the city
and are served by the Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard crossings of the
freeway.
2.4.7 STATUS OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
1. Bart Extension. Extension of BART rail service to Dublin and Pleasanton would
have a significant impact on Dublin. One station is contemplated at the south end
of Golden Gate Drive between Dublin Bon evard and the I-580 Freeway. A second
station is contemplated on I-580 at the proposed Hacienda Drive interchange. Both
stations would result in heavy peak-hour traffic at intersections near the station
and would be transfer points for local transit service.
2. Coordinated Local Transit. The Pleasanton/Dublin Short Range Transit Plan,
1984-1990, December 1983, study proposed a nine bus local transit system that
could be in operation by the end of 1984. Funding would be mainly with state
Transportation Development Act money now used for BART buses.
3. Possible Future Light Rail Transit (LRT). Contra Costa County policy calls for
preservation of the Southern Pacific rail right-of-way for potential future light rail
service. Tracks now run only as far north as the Eastman Kodak plant at the
county line, and rail movements occur about once a week. LRT service would be
10 to 20 years in the future.
2-23
4. Interstate 680 Freeway Improvement. I-680 has been identified as a freeway
corridor needing additional capacity in the future. The State Transportation
• Improvement Plan (STIP).calls'for widening to eight lanes between I-580 and Wal-
nut creek and six lanes south of 1-580. The widening to eight'lanes in itself will
affect Dublin, particularly homes and businesses along the freeway right-of-way,
although'little or no additional land is expected to be acquired. In addition, the
I-58011-680 interchange will need to be upgraded in the future to accommodate
regional traffic demands. This will likely consist of direct connection two-lane
flyover ramps serving the heaviest movements. Currently, a.m. peak-hour traffic
southbound on 1-680 exiting to I-580 in a single lane may back up to.Alcosta Boule-
vard.
In addition, Dublin is inadequately served by I-680—particularly downtown Dublin,
which can be reached from the north only by 1.5 miles of surface street from the
Alcosta interchange or by using I-580 to the San Ramon Road interchange. When
the freeway-to-freeway interchange is rebuilt—probably in 5 to 10 years—it should
be possible to design ramps that would provide access from 1-680 directly to Dublin
Boulevard or Amador Valley Boulevard. The benefits would include reduced traffic
at the San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road interchanges with I-580 and the
Alcosta Boulevard interchange at 1-680.
5. Extension of Dublin Boulevard. One potential source of additional capacity in the
I-580 corridor would be eastward extension of Dublin Boulevard to potentially
developable areas east of Parks RFTA. The physical and jurisdictional problems
related to such an extension include crossing the Southern Pacific Railroad, cros-
sing Federal Government and-Alameda County property, and acquisition of private
property near the Dougherty Road intersection.
2-24
` SECTION 3
r HOUSING ELEMENT
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.1 Profile Of Dublin—The Primary Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.2 Extended Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.1.3 Subregional Development Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.2 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . 3-5
3.2.1 State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.2.2 Organization of Housing Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.2.3 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.2.4 Consistency With Other Elements of The General Plan . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.4 EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.4.1 Existing Housing Stock . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .3-11
3.4.2 Subsidized Housing in Dublin and the Tri-Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.4.3 Housing Services Available to Dublin Residents . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3-17
3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.5.1 Overview of Housing Affordability and Need Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.5.2 Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG)
Housing Needs Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Definitions of Income Categories for Dublin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Determination of Moderate Income Unit Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.5.3 Immediate Housing Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
_ Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Level of Payment as a Function of Ability to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
VacancyRates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Overcrowding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3.5.4 Special Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
-- Housing for the Elderly . . . 3-27
Housing Accessible to Disabled Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Needs of Female Headed Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Other Groups with Special Housing Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
3.5.5 Jobs/Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AVAILABLE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
3.6.1 Sites Currently Zoned for Residential Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
3.6.2 Sites Not Currently Designated For Residential Use . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
3.6.3 Sites for the Development of Mobile Homes
andManufactured Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
i
i
3.7 CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.7.1 Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
Lack of Programs for Subsidized Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
ExistingZoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
DevelopmentFees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
3.7.2 Non-Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
Possible Lack of Infrastructural Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
Limited Land Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37
Competition Among Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
InterestRates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37
Community Opposition to Medium and
HighDensity Housing . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.8 HOUSING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
3.8.1 Summary of Housing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
3.8.2 City Housing Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
3.8.3 Housing Program Strategies Requiring Adoption of
General Plan and Consistent Zoning Ordinance Amendments
forImplementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
3.8.4 Housing Program Strategies Requiring Additional City
Action for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
3.8.5 Strategies Requiring Ongoing City Effort Using
ExistingPrograms . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
3.8.6. Opportunities for Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53
ii
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
3-1 Projected Tri-Valley Employment
Additions at Full Development in 2005 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3-2 Existing and Projected Tri-Valley Housing and Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3-3 Index to Required Housing Element Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3-4 City of Dublin - Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3-5 City of Dublin - Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3-6 Housing Units By Tenure and Year Structure Built, 1980 . . . . . . . . 3-12
3-7 Tri-Valley Single-Family Homes: Average and Median
Resale Prices, 1st Quarter 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3-8 1980 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Occupancy
Status, and Tenure 3-14
3-9 Subsidized Housing in the.Livermore/Amador•Valley, 1983 . . . . . . 3-16
3-10 Tri-Valley Housing Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3-11 Dublin Households: Distribution by Income Category,
and ABAG Projected Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3-12 City of Dublin: Ability to Meet ABAG
ProjectedNeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-20
3-13 Waiting Lists For Subsidized Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
3-14 Monthly Ownership Cost as a Percentage of Income. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
3-15 Monthly Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
3-16 Dublin Households Spending 25 Percent or More . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . -
3-17 Persons With Major Disabling Conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3-18 Sites Available for Development of Housing
Currently Zoned for Residential Use ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
3-19 Sites Available for Development of Housing
Not Currently Designated for Residential Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
3-20 Single Family Mortgage Payments, $ 100,000 Mortgage . . . . . . . . . 3-38
3-21 Summary of Housing Program Strategies Related To
City Goals and Housing Program Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
iii
3.1 OVERVIEW
3.1.1 PROFILE OF DUBLIN—THE PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
The City of Dublin, incorporated in 1982, is 4.1 square miles in area, with an
estimated 1983 population of 13,700. The primary planning area for the City's first
Housing Element and other elements of the General Plan consists of the incorporated
area plus .3 square miles to the west, consisting largely of a portion of an approved
subdivision which is partly within the City's boundaries.
Most of the City's approximately 4,400 housing units were built by the Volk-McLain
Company during the 1960's and are single family, single story houses with three or
four bedrooms. Only 386 units, nine percent of the City's stock, are multi-family.
The 1980 Census reported that 23 percent of Dublin residents rent their homes. As
85 to 90 percent of multi-family units are occupied by renters, it can be assumed
that about 15 percent of Dublin's single family homes were rented in 1980.
For many, Dublin's predominance of single-family homes on 5,000 to 8,000 square
foot lots is a desirable feature and one that helps to define a community of families
with moderate incomes, typically earning 80 to 120 percent of the Bay Area
median. Today's moderate income households, however, cannot 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.
As moderate income households are faced with increasing difficulty in purchasing
homes, low income households, those with less than 80 percent of area median
income, are finding it more difficult than ever to obtain housing. The regional
housing needs determination prepared by ABAG for Dublin projects total housing
need as 1,956 units, including 665 units for low and very low income householdsl
Under General Plan policies, total units in excess of the figure prepared by ABAG
will be produced.
The target for units.available to low and very low income households, however, will
prove unrealistic unless federal subsidy programs for new construction are revived
and sites for construction of affordable housing made available. 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 25 years old and there are no older multi-family units.
Unless the economy stagnates or sewage capacity increases are blocked, Dublin will
be built-out within the next five to ten years. Only 167 acres of non-commercial
land remain undeveloped in the City, including several surplus school sites. As
housing demands and City population increase so will other needs, such as those for
recreation and public facilities. These needs must be balanced in assigning land use
designations to Dublin's remaining undeveloped land.
lAssociation of Bay Area Governments, Housing Needs Determination, San Francisco
Bay Region, July 1983, p.44.
3-1
Dublin is a compact city—construction on the sites identified as available for housing
development would not result in non-contiguous urbanization; all are inf ill sites.
Under Alameda County zoning (adopted by the City), most of the city is classified R-
1-B-E, a single-family residential combining district allowing lot sizes from 5,000 to
10,000 square feet. Some of the City's larger sites appropriate for residential
development are zoned P-D (Planned Development). All residential structures are
one or two stories and building heights in commercial districts have not exceeded
three stories.
3.1.2 EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Dublin has designated a 33 square mile extended planning area that "bears relation to
its planning" (Govt. Code 65300). The extended planning area is largely undeveloped
and is characterized by steep slopes with oak woodlands west of the City and rolling
grasslands east of the City. The area also includes the public lands comprising Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA), Santa Rita Prison, and Tassajara Regional
Park. (See map in Plan Policies Report).
General Plan designations for the extended planning area are schematic in nature.
Single-family residential densities of 2.0 units per acre apply to slopes under 30.
percent. The extended area may accommodate as many as 32 percent of the housing
units of the combined primary and extended planning areas. Due to the high develop-
ment costs for roads and public facilities and services, and the steep slopes of the
area, few if any of the units in the extended planning area will be affordable to
moderate income households.
While land values are likely to preclude development of mobilehome parks on avail-
able level sites in the primary planning area, portions of the extended planning area
could accommodate them. An area that provides the exception to the rule of steep
slopes and inaccessibility in the extended planning area is the land adjoining the
proposed business park area north of I-580 on either side of Tassajara Road. When
the General Plan is reviewed and refined.for this area, consideration will be given to
designating some portion for residential development, including mobile home parks.
The details of developing infrastructure and providing services to the extended
planning area have not begun to be worked out. It is therefore assumed that resi-
dential development in the extended planning area, with the exception of individual
rural residences, will not occur within the time frame of the housing program
included in the Housing Element. State law requires Housing Element revision every
five years so the document's first revision and program update will appropriately
include detailed policies and plans for the extended planning area.
3.1.3 SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Dublin, like other cities in the Tri-Valley area (the San Ramon, Livermore, and
Amador valleys), was developed as a bedroom community oriented toward the major
urban centers of Oakland and San Francisco. Now the area is facing a dramatic
change as, for the first time, employment growth is expected to outpace housing
development, resulting in a net in-commute of workers.
3-2
In 1980 the area had 160,000 residents, 51,300 housing units, and 35,000 local jobs.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected a 43 percent population
gain to 228,300 by the year 2000. The Tri-Valley was expected to remain a bedroom
area, with the 1980 ratio of local jobs to employed residents about 0.73, sliding to
about 0.44 as housing for commuters continued to be built during the 20-year projec-
tion period (Las Positas DEIR, Tables 5.5 and 5.17). Total job additions by the year
2000 were projected by ABAG at 16,600—far short of the current build-out projec-
tion of 129,615 based on announced projects (see Table 3-1). Although this high
figure may reflect developer ambitions that will not be fully attained, the Tri-Valley
has demonstrated its appeal to employers. Among the attractive features are the
relatively low cost of land in comparison to the Bay plain, freeway accessibility to
the region, proximity to desirable residential areas, and absence of the political
uncertainty characteristic of larger cities. Projections of jobs and housing units for
the Tri-Valley are in Table 3-2.
TABLE 3-1
PROJECTED TRI-VALLEY EMPLOYMENT
ADDITIONS AT FULL DEVELOPMENT IN 2005+a
City Jobs Added
Dublin 2,400
Pleasanton 48,945
Livermore 17,800
San Ramon 219375
Subtotal 909520
Spillover secondary employment
@ 20 percentb 18,100
Las Positas 22 195
TOTAL 130,815 f
aAlameda County Planning Department. Las Positas DEIR. June, 1982,
Tables 2.2, 5.6, 5.79 5.8, and 5.9.
bGruen Gruen + Associates. An Analysis of the Secondary Employment
Impacts of Approved North Pleasanton Commercial/Industrial
Development. November, 1982, p. 42. Spill-over impacts are projected
at 21 to 28 percent of employment in industrial/business park projects.)
3-3
TABLE 3-2
EXISTING AND PROJECTED
TRI VALLEY HOUSING AND JOBS
Ratio of
Tri- Jobs to
Housing Valley Employed Employed
Populationa Units a Jobs a Residentsb Residents
1980 160,000 51,302 50,373 75,900 0.66
2000; ABAG
'83 with
Las Positas 253,000 90,000 132,200a 133,200 0.99
aABAG Series 183: Preliminary Population, Household, and Employment Projections:
1980-2000, Working Draft, March 1983.
bAssumes 1.48 per housing unit valley-wide 1980 census.
3-4
3.2 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION
3.2.1 STATE REQUIREMENTS
Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589 set forth requirements relating to the
preparation and content of Housing Elements. By law, the Housing Element must
contain:
1) an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and
constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs;
2) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies
relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; and
3) a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local
government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
The housing program must: identify adequate sites available for residential
development for a variety of types of housing for all income levels; assist in the
development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households; address governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons.
This Housing Element is intended to comply with state law.
3.2.2 ORGANIZATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is organized into nine main sections. Table 3-3 provides an index
to State required Housing Element Components. Section 3 presents the basic
.population and household data used to develop needs assessments and projections.
Existing market-rate and below market-rate housing resources and services are
surveyed in Section 4. Section 5 evaluates housing need, and includes discussion of
Dublin's "fair share" allocation as well as city and valley-wide jobs/housing balance.
The five required components of the housing program are described in the remaining
sections. Sites available for the development of housing are inventoried in Section 6;
constraints are addressed in Section 7, and housing program goals are at the beginning
of Section 8. Section 8 also includes all of the strategies for the housing program,
separated into three groups on the basis of actions necessary for implementation. All
housing program strategies are presented with their associated policy objective, quan-
tified objectives as appropriate, and financing and implementation responsibilities.
Housing strategies are related to Dublin's housing goals and State Housing Element
requirements in Table 3-21.
3-5
TABLE 3-3
INDEX TO REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS
Statutory Requirement Section(s) Page Number(s)
Analysis of population and
employment trends 3.1, 3.3 3,4,9,10
Quantification of existing and
projected housing needs for all
income levels - share of the
regional housing need 3.5 18-23
Analysis of household character-
- i 3.3 10
stics
Analysis of characteristics of the
housing stock 3.4 11-17
Inventory of land suitable for
residential development 3.6 31-34
Analysis of governmental constraints 3.7 35,36
Analysis of non-governmental
constraints 3.7 36-39
Analysis of special housing needs 3.5 28-30
Analysis of opportunities for
energy conservation 3.8 53
Statement of community housing goals,
quantified objectives and policies 3.8 40
Five year housing program to achieve
community housing goals and objectives 3.8 41-53
3.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The General Plan preparation process in Dublin has included a citizen's workshop on
the General Plin and a series of Planning Commission and City Council meetings to
consider three working papers and alternative sketch plans. Copies of working papers
have been available to members of the community; sketch plans and, earlier, maps of
the planning area were displayed in the City offices.
Throughout the planning process, and at all Planning Commission and City Council
meetings, housing has been a primary concern. The major area of community
3-6
controversy relative to project approval has been the density of proposed multi-family
residential projects. Through the General Plan the major density questions should be
resolved, thereby easing community concern, stabilizing developer and citizen
expectations, and speeding the approval process of future development proposals.
Another issue raised by Dublin residents is the perceived development of an economic
gap between sectors of the City created by differences in housing cost. The policies
of the Housing and Land Use elements are intended to counter any such trend.
3.2.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Housing Element is intended to be consistent with all elements of the General
Plan. All elements of the Plan have been prepared concurrently. This planning
process, in which housing, land use, circulation, and environmental issues are
considered as a set of interrelated concerns, facilitates the development of a General
Plan that is internally consistent and supportive of community goals.
3-7
r-
i
3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTIC
Dublin's population is relatively homogeneous in terms of age and ethnic character-
istics. The short span of time during which most of the City's single family homes
were constructed, and low original housing prices resulted in a predominance of young
families in the 1960's and then a slowing down of growth and overall aging of the
population.
Development in accord with the General Plan will result in about 8,100 dwelling units
and 22,400 residents at full development—a 64 percent population addition to the 1983
total.
Even with this population increase, Dublin will probably never again have a school-age
population that will fill its built public elementary school capacity. The high cost of
new housing and declining family size are among the causes. Current population data
for Dublin is included in Table 3-4. Household characteristics, including mobility and
household size, are presented in Table 3-5.
Except where otherwise noted, data is from the 1980 U.S. Census, Summary Tape Files
(STF) 1 and 3. This data is already four years old, but is in many cases the only
available information on Dublin population and households.
L�.
3-8
TABLE 3-4 -
CITY OF DUBLIN -POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Total Percentb
Population, 1983 13,700c
Households, 1983 4,428d
Persons in Group Quarters 0
Age characteristics, 1980
persons under 18 5,262 38.9
persons 18-61 7,805 57.8
persons 62 and over 429 3.2
Ethnic Characteristics, 1980
White Population 129470 92.4
Black Population 350 2.6
Chinese Population 110 0.8
Native American Population 82 0.6
Japanese Population 71 0.5
Persons of Spanish Origin, 1980 1,159 8.4
a1980 U.S. Census.
bMay not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
cDerived from 1983 household count assuming 3.2 persons per single family unit and 2
persons per multi-family unit
dOrville McDonald, U.S. Post Master, Pleasanton, CA, personal communication,
5/23/83.
3-9
• TABLE 3-5
-' CITY OF DUBLIN -HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Percent of
r-
Total Dublin Households
Total Households, 1983 49428 100
Residence in 1975 (persons over 5 years old), 1980
same house 5,332 39.5
different house, same county 3,697 27.4
different house, different county 2,299 17.0
different state 803 5.9
abroad 262 1.9
Median Household Income,a 1983 $33,180
Households by size, 1980
1 person households 311 7.9
2 person households 899 23.0
3 person households 859 22.1
4 person households 1,035 26.5
5 person households 566 14.5
6 or more person households 213 5.5
Average Household Size, 1980 3.41
Single-parent households, 1980
Female-headed Households 222 5.3
Male-headed Households 57 1.4
Female-headed households below povertyb
(with children), 1979 135 3.0
aFigure derived from HUD 1983 Bay Area median income.
bFamilies and unrelated individuals in the census were classified as being below or
above the poverty level, based on income in 1979 using an index which provides
"poverty thresholds." These thresholds vary by size of family, number of children,
and age of the family householder or unrelated individual. The threshold used for a
four person family, for example, was $7,412.
Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett.
3-10
3.4 EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES
3.4.1 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Dublin's housing stock is characterized by single-family detached homes built within
the last 25 years (see Table 3-6). In terms of price, size and type, the City's supply of
housing units is relatively homogenous. However, with the completion of approved
projects, the overall nature of the housing stock will begin to change, as is indicated
by the anticipated increase in the percentage of multi-family units in the City.
City of Dublin
Existing and Planned Housing Units By Type
Cumulative
Total Single- Multi- Percent
Units Family Family Multi-Family
Existing Occupied or 4,428 4,042 386 9
Previously Occupieda
Approved or UrLder 1,800 700 1,100 24
Consideration
aOrville McDonald, U.S. Post Master, Pleasanton, CA, personal communication,
5/23/83.
bCity of Dublin Planning Department, updated 11/15/83.
A May, 1983 Postal Service count shows 4,428 housing units in the City currently or
previously occupied (the only units omitted are new units as yet unoccupied). Of
these, 4,042, or 91 percent, were single-family homes. There were 386 multi-family
units. Approximately 15 percent of Dublin's single-family homes were rented in 1980.
3-11
• TABLE 3-6
HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE AND YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT, 1980
Units Percent of Owner Renter
Built Existing Units Occupie®ccupied
1979 to March 1980 35 .8 18 5
1975 to 1978 123 2.9 107 7
1970 to 1974 304 7.3 182 109
1960 to 1969 3,314 80.2 2,605 656
1950 to 1959 156 3.8 91 65
1940 to 1949 186 4.5 0 94
1939 or earlier 15 3.6 0 15
Source: 1980 U.S. Census.
While the single-family house has remained dominant, the composition of Dublin
households has been changing. The 1980 Census reported an average household size of
3.41, as compared with 4.0 in 1970. We estimate a 1983 average household size of
3.2. This sharp decline is typical of similar communities in the state and nation. At
what point household size will "bottom out" is unclear; factors influencing household
size and structure include marriage and divorce trends, birth and death rates, general
economic conditions, patterns of young adult behavior, and regional housing
availability.
Not all change is toward small household size. There is evidence that "doubling up,"
i.e. more than one family living in a single-family house, is becoming increasingly .
common. While data are not available to gauge this phenomenon precisely, it was
mentioned several times in the course of interviews conducted for this report.
Doubling up is a typical consequence of hard economic times, when young people
cannot afford their first homes, elderly family members move in with children, and
many people are reluctant or unable to make major financial commitments.
Difficulty in affording housing may not be the only reason for doubling up in Dublin;
small families may choose to share a home for convenience, companionship, or reluc-
tance to assume responsibility for an unneccesarily large unit. This trend indicates
both a change in the nature of the community's households and a mismatch between
available housing and those in the housing market, in terms of both price and type of
units available. Some amount of doubling represents efficient use of single-family
stock as family size declines.
The next five to ten years will bring the second major burst of growth in Dublin's
housing stock, with over 1,600 units approved but not built or occupied by the end of
- 1983. These units will result in a major change in the type of unit in Dublin—with
multi-family units approved, the City will see an increase in the percentage of multi-
family units even if all units yet to be approved were single family.
3-12
The predominance of buildings constructed within the past twenty years means that
few units in the City are obsolete. Maintenance varies from poor to excellent, but .
instances of poor maintenance are few and are scattered. Dublin's building inspector
reports few code violations as of early 1984. Most violations reported stem from
landlord/tenant conflicts.
Dublin offers a somewhat narrower range of housing prices than other Tri-Valley
communities. Because it is a new community, there are no modest cottages remaining
from a "pre-commuter" era available now to low income households. Because Dublin's
initial subdivisions were moderately priced, developers have been slow to add luxury
homes. However, Dublin's western hills offer an environment attractive to higher-
priced homes and some are beginning to appear, as are less costly multi-family units
elsewhere in the City.
Developments now being completed in Dublin consist mainly of single-family homes
that are considerably more expensive than resale units in the city. New homes in
three subdivisions surveyed range from $115,000 to $209,000 in May, 1983, while city-
wide average resale price in the first quarter of 1983 as reported by the Southern
Alameda County Board of Realtors was close to $111,000 (see Table 3-7). As reported
by sales representatives, buyers of these new homes seem to be divided evenly among
those moving from within the_Tri-Valley, from the nine-county Bay Area, and from
outside of the Bay Area, with many of those in this last group coming from out of
state as corporate transferees. Sales representatives, apartment managers, and public
housing officials have all noted a significant increase in the number of transferees
beginning in 1982, reflecting new major commercial/industrial development in the Tri-
Valley.
TABLE 3-7
TRI VALLEY SINGLE-FAMMY HOMES:
AVERAGE AND MEDIAN RESALE PRICES,
1ST QUARTER 1983
Dublin San Ramon Pleasanton Livermore
Average Sales Price,
. 1st Quarter 1983 $110,831 $154,709 $145,291 $109,538
Median Price,
January 1983 $109,225 $1549225 .$1359500 $102,225
Median Price,
. February 1983 $107,060 $142,250 $137,500 $102,896
Median Price,
March 1983 $99,900 $1389000 $1359000 103,225
Average Home Value,
1980 U.S. Census $92,397 na na na
Source: Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors
3-13
r
i l
1• It can be seen that while home prices have risen over the past 4 years, homes in Dublin
remain available to a wider range of households than units in other Tri-Valley cities.
The median home price for Dublin, when compared with that of San Ramon, and
Pleasanton, suggests that there are a greater percentage of resale units available in
the $100,000 range, and thus relatively more opportunities for homeownership by
f moderate income households in Dublin than elsewhere in the area.
Home ownership is out of reach for many area residents, and this fact increases the
demand for rental housing. The number of single-family homes offered as rentals
boosts Dublin's rental stock significantly. While Dublin's housing stock includes only
356 multi-family units, at least 950 additional units; all single-family, were rented out
in 1979. Counting multi and single family units, Dublin's rental housing stock included
988, or 23 percent, of the City's housing units, as compared with 44 percent for the
nine-county Bay Area, according to the 1980 Census.
The 1980 Census reported slightly over 85 percent of Dublin's housing units as having 3
or 4 bedrooms, with the breakdown by occupancy and tenure as follows:
r�
TABLE 3-8
1980 HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS,
OCCUPANCY STATUS, AND TENURE
Total Total Occupied Renter Occupied
None 5 5 5
1 118 118 97
2 269 239 196
3 2,045 1,926 428
4 1,495 1,469 218
5 or more 201 197 1
TOTAL 4,133 3,954 945
Source: 1980 U.S. Census.
.i
�J 3-14
3.4.2 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN DUBLIN AND THE TRI VALLEY
In addition to the market rate housing units in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, some
form of subsidized housing exists in each of the three cities (See Table 3-9).
In Dublin, the Pleasanton Housing Authority owns and manages Arroyo Vista, a
150-unit housing complex for low income families on the site of the former Koman-
dorski Village. The Arroyo Vista project was approved by a two-thirds majority in a
vote in the unincorporated area of Alameda County under Article 34 of the California
Constitution as required for publicly owned subsidized housing.
Applicants for Arroyo Vista are selected on the basis of housing authority policies that
make income the primary criterion. Local applicants are given preference. Local is
defined by the Housing Authority as currently living or working in Dublin or
Pleasanton. Numerous applications have been received from families being
transferred to the area.
Most Arroyo Vista tenants and applicants are young families from Dublin and
Pleasanton with preschool-age children. The majority of requests received by the
housing authority are for two-bedroom units, suggesting that the average household
size at Arroyo Vista is close to that in Dublin as a whole. Racially, the population of
Arroyo Vista is more diverse than that of the City, with 60 percent Caucasian tenants,
. 22 percent Hispanic, 11 percent Asian, 6 percent Black, and 1 percent American
Indian.
Other subsidized housing in Dublin is available through two Section 8 programs.
Section 8 new construction funds were used in the construction of The Springs
apartments, a 176-unit complex including 36 subsidized units. There is a short-term
waiting list continuously maintained for the Section 8 units at The Springs, and
turnover is very low. The Section 8 certificate program for Dublin is administered by
the Alameda County Housing Authority. Currently, the Housing Authority contracts
for 19 Section 8 units in Dublin. According to a representative of the County Housing
Authority, applications for certificates by Dublin residents are few, and Dublin is the
Alameda County city with the least participation in the Section 8 certificate program.
3-15
i
TABLE 3-9
j SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY, 1983
Unit Size Type
Total R of Age Group Rent
City Complex 0 of Units) Bedrooms) of Tenants Subsidy
Dublin Arroyo Vista 150 16 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
(Pleasanton (85 complete 78 - 2's Family
Housing as of 6/83) 32 - 3's Handicapped
Authority) 24 - 4's
8 - Hdcp.
Dublin The Springs 176 7 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
(36 subsidized) 29 - 2's Family
3 - Hdcp. Handicapped
Livermore Hillcrest Gardens 54 28 - Studio Elderly Q.I.
26 - 1's Handicapped S.S.
Livermore Leahy Square 125 12 - 1's Family Q.I.
(Livermore 48 - 2's Elderly
Housing 45 - 3's Handicapped
Authority) 18 - 4's
2 - 5's
Livermore Livermore Gardens 96 56 - 2's Family Q.I.
32 - 3's S.S.
8 - 4's
Livermore Meadowbrook 47 20 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
22 - 2's Family
3 - 3's Handicapped
2 - Hdcp.
Livermore Vineyard Village 74 74 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
8 - Hdcp. Handicapped
Pleasanton Kottinger Place 50 32 - Studio Elderly Q.I.
16 - 1's Handicapped
2 - 2's
Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens 39 19 - Studio Elderly S.S.
20 - 1's Handicapped,
Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens 131 31 - 1's Elderly S.S.
66 - 2's Family
34 - 3's Handicapped
Q.I. = 25 percent of income
S.S. = Sliding Scale
Source: Blayney-Dyett survey, May, 1983
i
3-16
I
3.4.3 HOUSING SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DUBLIN RESIDENTS
For those in need of housing counseling or emergency shelter, a variety of services
exist (see Table 3-10). Providers of housing services interviewed for the Housing
Element feel that their programs would be more effective if area residents were
better informed about available housing services and resources.
TABLE 3-10
TRI VALLEY HOUSING SERVICES
For Seniors Alameda County Department of Aging - housing
services for seniors, Hayward.
General Advisory and
Counseling Service, Shared
Housing Placement ECHO Housing Assistance - Housing advisory
Services, discrimination investigation, shared
housing placement, mediation services. Free to
Southern Alameda County Residents, Livermore.
Emergency Shelter Emergency Fund Center - Emergency shelter
and health services, free to all, Livermore.
Good Samaritan Family Crisis Center -
Emergency shelter for low income area
residents, Livermore.
Emergency Shelter Program, Inc. - Temporary
shelter for women and children, with meals
provided. Also education, and mental health and
counseling services, Hayward.
Tri-Valley Haven for Women - Housing for
victims of domestic violence and rape.
Information and referral service, counseling,
advocacy, Livermore.
Buenas Vidas Ranch - Emergency Housing for
youth ages 10 to 19 years, Livermore
Source: Valley Human Services Directory, City of Pleasanton
3-17
C '
3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED
3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND NEED ISSUES
Given the limited amount of undeveloped land remaining in Dublin and the extent of
planned commercial and industrial growth in the Tri-Valley area, it can be reasonably
assumed that there will be demand for as many units as can be produced in the city.
At issue, then, are the types of units to be produced, primarily in relation to density,
tenure, and cost.
General Plan policies will result in the production of more housing units at higher
densities than could be expected if zoning based on the Alameda County General Plan
at the time of incorporation were to continue. Housing construction in Dublin will
exceed "projected need" as included in Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Determina-
tion by over 80 percent. However, needs by income category as determined by ABAG
and accepted by the City will likely not be met. The major constraint on production
of below-market rate units is the lack of public funds devoted to that purpose.
While Dublin has had and will continue to have relatively affordable homes for the Tri-
Valley area, current market conditions make production of units affordable to even
moderate income households a challenge. Using a method developed by the Bay Area
Council, assuming the traditional 25 percent of income spent for housing, the
maximum affordable home price for a moderate income Dublin household is $75,000.
Few if any units are currently being built at or below that price. For example, while a
recent proposal for a "mini-condominium" project initially proposed units priced at
$60,000 - $70,000, approval has been made contingent on density reductions and
provision of some townhouse units, raising expected unit prices to the $65,000 -
$130,000 range.
New higher cost units in Dublin are selling, indicating that households with higher
incomes are moving into the City. Some households are able to purchase homes which,
according to the formula on page 22, they cannot afford because they purchased
homes when home prices and interest rates were low and they now have assets that
enable them to "move up" into houses which they would not be able to afford on their
incomes alone. Renters, who have no equity from a current home, have much more
difficulty purchasing a first unit. The relatively low cost of renting and absence of a
requirement of a large down payment makes rentals an important source of affordable
market rate housing.
3.5.2 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' (ABAG) HOUSING NEEDS
DETERMINATION
Dublin's regional fair share allocation is presented in Housing Needs Determinations -
San Francisco Bay Region (July 1983). Needs determinations have been prepared for
the nine Bay Area counties, their incorporated cities, and the total unincorporated
area for each county.
Existing Need represents the number of additional units a jurisdiction would have
provided in 1980 in order to have a housing market in "better" supply-demand balance
based on the "optimum vacancy rate." According to ABAG, Dublin's "existing need" in
1980 was 296 units. The "existing need" figure is, in effect, an analysis of the city's
`-- housing situation, reflecting the extent of unmet housing demand. "Existing need" is
included in "projected need."
I �
3-18
Projected Need is the total number of units needed to accommodate anticipated
growth in the city and provide for a desirable vacancy rate. The "projected need"
figure is the number of additional units that would ideally be developed in the City by -
1990, based on the household projections developed by ABAG and presented in its
Projections 183. Household projections reflect the distribution of employment
opportunities, availability of suitable sites, and commuting patterns, although no
detailed information is presented by ABAG to show how the figures were derived.
ABAG's determination of Dublin's "projected need" is 1,956 housing units.
Projected Housing Need by Type and Tenure is one of the factors that must be taken
into account in the determination of the regional need for housing as required by state
law. ABAG presents "housing need by type and by tenure" in two separate sets of
tables. Distribution by type and tenure rests on the assumption that "the relative
distribution of housing would be approximately that of the 1980 Census" (ABAG,
p.17). Using this assumption, ABAG has projected a need for 1,794 single family units
(92%), 162 multi family units (8%), and no mobile homes. ABAG projects a need for
1,485 owner-occupied units (76%) and 471 rental units.
Projected Need by Income Category is not a continuation of current patterns but
rather a figure that includes a redistribution of households by income category
throughout the region. The objective of the redistribution is to "avoid further
impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households"
.(Government Code Section 65584).. To generate the figures, ABAG averaged existing
city percentages in each income category with the existing county and regional
percentages. For example, to derive Dublin's projected need for very low income
households, ABAG averaged Dublin's existing percentage of very low income house-
holds (9 percent) with Alameda County's percentage of very low income households (28
percent) and the regional percentage (23 percent), to come up with a projected need
for 20% of units for very low income households (9+28+23=60; 60/3=20).
Median household income as reported by the Census and definitions of income grouping
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form the basis
of ABAG's calculations. Existing distribution of households by income category is
presented in addition to "projected housing need by income category."
Planned and projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types than has
previously been available in Dublin, which means greater opportunity for production of
affordable units. The number of rental units that will be developed cannot be pro-
jected, since the division of multi family units between condominiums and rental units
is not known. However, with 2,600 multi-family units anticipated, the City will meet
the projected need for 471 additional rental units if only 18 percent are rental.
ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an absolute number of
units and a percentage of units in each income grouping. It is very unlikely that 34
percent of the units produced in Dublin over the next ten years could be made
affordable to low and very low income households. This percentage seems particularly
unrealistic in light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for housing,
which would be necessary for production of affordable units at such a large scale.
3-19
f_
I
TABLE 3-11
DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS:
' DISTRIBUTION.BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1980
AND ABAG PROJECTED NEED
Income Categories
_ Above
Very Low Low Moderate Moderate
Household income by percent
distribution, 1980 Census 9% 11% 26% 54%
Projected need for housing
units by income category (ABAG),1983 391 274 450 841
Desired distribution of
households by income
category (ABAG),1983 20% 14% 23% 43%
ABAG's regional redistribution of households by income category would result in more
than double the percentage of very low income households in Dublin with relatively
slight changes in the percentages of low and moderate income households.
The total "projected need" for Dublin represents slightly more than the number of
units currently approved or under consideration by the City. Comparing ABAG's total
"projected need" figure of 1,956 to the 3,700 total additional units expected under
General Plan policies, it can be seen that the demand for housing units in Dublin as
determined by ABAG will be more than satisfied by anticipated construction. (See
Table 3-12).
TABLE 3-12
CITY OF DUBLIN: ABILITY TO
MEET ABAG PROJECTED NEEDS, 1980-1990
Buildout Under
General Plan Policies
Existing Units, May, 1983 4,428
Units Approved or Under Consideraton, November, 1983 1,800
Anticipated Units on Currently Unsubdivided Land 11900
Total Additional Units 3,700
Units in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 1,744
Percent in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 89%
3-20
i.
Planned and projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types than has
previously been available in Dublin, which means greater opportunity for production of
affordable units. The number of rental units that will be developed cannot be
projected, since the division of multi family units beteen condominiums and rental
units is not known. However, with 2,600 multi-family units anticipated, the city will
meet the projected need for 471 additional rental units if only 18 percent are rental.
ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an absolute number of
units and a percentage of units in each income grouping. It is very unlikely that 34
percent of the units produced in Dublin over the next ten years could be made
affordable to low and very low income households. This percentage seems particularly
unrealistic in light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for housing,
which would be necessary for production of affordable units at such a large scale.
The City of Dublin accepted the Housing Needs Determination after the legal com-
ment period following issuance of the ABAG document in July, 1983. The action by
the City does not indicate adoption of the ABAG figures as the City's housing goals,
but rather acceptance of the figures as accurately reflecting the City's housing needs.
Definitions of Income Categories for Dublin. Discussion of housing needs refer to
households of "low," "moderate," or "above moderate" income. These terms are
precisely defined in state law, and establish the categories used in determining
eligibility of housing consumers to a variety of housing programs, as well as
availability of public funds and assistance to housing providers. State statute bases
the definitions on a household of four, and does not relate income definitions to
different household sizes for most purposes.
In 1979, the most recent year for which income data for Dublin households is
available, median household income in the City was 105 percent of the Five County
San Francisco Area Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) median as reported
by U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To update these figures, the Housing
Element assumes that the same relationship prevailed in 1983, and uses available data
to derive a 1983 median Dublin household income of $33,180.
Income categories for Dublin are defined as follows based on derived Dublin income of
$33,180. Explanations of each income grouping is as per Chapter 6.5 (commencing
with Section 6910) of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code.
Very low income- $16,590 and below.
Less than 50% of the area or county median income.
Other lower income- $16,590 - $26,544
Between 51% and 80% of the area or county median income.
Lower income- $26,544 and below
Less than or equal to 80% of the area or county median income (i.e.,
combination of very low income and other low income).
Moderate income- $26,544 - $39,816
Between 81% and 120% of the area or county median income.
Above moderate income- $39,816 and above
Above 120% of the area or county median income.
Determination of Moderate Income Unit Price. While State law establishes definitions
for different income categories, it does not define affordability for the purposes of
housing programs. Determination of a unit price affordable to moderate income
households is important, as the State requires jurisdictions give developers density
bonuses if 25 percent of the units in a project are affordable to low and moderate
income households.
The following method for determining housing cost affordable by a moderate income
household was developed by the Bay Area Council.5 This approach takes into account
likely interest rates and loan periods, but does not consider assets of the household. It
should be recognized that many moderate income households live in homes which they
"should not" be able to afford, as they were purchased with large down payments or
when home prices and mortgage rates were lower. The advantage such households
have in moving to a new home is clear. The flip side of the coin reveals the diffi-
culties faced by first time home-buyers of moderate income, without similar assets.
DETERMINATION OF THE MODERATE INCOME UNIT PRICE
a. Moderate-income definition (120% of median) _ $39,816
b. $39,816 x .9 = $35,834 income to be used in determining price. In order to
establish a practical range of incomes able to afford a specific price for a unit,
it must be affordable to those having 90 percent of the calculated income.
Without this "window" only those whose income was $39,816 or more would
qualify.
C. $35,834/12 = $746, maximum monthly mortgage payment, or maximum rent
4 payment at 25 % of gross income. (Utilities and insurance
not included).
d. $746 payment at 13% fixed rate, 30-year term = $67,438 mortgage
e. $67 438 = $74,931 moderate income affordable purchase price assuming
.9 downpayment 10% downpayment
adjustment)
3.5.3 IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEED
State law requires that the Housing Element include an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs (Government Code 65583). Indicators of need
include level of payment compared to ability to pay, analysis of special housing needs,
vacancy and overcrowding. While data regarding overcrowding and "overpayment" can
be readily assembled and presented, such figures need to be qualified before they are
"translated" into existing need.
By long standing rule of thumb, overpayment occurs when a household pays more than
25 percent of monthly income for housing, although some of the recent literature uses
30 percent. Clearly, higher income households are more able to spend a greater
portion of income on housing without sacrificing basic needs than are low income
households. However, households that are technically "overpaying" are not necessarily
in immediate need of affordable units. Put another way, there is no evidence to
suggest that all (or even a majority) of overpaying households in Dublin or the region
would relocate were affordable housing available in the City. The fact that those
households identified by the Census as overpaying are living in Dublin indicates the
ability to pay.
5 Bay Area Council, Proposal for a San Mateo County Affordable Housing Incentive
Program, June 1983, prepared by the Bay Area Council and submitted to the San
Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
The impossibility of pairing households and housing units raises a basic difficulty in
solving overcrowding and overpayment problems. For example, while production of
additional large units would surely provide the opportunity for large households to be
adequately housed, it does not guarantee it. If it can be supposed that households
living in overcrowded conditions are those with the least housing choice because of
limited ability to*pay, it becomes even less likely that the production of market rate
large units would alleviate overcrowding in Dublin.
The policies and programs of the Housing Element are not likely to reduce the number
of overpaying households in the City. If successful the housing program will limit the
increases in the incidences of overpayment and overcrowding in Dublin.
Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing. One index of immediate need is the length of
waiting lists for subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley. Households on waiting lists are
in need of affordable housing and actively seeking to relocate. Table 3-13 reports on
waiting lists for subsidized housing. There is probably some overlap, with a number of
households on lists for more than one housing complex.
Level of Payment as a Function of Ability to Pay. Tables 3-14 and 15 compare level
of payment for housing to ability to pay. As discussed above, overpayment has
traditionally been defined as expenditure of over 25 percent of income on housing. As
can be seen from Table 3-16, over 1,300 Dublin households, occupants of 33 percent of
the City's housing units, spend more than 25 percent of their income on housing. This
figure suggests one of two possible interpretations—that there is a major overpayment
problem in Dublin, or that the accepted standard used to define overpayment does not
hold true in today's housing market.
The latter interpretation seems to have validity, as an increasing number of
households make the choice to spend a relatively large portion of household income on
housing. Such choices are available to some households and not to others; clearly the
fact that no households that reported 1979 earnings of less than $5,000 pay less than
33 percent of income for housing indicates a group of households that are overpaying
for housing; for those households, housing expenditures "take away" from expenditures
for other basic needs.
3-23
TABLE 3-13
WAITING LISTS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING a
On Waiting List (June 1983)
From From From
City Complex Dublin Pleasanton Livermore
Dublin Arroyo Vista 4 Elderly 9 Elderly N/A
(Pleasanton 86 Family 88 Family
Housing
Authority)
Dublin The Springs Long term waiting list not maintained
Pleasanton Kottinger Place N/A 29 Elderly N/A
(Pleasanton
Housing
Authority)
Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens N/A 27 Elderly N/A
Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens N/A 57 Elderly N/A
Livermore Hillcrest Gardens Estimated at 110, almost all from
Livermore; no breakdown available
Livermore Leahy Square Estimated at 150; no breakdown available
(Livermore
Housing Authority)
Livermore Livermore Gardens Estmated at 50; no breakdown available
Livermore Meadowbrook 70 on waiting list; no breakdown
available
Livermore Vineyard Village Estimated at 85 elderly, 1 disabled; no
breakdown available
aDescriptions of housing complexes are in Table 3-9.
Source: Blayney-Dyett telephone survey, Spring, 1983
3-24
TABLE 3-14
MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
(Selected Noneondominium Units - City of Dublin)
Income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more
Households 50 116 131 337 2,185
Surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 13 11.2 35 26.7 88 26.0 1,248 57.0
S
20%-24% 5 4.3 32 24.4 68 20.2 327 14.9
o
25%-34% 24 20.7 25 19.1 84 25.0 437 20.0
A
a
35% or more 50 100 74 63.8 39 29.8 97 28.8 173 8.1
Source: 1980 U.S. Census
w TABLE 3-15
MONTHLY GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
cn (Selected Units- City of Dublin)
Income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more
Households 50 116 131 337 2,185
Surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 5 5.8 35 24.0 29 16.6 238 52.0
w
20%-24% 14 16.3 7 4.7 21 12.0 124 27,0
25%-34% 15 17.4 18 12.3 74 42.3 82 17.9
o �
a�
a 35% or more 57 76 52 60.5 86 60.0 51 29.1 8 1.7
Not
Completed 18 24
- TABLE 3-16
DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 25 PERCENT OR MORE
OF INCOME ON HOUSING, 1980
Percent of Income
• Spent on Housing
25%-35% 35%+
E
Renting Households
Total 190 100
Percent of All Renting
Households 20% 10%
Home-Owning Households
Total 604 459
Percent of All Home-Owning
Households 20% 15%
Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett.
Vacancy rates. Vacancy rates, a commonly used indicator of the adequacy of the
existing housing stock in meeting market area needs, are particularly difficult to
obtain for Dublin because several of the customary providers of vacancy data have not
conducted surveys in the city. The 1980 census reported vacancy rates as follows:
VACANCIES -DUBLIN HOUSING UNITS, 1980
Vacant Units Percent of Total Units
Vacant for Sale 28 .9
Vacant for Rent 17 1.8
The California Department of Housing and Community Development reports that in
California a rental vacancy rate of six percent and a for sale vacancy rate of two
percent are desirable to provide for the number of moves generally made by
households in a period of a year. The for sale and for rent vacancy rates as reported
by the 1980 Census are considerably lower than these standards. A sample survey of
Dublin apartments conducted in mid-1983 by Blayney-Dyett found virtually no
vacancies in Dublin apartments, with waiting lists typical.
Overcrowding. An overcrowded housing unit is defined as one in which there are more
than 1.01 persons per room. The 1980 Census reported 109 overcrowded units in
i Dublin, 2.6 percent of the City's housing units. While overcrowding has been declining
statewide since the 19601s, the 7.4 percent overcrowding in California reported in 1980
represents a substantially higher incidence of overcrowding statewide than in the City.
3-26
3.5.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Housing for the Elderly. The 1980 Census reported 429 Dublin residents over age 62,
representing 3.2 percent of the City's population, considerably below the nine-county
Bay Area total of 12.6 percent. Unfortunately, data is not available which indicates
what portion of Dublin's elderly households are overpaying. The generally low inci-
dence of overcrowded and unsafe housing units city-wide suggests that these are not
problems for the elderly or other groups with special housing needs. There is evidence
for a need for small units in Dublin, desirable for both their lower cost and
convenience to small households, many of which are elderly. While the Census
reported 29 percent (1,210) of Dublin's households having only 1 or 2 persons, only 392
1980 housing units, or 9.5 percent of the City's housing stock, were studio or one or
two bedroom units.
Cost is not the only housing concern of the elderly. Access to services and facilities is
another. The shopping opportunities in Dublin's relatively compact downtown are
attractive to those with mobility problems, but may be offset by the minimal public
transit within the City.
Below market rate elderly households have greater opportunities to find subsidized
housing in the Tri-Valley area then do families, attributable to the relative ease of
gaining acceptance for affordable housing when it is provided for seniors instead of
families with children. Five of the area's subsidized housing complexes are for elderly
and disabled households only. One type of housing for the elderly which is not avail-
able in the Tri-Valley is congregate housing, which provides a level of independence
and privacy between individual units or senior complexes and nursing homes or other
institutions.
Housing Accessible to Disabled Persons. Table 3-17 reports on the number of persons
in Dublin and the Valley corridor with major disabling conditions. Some unavoidable
double-counting may have resulted in slightly inflated totals.
While those conditions surveyed are not correlated with special housing needs, it may
be assumed that none of the categories of mental disorders and only some of the
categories of physical disorders represent populations in need of accessible housing.
Taken together, the two categories likely to include the greatest portion of people
with special housing needs "Amputees and Others" and "Other Physical Disorders"
total 803, or 5.9 percent of Dublin's population. This figure can be compared with the
1980 Census counts of those with workplace and public transportation disabilities,
totalling 722, or 5.3 percent of the City's residents. The figure double counts an
unknown number of people who have both workplace and public transportation
disabilities, and includes an unknown number of disabled persons who do not have
special housing needs. In sum, 5 percent represents the high end of an estimated
portion of Dublin's households with special housing needs relating to disabling
conditions.
3-27
TABLE 3-17
_ PERSONS WITH MAJOR DISABLING CONDITIONS:
VALLEYS CORRIDOR AND DUBLIN, 1982
Valleys Corridors Dublin
Percent of
Number Number City Pop.
Total Disabling Conditions 25,199 2,219 16.4
Total Sensory Disorders 2,418 212 1.5
Blind 176 15 .1
Visually Impaired 453 39 .3
Deaf 554 49 .4
Hearing Impaired 19235 109 .8
Total Physical Disorders 12,373 1,088 8.1
Amput. and Othersc 4,713 415 3.1
Epilepsy 252 22 .2
Heart Disease 19638 144 1.1
Speech Impaired 327 29 .2
Digestion Disorder 1,033 90 .7
Other Physical Disordersc 4,410 388 2.9
Total Mental Disorders 10,408 916 6.8
Mental Illness 907 80 .6
Mentally Retarded 1,588 140 1.0
Drug and Alcohol 6,779 596 4.4
Other Character Disorders 1,134 100 .7
a"Valleys Corridor" includes the cities and Census designated places of Alamo,
Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, total 1980 population
154y312.
bAssumes even distribution of disabled population throughout Valleys Corridor.
cPopulations most likely to have special housing needs, totaling 803, 5.9 percent of
Dublin's population. .
Source: Valleys Corridor Project, United Way of the Bay Area: extrapolation by
Blayney-Dyett.
3-28
Unfortunately, no data is available on the ability of disabled households to pay for
housing. Like low income elderly households, below-market rate disabled households
have a relatively great opportunity to obtain subsidized housing somewhere in the Tri-
Valley.
For market-rate households, finding accessible housing is the challenge. Information
on the number of accessible units currently in the City is not available. The bulk of
Dublin's housing units, those constructed by Volk-McLain in the 19601s, are single story
structures. These are, and will probably continue to be, the units most easily adapted
for accessibility. Expenses incurred due to remodeling in order to permit access by
elderly or disabled persons are tax deductible.
Needs of Female Headed Households. The 1980 Census reported 222 female headed
households with children present, 5.3 percent of the City's population, as compared
with almost 10 percent reported for the nine-county Bay Area. The number of female
headed households with children living below poverty is 22, 0.6 percent of all Dublin
households. The corresponding figure for the nine-county Bay Area is 44,061, or 2.2
percent of all households.
Other Groups with Special Housing Needs. Two groups often identified as having
special housing needs are large families and farmworker households. There is no
evidence that either of these groups represent a significant number of households with
housing problems in Dublin.
Though data is not available that relates family size to ability to pay, the frequency of
large families living in unsuitable housing units would presumably be evident by a high
incidence of overcrowding. As overcrowding is reported to occur in less than 3
percent of Dublin's housing units, it appears that large families are not facing severe
housing problems in the City.
The ABAG housing needs determination does not present figures relating to farm-
workers' housing needs. The report does note that there will be a decline in the
number of farmworker households in the Bay Area, and that the need for additional
housing for farmworkers in the region is not demonstrable. Given this general projec-
tion, along with the limited extent of agricultural activities other than grazing in the
Dublin area, farmworker household needs are not considered in this Housing Element.
3.5.5 JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
State law requires that the Housing Element include an assessment of population and
employment trends. In Government Code Section 65913.1, State Statute mandates
that:
A city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone
sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate
standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in
relation to growth projections of the General Plan to meet
housing needs as identified in the General Plan.
3-29
The jobs/housing balance, reflecting the relationship between persons employed and
employed persons residing in a given jurisdiction, is included in the Housing Element to
satisfy the State requirement.
In 1979, 5,992 Dublin residents, 1.45 persons per household, a slightly lower average
than that reported Valley-wide, were employed. Using 1980 Alameda County data on
commercial and industrial floor area, we estimate that there are about 6,000 jobs in
Dublin, roughly the same number as employed residents. At.build-out the Primary
Planning Area is expected to have 8,400 jobs and 8,100 housing units. If the number of
workers per household continues at 1.45, 11,745 employed persons would be housed in
the city, indicating a net out-commute.
When anticipated development of the extended planning area is included in a
job/housing balance calculation for Dublin a different picture emerges. While the
General Plan designations for the extended planning area are only schematic, the
proposals suggest that as many as 21,000 jobs and 3,800 housing units could exist
there. Adding these figures to the total anticipated jobs and housing units for the
primary planning area results in a projection of 29,400 total jobs and 17,300 employed
residents, yielding a jobs to employed residents ratio of 1.7:1.
ABAG's preliminary 1983 projections anticipate 253,000 Tri-Valley residents by the
year 2000 with Las Positas new town included. This would result in 90,000 housing
units and 130,500 employed residents (at 1.45 per unit). ABAG projects 132,200 jobs in
the Tri-Valley, so the ratio of jobs to employed residents would be 1:1. If, however,
all of the 129,615 "planned jobs" listed in Table 3-1 materialize and are added to the
50,400 jobs existing in 1980, the job total will be 180,000 instead of 132,000 and the
jobs to employed residents ratio will rise to 1.4:1 unless housing construction also
exceeds ABAG's projection. The ABAG projections do not include development in the
Dublin extended planning area, which would increase the imbalance between houses
and jobs Valley-wide. With 201,000 jobs (including 21,000 in the Dublin Extended
Planning Area) and the 90,000 housing units projected by ABAG the jobs/employed
residents ratio would be 1.49:1 assuming there are 1.45 employed persons per
household.
Valley-wide, employment growth is likely to outpace housing additions. To create
jobs/housing balance; i.e., the same number of jobs as resident workers, regardless of
commute pattern, residential development will have to exceed planned levels. Using
the ABAG employment projection, which is lower than the total "planned jobs"
reported by the Alameda County Planning Department, 98,000 housing units would be
needed to achieve Valley-wide jobs/housing balance, but with the "planned jobs"
figure, 133,000 units would be required. The higher figure exceeds the 1980 stock by
83,000 units. To reach this total would require housing construction equivalent to 20
communities with the number of dwelling units presently in Dublin.
Valley-wide "fair shares" are essential if jobs-housing balance is to be attained
because each jurisdiction tends to act in its perceived fiscal self-interest. Dublin,
with lower per household income than Pleasanton, cannot be expected to accept more
market minimum housing so that Pleasanton can devote similarly situated land to
employment if both cities believe jobs to be more beneficial.
3-30
3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AVAILABLE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
Only one large undeveloped site zoned for residential development remains in the
Dublin primary planning area. Fortunately, several sites previously reserved for other
purposes are expected to become available for development within the housing pro-
gram time frame of five years. These are school sites, two of which are currently
developed as schools with parks on the grounds and one, the Dolan site, which has
never been developed for school use.
All of the sites except for the largest, an approximately 80 acre area west of
Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard, are infill sites. The Dough-
erty Road site is adjacent to another large site for which townhouse-type development
has been approved. Services will be provided to new development by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and the Dublin police and (DSRSD) fire departments.
3.6.1 SPIES CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
The sites listed in Table 3-18 and identified in Figure 3-1 are currently zoned for
residential development. As the table shows, none (with the possible exception of the
two small sites located in planned development (PD) districts are in zoning districts
that permit lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. Table 3-18 includes three sites that
are outside the incorporated area.
3.6.2 SITES NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Table 3-19 lists sites not currently designated for residential use, but with potential
for the development of housing. These range from school sites surrounded by
residential development to the downtown intensification area, where mixed
commercial/residential buildings might include apartments or condominiums.
Murray School District intends to sell the entire Dolan site and all or a portion of the
Fallon site. The Frederiksen school is scheduled for closure at the end of the 1985
school year. The acreages reported available on the Fallon and Frederiksen sites are
based on continuation of neighborhood parks on both sites and school District
disposition of the entire properties.
3-31
r"
TABLE 3-18
SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Site Number Approximate Current
Location On Map Acreage Zonin
East of Dougherty Hills,
north of Amador Valley
Boulevard to County line 1 79a R-1-B-Eb
Pleasanton Housing Auth-
ority property, southwest
portion of site 2 5 PD
South of Alcosta Boule-
vard, east of I-680 3 2
South side of Betlen
Drive north of Prow Way 4 9 R-1-B-E
Abutting approved Neilsen
tentative map multi-family
1 north of Hansen Road 5 4 —
Southwest of approved
Neilsen tentative
map, north of Valley
Christian Center 6 7 —
Abutting north
property line of Valley
{` Christian Center 7 12 —
aThe almost 100 acres of the total site includes a designated park and Alamo Creek.
Estimated area available for residential development is 79 acres.
bR-1-B-E allows for sites from 5,000-7,500 square feet.
t
L 3-32
I
.. ?::•.
R.
Y�[•'•f V
•s'�•:�a
.� 2 *{ ....
;:{ ! .;, Approximate Location
:v
r
`Y
7a
f fix,„_ �Y ; ���r ... .. •, � :ti � � � � 5, ..
•r rr.
}f•
.ti•�•
t
12
i :{{-i•�,., .:' ..'. ,. ' A l.•:•. ::•:.
Approximate Location
... ....-. -....<.. ..-.... ^.ems ,:.! � .,.
s
M
....... L ...
Figure 3-1: Sites for Housing Development
TABLE 3-19
SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING .
NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Site . Number Approximate Current
Location On Map Acreage Zoning
West of Dougherty Road, C-N
south of Amador Valley Neighborhood
Boulevard 8 2 Business
Fallon School 9 8 R-1-B-E
Frederiksen School 10 7 R-1a
Dolan School Site 11 27 R-1-B-E
Valley Christian
Center property—
southeast portion 12 1-12 Agricultural
Downtown Intensifi-
cation Area 13 —b Mostly C-1, some
M-1, C-2, and PD
aMinimum lot size in an R-1 district is 5,000 square feet.
bThe extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the
area of future intensification is not known at this time.
3.6.3 SITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED
HOUSING
Opposition to mobile homes and manufactured housing sometimes arises when a
landowner proposes mobile home or manufactured housing on an undeveloped
parcel in a developed neighborhood of traditional single family detached homes. Such
conflict is unlikely in Dublin, where very few subdivided parcels are available for
development.
Development of mobile home parks is also unlikely in Dublin. The few large sites
available are designated medium density residential (6.0 to 14.0 units per acre) by the
General Plan, allowing more intensive use than can be achieved under most mobile .
home park standards 6. The strategies of the housing element presented in Section 8
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Guidelines for Improving the Mobile Home Living Environment, August
1977, p. 7. National average densities are 6 to 7 units per acre.
' 3-33
focus on providing opportunities for multi-family units at medium densities. Such
designations remove developer incentive for mobile home parks on undeveloped sites
in the primary planning area and will result in production of more units than would
mobile home park development. As mentioned in Section 1, opportunities for mobile
home park development in the extended planning area should be considered when the
Housing Element is updated and when development proposals are reviewed.
3-34
x
3.7 CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING
3.7.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
State law requires that the Housing Element "address" and, where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing. With 1,619 units approved or under consideration in
Dublin, increasing the city's housing stock by 36 percent, it becomes clear that,
overall, governmental constraints are not impeding development. However, the level
of activity does not indicate whether governmental constraints are increasing housing
costs.
Lack of Programs for Subsidized Housing. The major housing problem area is the
failure to produce units affordable to low and moderate income households. While
several of the strategies outlined in Section 8 of the Housing Element will bring more
market-rate housing within the reach of moderate income households, below market-
: rate households will not be assisted by most of the steps the City is capable of taking.
-- The primary governmental constraint relative to the production of housing for low
income households is the drastic cut-back in federal funds and programs previously
available to subsidize housing. For example, Section 8 funds, formerly the main
federal housing subsidy program, 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 included only $514 million in new budget authority for assisted housing under
Section 8, to be used for the construction of 10,000 units nationwide for the elderly
and handicapped. Dublin's arithmetical share would be half of one unit. .
The current federal strategy is to provide assistance to the states through the Block
Grant Program, shifting the burden of allocation of a dwindling "pie." As part of
Alameda County's "urban county," Dublin is eligible for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Though Block Grant funds may not be allocated for hous-
ing construction, they may be used for site development and other related costs.
Competition for Block Grants is intense, both among jurisdictions and between
activities.
Currently, Alameda County nonentitlement cities that are part of the urban county
receive a maximum of $250,000 per year. Dublin used its 1982 allocation to assist the
Kaleidoscope Center for the developmentally 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.
Existing Zoning. Alameda County zoning, adopted by Dublin after incorporation,
designated most of the City for single family residential development. Existing zoning
constrains both the total number of units which can be produced and the number of
multi-family units constructed, thereby limiting opportunities for the development of
affordable housing in Dublin.
Processing and Permit Procedures. None of the land owners, realtors, or developers
contacted in the course of the General Planning process cited building code
requirements, site improvements, permitting procedures, or other governmental
actions as obstacles to the approval and construction of residential developments.
3-35
K
Limited planning staff may have slowed down some permit processing by the City in
its first year of operation, but the staff has recently been expanded and should now be
able to handle applications and requests without delay.
Development Fees. One often cited constraint is the high cost of development fees
and permits. These include fees for sewer and water hookup and park dedication.
Fees for a recently approved Dublin townhouse development totalled almost $5,000
per unit. Development fees raise housing cost, diminishing the pool of possible buyers
for any given project.
Though high fees,act to reduce the rate of residential development, they are essential
as means of funding necessary services for new development. Given the choice made
by Californians in 1978 when Proposition 13 passed, Dublin (like other jurisdictions)
has no practical alternative resources with which to fund basic improvements to serve
new residences.
3.7.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The inventory of non-governmental constraints can be separated into two groups:
those factors that reduce or slow down housing development, and those that increase
housing cost to the consumer. In the first category are possible lack of infrastructural
capacity; limited land availability; and competition of different uses for undeveloped
land. In the second category fall high and unpredictable interest rates; high land
prices; and community opposition to high density housing. There is overlap between
categories, as, for example, community opposition to medium and high density housing
results in extended delay in development, and eventual resolution of the problem of
sewage capacity will doubtless result in increased sewer hookup fees.
Possible Lack of Infrastructural Capacity. The most prominent public facilities issue
faced by Dublin and other Tri-Valley cities is limited sewer capacity. Sewage collec-
tion and treatment and effluent disposal are provided to Dublin residents and busi-
nesses by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), a member of the Liver-
more Amador Valley Waste Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns and
operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipeline
used'by member jurisdictions, DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
DSRSD's treatment plant can be expanded to four times its present size, but the
LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated effluent through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is
nearing capacity. Development of additional LAVWMA capacity in the form of
another pipeline in the Valley would require Valley-wide voter approval.
Sewage capacity is allocated by DSRSD through issuance of connection permits. As of
Summer 1983, there were approximately 580 outstanding residential permits in Dublin;
i.e., permits that have been issued for dwelling units not yet hooked up to the
system. At that time an additional 1,700 residential permits remained to be issued to
users throughout the District on a first come, first served basis.
With remaining residential development capacity in Dublin alone allowing approxi-
mately 3,100 additional units that do not hold permits, it seems probable that pipeline
capacity will be reached before Dublin is built out, and that growth will be curtailed,
at least temporarily, within 2 to 5 years if additional effluent disposal capacity is not
3-36
i
available. Although a major new system would take 5 to 7 years to construct, minor
capacity increases could be implemented soon after authorization, possibly alleviating
development constraints during pipeline expansion.
Limited Land Availability. As noted in Section 1, only 167 acres of undeveloped land
- remain in Dublin outside of commercially zoned sites. Given the strength of the
housing market in Dublin, it is likely that more land would be developed were it
available in an area served by public facilities and services. With small lots, very few
units over twenty years old, and a small number of units needing repair, it is unlikely
that redevelopment resulting in more intensive use of presently developed land will
occur within the five year time frame of the housing program.
Residential designations have been considered for several commercially zoned sites
and rejected. Planning Commission and City Council members chose to retain com-
mercial designations because of concerns regarding traffic and land use compatibility
and in recognition of anticipated demand for commercial sites. Mixed commercial/
residential uses are allowed in the Downtown Intensification Area.
Competition Among Uses. Closely related to the limited availability of land in Dublin
is the tension between competing uses for what limited undeveloped land does exist.
For example, in deciding on General Plan designations for the Fallon and Frederiksen
school sites, the need for housing was weighed against growing need for recreation
facilities as the city's population grows. The resulting plan continues devoting
portions of each site to park while designating the remaining acreage for medium
density residential development.
In the Extended Planning Area, landowners have already stated their desire for
business park development north of I-580 in the vicinity of Tasajara Road. This
relatively flat accessible area is unique in the extended planning area for a lack of the
topographic constraints that will likely make housing units constructed elsewhere
affordable only to households of above-moderate income. Though the Tassajara road
area does have the potential for development of affordable housing, especially on
County surplus land, the adverse effects of proximity to the new County jail and the
freeway combined with the greater profitability of business park development weaken
support for residential development.
Interest Rates. Rising interest rates in the 1970's and early 1980's have been a major
contributor to high costs for both housing providers and consumers. The dramatic rise
in monthly mortgage payments attributable to high interest rates is illustrated in
Table 3-20, which compares payments on a $100,000 mortgage at different interest
rates and varying terms. In Section 5, $67,400 was established as the maximum mort-
gage assumable by a moderate income Dublin household, based on a 13% 30 year
loan. The $ 100,000 mortgage, however, is necessary for a large number of buyers of
Dublin homes.
Lower interest rates increase the number and income range of households that can
qualify for mortgages. High monthly payments associated with current interest rates
explain why many who purchased homes before the interest rate rise of the 1970's are
able to pay for homes that renting households of the same income cannot now afford
to purchase. High interest rates are a major factor that makes it much easier to
remain a homeowner than to become one for the first time.
3-37
TABLE 3-20
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
$100,000 MORTGAGE
Interest Term Monthly Payment
Rate Years Principal & Interest
0% 25 333.33
30 277.78
35 238.10
40 208.33
8% 25 771.82
30 733.77
35 710.27
40 695.32
12% 25 1,053.23
30 1,028.62
35 1,015.55
40 1,008.50
16% 25 1,358.89
30 1,344.76
35 12338.47
40 1,335.65
20% 25 12678.46
30 1,671.02
35 1,668.28
40 1,667.27
Source: The California Housing Plan 1982, Volume 2, California Department of
Housing and Community Development, p.c-26.
3-38
Community Opposition to Medium and High Density Housing. Two multi-family
residential projects recently proposed in Dublin have been delayed and are finally near
approval at reduced density as a consequence of opposition of nearby residents to
multi-family dwellings at high densities. Community concerns that have been raised
center on noise and traffic impacts, aesthetics and neighborhood character.
Opposition of some Dublin residents to higher density housing has impeded
development of a wider variety of housing types than the city has had in the past.
_ Approvals contingent on redesign have meant projects with fewer and larger, more
costly units than initially proposed by the developers. Despite density reductions
resulting from community sentiment, medium-high density development has been
approved in Dublin in 1983.
The General Plan process is intended to set densities that are consistent with accepted
design standards and community policies and will not be subject to negotiations when
future project designs are submitted.
3-39
3.8 HOUSING PROGRAM r
3.8.1 SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM
The housing strategies that together compose Dublin's housing program will result in
production of more units and greater variety in unit types than would be acheived if
current policies were continued. This increased production is clearly warranted given
the significant growth in planned employment in the Tri-Valley within the five-year
time frame of the housing program.
Several of the strategies in process of implementation will be accomplished through
adoption of the General Plan and a Zoning Ordinance consistent with General Plan
policies and designations as required by law. Implementation of other strategies will
require City actions in addition to Plan adoption. Still others assume ongoing City
efforts based on existing programs. The Housing Element text presents housing strat-
egies in three groups consistent with these.distinctions relating to implementation.
Table 3-21 summarizes the housing program strategies and relates them to required
program components and City goals. Taken together the strategies increase residen-
tially zoned land in the city and raise permitted residential densities. Higher densities
are expected to result in smaller units and lower land cost per unit, so the new.desig-
nations should expand the housing stock to better fit Dublin's population, recognizing
both decreasing household size and increased difficulty in affording single family
detached homes.
Quantification of the objectives of the housing program is difficult in some areas and
simple in others. Build-out of the City is expected to occur within ten years - perhaps
considerably sooner. Approvals have been granted for 1,600 units and a conservative
estimate projects construction of half of the City's remaining dwelling units, 950
units, during the next five years: Over 70% of these will be multi-family units.
Given the extremely limited availability of public funds for housing subsidies, the
housing program consists of actions feasible for the City (generally without financial
obligation) or for private interests. Should public monies become available for housing
assistance the City will re-evaluate opportunities for production of affordable units.
The City's housing goals are presented in the next section, followed by housing
strategies. Each of the housing strategies is associated with a particular policy
objective. Quantified objectives for the individual strategies are included as
appropriate.
3.8.2 CITY HOUSING GOALS
The following goals direct the City's housing program. Policy objectives which
implement City goals are presented with individual housing strategies.
1. Provide housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet current and future
housing needs of all Dublin residents.
2. Preserve Dublin's existing housing stock in sound condition.
3-40
i
TABLE 3-21
SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES
RELATED TO CITY GOALS AND HOUSING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Housing program strategies requiring adoption of General Plan and consistent Zoning Ordinance
amendments for implementation:
Increase residential densities(C,1)
Designate additional land for residential use (A, C, 1)
Designate land not previously zoned for residential use at higher densities than surrounding
neighborhoods (A, 1)
Treat one-bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75 percent of a housing unit when
computing allowable density.
Allow residential development in Downtown Intensification Area(A, C, 1)
Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable housing on their sites(B, 1)
Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects be rented for a specified period
of time (B, 1)
Housing program strategies requiring additional City action for implementation:
Encourage development of second units in existing single family homes (B, 1)
Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop below-market rate units(B, 1)
Work with Pleasanton toward establishing a joint housing authority(B, 1, 4)
Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in Dublin (B, 1)
Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assistance for the purpose of
including below market rate units in proposed projects; assist developers in obtaining
information on available programs(B, 1)
Housing program strategies requiring ongoing City effort using existing programs:
Grant 25 percent density bonuses for provision of 25 percent affordable units as required by
state law (B, 1)
Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others seeking housing in
Dublin(E, 4)
Continue City code enforcement program; aid low income households in obtaining financial
assistance for housing rehabilitation D, 2)
Statutory Housing Program Requirements City Houdw Goals
The program must: 1. Provide housing of varied types,sizes and prices in
Dublin in order to satisfy current and future housing
A. Identify adequate sites for the development of a needs of all Dublin residents.
variety of types of housing for all income levels
2. Preserve Dublin's existing housing stock in sound
B. Assist in the development of adequate housing to condition.
meet the needs of low-and moderate-income
households 3. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate
public services and will be fully served by public
C. Address and,where possible,remove governmental facilities and accessible to public facilities and
constraints to the maintenance,improvement,and employment and commercial centers.
development of housing
4. work for equal housing opportunity and access for
D. Conserve and improve the condition of the existing all persons regardless of any arbitrary factors.
affordable housing stock
E. Promote housing opportunities for all persons
regardless of race,religion,sex,marital status,
ancestry,national origin,or color.
3-41
ti
3. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public services and will be
accessible to public facilities and employment and commercial centers.
4. Work for equal housing opportunity and access for all persons regardless of race,
religion, national origin, sex, marital/family status or other arbitrary factors.
3.8.3 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AND CONSISTENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Increase Residential Densities. Under Alameda County policies, most of Dublin's
residential land was zoned for single family detached houses. There are no circulation
system or public service constraints that dictate low density for remaining un-
developed land. Higher densities will increase the variety in type and price of units
available in the City. The General Plan increases the densities from single family on
sites # 1 and # 4 (shown on Figure 3-1). Site #4, the south side of Betlen Drive west
of Prow Way, is designated as Medium Density. Site #1, the 79 acres east of the
Dougherty Hills and north of Amador Valley Boulevard, is designated as medium
density/required mixed dwelling types.
The Land Use Element defines General Plan residential designations as follow:
Residential: Single Family. (0.9 to 6.0 units per acre). This category includes single
family detached and zero lot line development.
Residential: Medium Density/Required Mixed Dwelling Types (6.1 to 14.0 units per
acre). Except where required mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and
densities may be similar or varied at the developer's discretion. Where mixed dwelling
types are required, site-specific policies would designate the location, number, and
maximum density of lower density development and densities up to 20 units per acre
could be combined to reach the 14.0 average.
Residential: Medium-High Density. (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre.) Examples of
medium-high density developments include the Springs (17.8) and Greenwood
Apartments (19.8).
Policy Objective: Allow construction at higher densities to increase number of
units constructed and lower land price per unit
Quantified Objective: Additional 340 units within five years; at buildout 680 units
above number that would be produced under current policies
Action Undertaken: Sites designated medium density residential or medium
density residential/required mixed dwelling type on General
Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendment(s) consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
3-42
i ,
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
' Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Designate Additional Land for Residential Use. The inventory of sites available for
residential use (Section 6) shows several sites appropriate for housing where
residential uses are not currently permitted. These include three school sites, and a
portion of the small commercially-zoned parcel at the corner of Dougherty Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard. All four sites are designated for multi-family residential
use by the General Plan.
Site 11, the Dolan school site, is given the medium density/required mixed dwelling
type designation. The desired development pattern on the site is single family homes
on the perimeter to achieve compatibility with existing surrounding single family
development, with density throughout the site averaging 14 units per acre.
The Fallon and Frederiksen school sites are both designated partly for neighborhood
parks and partly for medium density residential. Two acres of the Dougherty
Road/Amador Valley Boulevard site are designated as medium-high density.
Policy Objective: Increase total number of units produced in Dublin by
providing additional sites for residential development
Quantified Objective: 523 units total; 260 over next five years
Action Undertaken: Residential designation on General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations.
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Designate Land not Previously Zoned for Residential Use at Higher Densities than
Surrounding Neighborhoods. The neighborhoods surrounding the Fallon and Frederiksen
-- schools are older Dublin neighborhoods and include some of the homes built by
Volk-McLain in the 1960's. The Dolan site is in a newer area, characterized by single
family homes on larger lots. All three sites are designated for medium density .
residential use by the General Plan, with a mix of housing types required on the Dolan
site.
' A .
Policy Objective: Increase total number of units in city; reduce housing cost
by reducing per unit land cost, allowing smaller units.
3-43
Quantified Objective: Construction of 355 more units than would be built if sites
were designated for development at same densities as
surrounding neighborhoods. Approximately half of total -
units are likely to be produced within five years.
Action Undertaken: Medium and medium-high residential density General Plan
designation given to sites.
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendment(s) consistent with Plan policies and
designations.
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Treat One-bedroom and Studio Units as Equivalent to 75 Percent of a Housing Unit
When Computing Allowable Density, Provided that the Maffimum Number of Units
Permitted on a Site Shall not be Increased by More Than 25 Percent. Attached and
multi-family housing units may vary in size from studios to three bedroom units as
large as many single family detached houses. If density policies treat all sizes identi-
cally, regulating density solely on the basis of units per acre, all units on a given site
carry the same land cost, regardless of size. As a result, developers tend to build the
largest units they can sell or rent to allow the greatest profit margin.
Small units, defined as having one or no bedroom, are on average equivalent to no
more than 75 percent of a large unit, defined as having two or more bedrooms, as
measured by household size, vehicle trip generation, and floor area. To incorporate
this concept in the General Plan definitions, base densities are set assuming all units
will be large units. Substitution of small units would allow the total number of units
to increase up to one-third. To avoid encouraging projects with only small units, the
General Plan limits the increase above base density to 25 percent.
Policy Objective: Avoid unintentional incentive to build large units; increase
profitability of small, lower cost units
Action Undertaken: Flexible definition included in General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
3-44
I
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
- of General Plan adoption
Allow Residential Development in Downtown Intensification Area. The Land Use
element establishes a "Downtown Intensification Area," where mid-rise buildings will
be permitted along with a range of land uses. Mixed commercial/residential use will
be allowed in the area, and is most likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed
BART station between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. While it is difficult to project the
number of dwelling units that will be built downtown, 200 is a reasonable assumption -
whether or not this potential will be realized depends on market factors affecting the
profitability of residential vs. commercial development, other intensification plans for
the area, and an increased acceptance of mixed use projects in general.
Mixed-use, mid-rise housing would cost more than the current market will pay, and is
unlikely in a five year housing program. However, second and third floor residential
space over ground floor commercial recently has been successful elsewhere in the Bay
Area. Such space is virtually "free" of land cost except for parking if the developers'
alternative is a one-story retail store .
Policy Objective: Increase units produced in Dublin; increase sites appropriate
for affordable housing and accessible to downtown
Action Undertaken: General Plan designation of Downtown Intensification Area
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations.
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable Housing on Their Sites.
With public funding for the development of affordable housing extremely limited, the
City will support efforts by semi-public institutions to provide housing. The Valley
Christian Center, for example, is considering construction of senior housing on a por-
tion of its property at the west end of Dublin Boulevard. To facilitate the center or
any other land-owning institution in developing affordable housing on an appropriate
site, the definition of the General Plan's "semi-public" designation makes provision for
residential uses. The definition reads: "Development of housing on a site designated
on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General
Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-
public site and.the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned
Unit Development under the Zoning Ordinance."
3-45
Policy Objective: Encourage development.of affordable housing by private
organizations not primarily engaged in housing construction
or management
Action Undertaken: Inclusion of "Semi-public use" definition that allows
approval of housing as an accessory use.in General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Require a Percentage of Units in Large Multi-family Projects be Rented for a
Specified Period of Time. The difficulties of first-time homebuying make rental units
the only affordable housing for many moderate income households that do not have the
assets to make a down-payment on a home. Other households may choose to rent for
other than financial reasons. While the General Plan designates most available sites
for multi-family housing there is no assurance of production of additional rental units
in the city
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 will enforce a type of "advance
condominium conversion" limitation by requiring that a percentage of the units in
large multi-family projects be offered as rental for a specified period of time. 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.
Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units in the city.
Action Undertaken: Inclusion of strategy in Housing Element
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan
Financing: No Cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City
Council
Time Frame: 1984
3-46
1 '
3.8.4 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CITY ACTION
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
_ Encourage Development of Second Units in Existing Single Family Homes. A 1982
survey conducted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
found that approximately 15 percent of the state's single-family homes are
underutilized7• 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 major concerns—character of
single-family neighborhoods, adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal, traffic
. and parking problems—all related to population density. It is important to realize that
second units represent a way for homes and services to be used 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.
Recent legislation requires local jurisdictions to provide for second units. Section
65852.2 of the Government Code gives cities two options with regard to second units:
they may adopt ordinances to establish zones in which second units are allowed,
establishing criteria and standards relating to parking, service, and unit design. If no
ordinance is adopted the jurisdiction must grant conditional use permits for all second
units complying with criteria established by law. A locality can adopt an ordinance
that totally precludes second units only if specified findings are made.
Dublin's planning staff is currently drafting an ordinance which will set forth design
criteria and parking standards for second units. While it is difficult to anticipate how
many second units will be built in Dublin, a target goal if the City actively promotes
the development of second units would be 350 units, representing one-tenth of all units
in the City with three or more bedrooms.
For such an ambitious goal to be achieved the City would need to develop a public
awareness plan about second units, publicizing relevant regulations, benefits to the
homeowner, and information on how to create a second unit - from getting necessary
permits to hiring a reputable contractor to deciding how much rent to charge when the
unit is complete.
Predictions of the effect of second unit conversions on the City's housing stock are by
necessity speculative. Results of the second unit program will be monitored to
determine whether or not additions of second units are resulting in a depletion of the
City's supply of single family units which has an.overall negative effect on the housing
market. .
7Underutilized means one or two people occupying a three or more bedroom home;
three people occupying a four or more bedroom home; or four people occupying a
five or more bedroom home.
3-47
Policy Objective: Encourage efficient use of existing housing stock; promote
development of small units at low cost.
Quantified Objective: Development of 350 second units in Dublin
Action Undertaken: Drafting of ordinance relating to second units.
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment;
implementation of program to promote second unit
development
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council, City Staff
Time Frame: Adoption of ordinance in 1984; five years for meeting
quantitative objective
Cooperate with Non-Profit Housing Provider to Develop Below-Market Rate Units.
Private non-profit housing organizations often have advantages in securing funds for
development of housing as well as in reducing housing.cost to the consumer. In the
Tri-Valley area and the Bay Plain, Eden Housing have been active in developing
.affordable housing , and has worked with the cities of Livermore, Hayward, Union City
and Pleasanton and Alameda County. Other non-profit developers have also been
active in the area, and might be interested in working in Dublin.
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. For example, a recent
250 unit project on a surplus school site in Union City involved cooperation 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.
Section 39363.5 of the Education Code requires public agencies to offer surplus lands
to potential recreation agencies and charitable corporations before offering to the
general public. Eden Housing has indicated to the Murray School District Board of
Trustees its interest in purchasing or leasing a portion of the Fallon school site. In a
letter to the mayor and City Council of Dublin, Eden's Executive Director offered to
work with the City to purchase a portion of the site in order to develop affordable
housing. While it is unclear what the precise nature of the development would be, it is
virtually certain that only a portion of the units developed would be below-market
rate units. The City intends to cooperate with Eden, though the nature of such
cooperation is undetermined at this time.
If development of affordable housing on Fallon (or another surplus school site) does not
occur, the City will consider contracting with Eden or another organization to assist in
investigating possibilities for the production of affordable housing on a consulting
basis.
Policy Objective: Promote development of affordable housing in Dublin
3-48
Actions to be
Undertaken: Cooperate with Eden Housing in developing surplus school
site or contract with Eden or another agency for assistance
in investigating ways to provide affordable housing.
- Financing: No financing necessary. Assistance to the development of
affordable housing might include providing a short-term low
interest loan to the housing developer.
Implementation
Responsibility: City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: Plan for Fallon Site by mid-1985; 1984 if possible.
Work With Pleasanton Toward Establishing a Joint Housing Authority. Dublin's only
public housing project, Arroyo Vista, is owned and operated by the Pleasanton Housing
Authority. Though Arroyo Vista is physically in Dublin, the City is represented on the
decision-making body which manages the complex only by chance - one of the tenant
commissioners appointed by the Pleasanton City Council lives at Arroyo Vista.
Participation with Pleasanton in the Housing Authority would demonstrate Dublin's
commitment to working for housing opportunities for all income groups and to provid-
ing a range of housing services, and will give Dublin a voice in future decisions
regarding use of Housing Authority land.
Both Dublin and Pleasanton would need to take legislative action in order to expand
the Housing Authority. This obviously ambitious task would have to begin with a
positive dialogue initiated by Dublin regarding broadening the Housing Authority's
domain to include both cities. Another possibility is a Livermore-Amador Valley
Authority governed jointly by Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin and serving an area
that clearly is part of a single housing market.
Policy Objective: Share control of Housing Authority activities in Dublin;
support housing information and referral services.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Dialogue with Pleasanton City staff and City Council;
passage of resolution.
Financing: No Cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: City Council
Time Frame: Initiate discussions with Pleasanton in 1984
Encourage Development of Additional Units on Housing Authority Land in Dublin. The
Arroyo Vista site includes three to four acres of undeveloped land suitable for
additional development. Pleasanton Housing Authority staff has indicated interest in
possible future development of senior housing on the site.
3-49
Policy Objective: Promote development of below market-rate units affordable
to low income households
Actions to
be Undertaken: Work towards forming joint housing authority, provide-
assistance as requested by Housing Authority staff
Financing: None required
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin City Council, Housing Authority Board
Time Frame: Five years
Monitor Availability of Rental Housing. If Deemed Necessary, Consider Enactment of
Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Though condominium conversions have not yet
occurred in Dublin, there are indications 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.
A program which monitors the availability of rental housing would insure that a
condominium conversion ordinance would only be passed if necessary to satisfy rental
demand in the City. Conversion regulations typically limit the number or percentage
of rental units to be converted annually or use a minimum rental vacancy rate as a
trigger for conversion permission.. Near zero rental vacancies are likely to continue,
so a vacancy requirement might prevent conversions.
Policy Objective: Assist in maintaining rental stock as housing affordable to
moderate income Dublin households
Actions to be
Undertaken: Establishment of monitoring program; passage of
condominium conversion ordinance if necessary
Financing: Minor administrative cost
Implementation
Responsibility: City staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: Monitoring program in place in mid-1984, ordinance as
needed
Require Evidence of Developer Effort to Receive Public Financial Assistance for the
Purpose of Including Below Market Rate Units in Proposed Projects; Assist Developers
in Obtaining Information on Available Programs. The range of available state and
federal programs designed to increase housing affordability varies constantly. To
insure that developers are participating in appropriate programs when possible, the
City will require evidence that developers of multi-family housing have investigated
3-50
program availability and are using available funding assistance whenever possible.
To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City should
prepare and regularly update a packet of information on available programs, including
a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This
information should be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval
j process.
r This requirement shall apply only to developers of project that will contain 75 or more
multi-family units.
Policy Objective: Promote use of available funds and funding mechanisms in
private sector housing development
Actions to be
Undertaken: Assign staff time, print standard information for
developers, develop review process for implementation
Financing: Cost of staff time equivalent to five percent of the time of
a full time staff person; from planning budget or through
use of Block Grant funds
Implementation
Responsibility: City planning staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City
Council
Time Frame: Program in place by 1985
3.8.5 STRATEGIES REQUIRING ONGOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING
PROGRAMS
Grant 25 Percent Density Bonuses for Provision of 25 Percent Affordable Units as
Required by State Law. The State's first density bonus law was enacted in 1979 and
clarified in 1982. Together, the two laws (Government Code section 65915) require
that developers of housing that agree to construct at least 25 percent of the total
units of a development for low or moderate income households, or ten percent for low
income households, must be granted a density bonus of at least 25 percent or other
incentives of equivalent financial value. The law contains additional clarifying
language regarding the procedures and definitions relevant to granting density
bonuses.
Little use of the required density bonus provision is anticipated. For the bonus
incentive to result in construction of a significant number of affordable units the
incentives would have to be increased. Some jurisdictions offer additional density
incentives. Rather than develop a complex density bonus system, this housing program
incorporates the concept of higher-than-base densities through adopting a flexible
density definition. This approach provides incentives for the production of more small
units priced at full market value„ rather than providing incentives for the
development of lesser numbers of below market rate units.
Policy Objective: Provision of incentives for providing affordable units;
compliance with State law
i
3-51
1
Actions to be
Undertaken: Granting of density bonuses as mandated in Government
Code 65915
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Staff
Time Frame: Immediate
Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Dublin Residents and Others Seeking
Housing in Dublin. Federal and state programs guarantee equal housing opportunity.
The Rumford Fair Housing Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination on any basis,
including race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, in the
rental, lease, sale or financing of any residential dwelling other than an individual
room in an owner's house.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's race,
color, sex, national origin, religion, or ancestry in the provision of goods and services
by all business entities. A business entity includes landlords, real estate brokers
acting as agents in the sale of real property and financial institutions.
The State Fair Employment and Housing Commission receives complaints of housing
discrimination and takes necessary actions to relieve discrimination. In the Tri-
Valley, Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) provides services to victims of
housing discrimination. While the City of Dublin does not contribute to ECHO,
services are provided to City residents through the organization's Livermore office.
City staff will refer cases to ECHO, other housing organizations and to the State as
appropriate, and make available to all persons information regarding anti-
discrimination laws and enforcement agencies.
Policy Objective: Support services and programs which fight housing
discrimination; direct persons towards agencies which
provide assistance to victims of discrimination as needed.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Development of information on housing discrimination for
public distribution.
Financing: Minor administrative cost
Implementation
Responsibility: City Staff
Time Frame: Mid-1984 for information development, ongoing
implementation
3-52
1
Continue City Code Enforcement Program; Aid Low Income Households in Obtaining
Financial,Assistance for Housing Rehabilitation. For a year following its
incorporation, Dublin contracted with Alameda County for building inspection
services. Now Dublin has its own inspection program conducted by two part-time
staff members responsible for plan checking and zoning and building code
enforcement. Code enforcement is conducted only in response to complaints.
Both County and City staff responsible for building inspection have reported only
minor code violations in the City, attributed to the newness of the housing stock.
Additionally, where market conditions result in steadily increasing property values,
homeowners have a strong incentive to maintain their property. Even so, as buildings
age the incidence of deterioration and code violations will almost certainly increase.
When the Housing Element is revised the City should consider implementing an active
rehabilitation program suiting the age of most of the City's units.
- Currently, low income households may obtain low interest loans for required
rehabilitation through a program operated by Alameda County Department of Housing
and Community Development. To qualify, units must have at least one code violation;
funds may be used for general property improvements as long as violations are
corrected as well. City inspectors will inform households living in units found to have
code violations of possible eligibility for the loan program.
Policy Objective: Enforce building and zoning codes in Dublin.
Action Undertaken: Expansion of City staff to include building inspector(s)
Actions to be
Undertaken: Continue enforcement program; provide information on
appropriate loan programs
Financing: City Funds
Implementation
i Responsibility: City staff
Time Frame: Ongoing
3.8.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
The State of California sets energy conservation standards for new residential
construction. The City can promote energy conservation in project design through a
variety of measures. It should be recognized that since all parcels in Dublin available
for residential development are infill sites they are inherently energy conserving,
locating new residents near employment and commercial centers. Designating sites
for multi-family densities, a major change resulting from the City's first Housing
Element and General Plan, will result in the construction of units which are energy
efficient due to minimal exterior walls.
It is in approving site plans that the City can assure new developments will have
energy efficient design. Prior to project approval, the City should require developers
3-53
(or their designers) to demonstrate that solar orientation has been a consideration in
site design.
Several state and federal programs are available to assist homeowners in improving
the energy-efficiency of their units. These include Federal Residential Conservation
Tax Credits, which provide for a 15 percent tax reduction for qualified energy source
expenditures up to $300, and a credit of 40 percent of the first $10,000 invested in
solar, wind or geothermal systems. In California, investor-owned utilities are required
to offer financing for energy conservation measures that are found to be cost-
effective through a zero interest program (ZIP). The State also requires all major
utilities to offer residential customers free energy audits.
3-54
I
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
i 4.1 CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult
conservation issues, even with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley
Wastewater Management Association (LAVWMA) pipeline, and significantly improved
air quality. The extent of planned and anticipated development now draws greater
attention to other conservation issues — conversion of agricultural land to other uses;
loss of open space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide-prone areas;
increased runoff, erosion and stream siltation;.etc. Additionally the prospect of
renewed or intensified air quality and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans
approved or under consideration that would result in up to 200,000 jobs in the
Tri-Valley.
Open space resources are discussed in the open space element; the seismic safety and
safety elements consider natural hazards. This section and its counterpart in the Plan
Policies Report consider hydrology, habitats, agricultural open space, air, soil
resources, and archaeologic and historic resources.
The planning area includes three sections that are distinct in terms of topography,
vegetation, and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped
area just north of I-580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The
land east of Parks RFTA and Santa Rita and south of the county line consists of grassy
rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning
area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands
on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These areas are referred to below as the
valley, eastern hills, and western hills of the planning area, respectively:)
The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa
Clara counties and established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National
Parks Service study (U.S. Department of the Interior New Area Feasibility Study 1980,
pp. 97-103). The ridgelands have been the subject of many preservation efforts over
the years, and have been protected through organizational and agency efforts as well
as by the difficulty of development on the steep slopes and ridges. The ridgelands of
the western hills are characterized by good quality woodland and forest habitats with
high natural resource values. Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of a
greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread.
The eastern hills are not as valuable as the western hills in terms of habitat, but do
contain grazing and hay-growing land of unusually high quality. Throughout the
extended planning area most of the land is under Williamson Act contract, which
prohibits its development for a minimum of ten years while providing tax advantages
to landowners.
4-1
I,
4.1.1 HYDROLOGY
Surface Water
The planning area is in the Livermore drainage unit of the Alameda Creek watershed,
which includes 405,000 acres, or 633 square miles in eastern Alameda County and
northeastern Santa Clara County. Principal streams in the Livermore drainage unit
are Arroyo del Valle, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, Alamo Creek, San Ramon
Creek, and Tassajara Creek. Of these, Alamo Creek flows through the city, while
Tassajara Creek is within the extended planning area. All streams converge on the
valley floor, first joining Arroyo de la Laguna and then Alameda Creek in the Sunol
drainage unit outside of the valley. Ultimately the valley's streams flow west through
Niles Canyon and into San Francisco Bay.
Except during years of exceptionally heavy rainfall, most of the valley's streams carry
no natural flow during the dry periods of the year. Some are replenished from arti-
ficial sources including controlled reservoir releases and discharges of wastewater
treatment plants. Functions of the valley's surface waters have included groundwater
recharge, wastewater assimilation, and runoff catchment and conveyance. The Del
Valle Reservoir collects and holds runoff waters from the Alameda Creek watershed.
Groundwater
The Liver more-Amador Valley's major sources of groundwater are the alluvial deposits
that compose the Valley floor and the Livermore Formation, which underlies and is
adjacent to the Valley floor. The groundwater hydrology of the area consists of multi-
layered systems composed of an unconfined aquifer over a sequence of leaky or semi-
confined aquifers. These aquifers yield relatively small amounts of water, with the
largest quantities stored by the fill materials in the central and western areas of the
Livermore Valley.
The quality of groundwater in the Livermore Amador Valley is generally poor.
Groundwater has not been used as part of the public water supply in the area since -
1979, when Zone 7 began distributing water from the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA)
exclusively. This change occurred because of the hardness of the water and the high
level of total dissolved solids in the valley's groundwaters. Hardness, reflecting the _
concentration of calcium and magnesium in the water supply, was measured as high as
34,000 parts per million (ppm) in the late 19701s, as compared with 90-100 ppm in
water from the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA). (There is no standard for hardness as it
causes only functional water quality problems and does not pose a hazard to human
health.) Total dissolved solid (TDS) content in water drawn from Dublin area wells
reached as high as 500-600 ppm, while SBA water generally contains 200-250 ppm TDS
(Vince Wong, ACFCWCD Zone 7, personal communication).
The groundwater supply is replenished through percolation, or recharge, of
precipitation, streamflow and applied water. Groundwater quality depends on the
quality of water recharged and the mineral composition of subsurface sediments.
Though the practice is not currently employed by Zone 7, when necessary, poor quality
groundwater can be mixed with water from other sources to achieve acceptable qual-
ity. The possibility of future use of groundwater makes it important to protect the
quality of water recharged now.
4-2
Groundwater pollution is generated by point and non-point sources. Point sources are
discrete generators of pollution, such as factories with outfall pipes that discharge
water with illegal concentrations of pollutants; or gas stations that do not handle oil
and gas appropriately. The limited general industrial activity in Dublin minimizes
f point source pollution. The major non-point source is runoff, precipitation which flows
as a surface water film because it can not percolate into the ground due to the pre-
sence of inpenetrable substances or saturation of soil. Runoff from urban areas
generally includes automobile gas and fluids, pet waste, and a variety of hazardous
substances in common use. Runoff from agricultural areas generally contains ferti-
lizer, pesticides, and animal wastes, all of which pollute groundwater and surface
water supplies.
With increased urbanization, the amount of undeveloped land through which pure
water is recharged decreases, and the concentration of pollutants in the groundwater
increases. As more and more impervious surfaces (e.g., roads and roofs) are created,
runoff increases as does the content of pollutants from non-point sources in the
groundwater. In addition to carrying pollutants, runoff causes soil erosion and
eventually stream sedimentation and siltation, resulting in stream turbidity, clogging
of streams and reduced reservoir capacity.
Flood Hazards and Control
Flooding in Dublin is caused by winter storms with heavy rainfall, steep topography,
and constricted stream flows. Concentration of storm runoff is rapid in areas of steep
slope. Many watercourses are seasonal and cannot accommodate higher flows.
Bridges or culverts may also constrict heavy flows, resulting in flooding.
Zone 7 of the Alameda County Water Conservation and Flood Control District is
responsible for flood protection in the planning area. .A special program is now in
effect for drainage channel improvements throughout Zone 7 as development occurs.
These improvements, funded with development fees, have not been major in Dublin.
Future, improvements to Alamo Creek may be necessary with development of the large
parcel east of the Dougherty Hills and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. While
Alamo Creek now has sufficient capacity, bank erosion caused by development of the
site may create a need for additional improvements.
Although Zone 7 representatives believe that there are no serious flood hazards in
Dublin, during January of 1983 flooding did occur west of San Ramon Road in the
Silvergate area. Brief, intense rains carried debris down from the hills where it
blocked pipes and creeks, causing flooding of backyards and several homes. These
incidents of flooding are believed to have been caused by unintentional obstruction of
watercourses by nearby residents.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared a Flood Insurance
rate map (August, 1983) showing a 100-year flood that inundates portions of the city,
generally in the vicinity of Dougherty Road at I-580, Amador Valley Boulevard west of
I-680, and the west side of San Ramon Road.
4-3
4.1.2 HABITATS
Three major types of natural habitat are found in the planning area, in addition to the
urban environment created by development in and immediately surrounding the city.
The eastern area is predominantly grassland, while the western portion supports a
community of woodland and grassland species. Associated with the significant water-
courses throughout the area are occasional riparian woodlands. Table 4-1 lists
common species in the various biotic communities of the planning area.
The Urban Environment
The developed portion of the planning area has been dramatically altered from its
natural state and contains largely introduced and highly managed plant species.
Present are disturbance-tolerant animals such as rabbits, rodents, skunks, and bats—
species that are, for the most part, considered as pests.
Grasslands
While the eastern grasslands also contain many introduced species, these are in associ-
ation with native flora and provide a habitat for a variety of wildlife. Grasses include
blue bunch grass, California oat grass, foothill sedge, brome grass, and wild oats. The
hills of Doolan and Collier canyons in the eastern part of the planning area are con-
sidered excellent examples of this vegetative community. Common grassland wildlife
include rodents and reptiles such as rabbits, skunks, and bats.
Woodlands
The ridgelands of the western hills contain scattered woodlands, particularly
characteristic of moist, sheltered, and shaded habitats. Woodlands also cover most of
the north- and east-facing slopes of the larger ridges, which are shielded from direct
afternoon sunlight. Oak species dominate the woodlands. These include coast live
oak, valley oak, and blue oak. Other common tree species are California laurel,
Bigleaf maple, and California buckeye. A characteristic shrubby understory is
dominated by poison oak and coffeeberry. There is evidence that oak woodlands are
not expanding or reestablishing in California, so the current supply may be all that will
ever exist.
A National Parks Service study conducted in 1980 concludes that the ridgelands "play
an extremely important role in terms of providing regional open space for the San
Francisco Bay Area" (U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 2). A 1977 multi-
jurisdictional ridgelands study recommends that Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa
Clara counties and affected cities continue to designate the ridgelands area as open
space in adopted General Plans, and that urban development be confined within and
adjacent to existing urban areas and outside of the ridgelands (Ridgelands. A
Multijurisdictional Open Space Study, 1977, pp. 54-56). The Pleasanton General Plan
considers the "extensive undisturbed area along the ridges . . . (as) a major native
California botanical resource."
4-4
TABLE 4-1
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF THE.LIVERMORE AMADOR VALLEY
Urban Cities, towns, subdivisions, Introduced trees and shrubs; House
parks, etc. Finch, English Sparrow, Norway
Rate, House Mouse, Cockroach.
Rural Cultivated croplands and Various truck and row crops; Barn
_.. pasture. Owl, Sparrow hawk, Brewers' Black-
bird, Gopher, Vole, Gopher Snake,
Alfalfa, Cabbage Butterfly.
Riparian In wooded canyons along Western Sycamore, Fremont Cotton-
, Woodland stream courses. (Various wood, Red Willow, Arroyo Willow,
stages depending on rainfall Big Leaf Maple; appendix for faunal
runoff patterns) indicator species.
Grassland Non-cultivated areas in Blue Bunch Grass, California Oak
Valley and adjacent hills. Grass, Foothill Sedge, brome grass,
wild oats.
Oak Woodland Inner coastal ranges from At lower elevations, Valley Oak,
400 to 3000 feet; rolling Coast Live Oak; Blue Oak; Digger
i hills along north and south Pine, at higher elevations. Through-
edge of Livermore Valley out: Holly-leaf Cherry, California
lowlands Coffee Berry, California Buckeye,
Poison Oak.
Source: Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan.
Riparian Woodlands
Riparian areas have vegetation dependent on proximity of a natural watercourse and
are an important natural resource in the relatively dry climate. The riparian
environment serves an important role in protecting watercourse integrity. Riparian
zones reduce stream sediment load by reducing erosion while also acting as sediment
buffers, protecting water quality by filtering sediment and debris contained in surface
runoff. Another function of the vegetation along stream banks is to protect the plant
and animal habitat created by the stream.
The plant species in riparian woodlands are similar to associations common in the cool
j moist areas of the ridgelands. Basin-wide, vegetation reduces the total volume of
streamflow as well as making the flow more constant and regular. During the dry
season, the riparian vegetation provides shelter to many animals not usually found in
l�
4-5
it, and throughout the year birds and mammals find food, water, and cover in riparian
woodlands along their migration and movement routes.
Riparian woodlands have become scarce in the region due to urbanization and conse-
quent flood control improvements. As riparian areas are disrupted as a consequence
of changes in land use, total basin runoff and peak streamflow increases, water quality
becomes more susceptible to change, and a valuable aesthetic and recreational
resource is lost.
Streamcourses within the primary planning area are designated as open space/stream
corridors. The densest riparian vegetation in the city is along Clark and Martin
Creeks. Alamo Creek east of the Dougherty Hills is also bordered by riparian
vegetation.
Rare and Endangered Species
Information on California's threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species
and communities is maintained by the Natural Diversity Data Base of the State
Department of Fish and Game. The Data Base documents the location of environ-
mental elements, defined as natural features (species, habitats, etc.) of particular
interest because they are exemplary, unique, threatened, or endangered on a statewide
or national basis. The Department has conducted a records search for elements of
concern within the Dublin, Hayward, Livermore and Tassajara 7 1/2' quadrangles which
include the entire planning area.
This survey of recorded occurrences revealed no record of sensitive species and
communities within the planning area, but did reveal the following elements of
concern in the vicinity. The presence of these plant species and communities in the
vicinity indicates that the elements listed could could be present within the planning
area. No records of occurrences of sensitive animal species exist for the area.
Natural Communities
1. Upland Native Bunchgrass (northeast of the planning area in Contra Costa
County)
Plants
1. Plagiobothrys glaber (Hairless Allocarya) CNPS list 2 (west of the planning
area, in the Hayward area)
2. Cordylanthus palmatus (Palmate Bracted Birdsbeak) CNPS list 2 (east of the
planning area, in the vicinity of Las Positas)
3. Hesperolinon breweri (Brewer's Drawf Flax) CNPS list 2 (north east of the
planning area in Contra Costa County)
4. Arctosta h los auriculata (Mount Diablo Manzanita) CNPS list 2 (north of the
p anning area, in Contra Costa County)
4-6
4.1.3 AIR QUALITY
Air quality has long been a problem in the Tri-Valley area. In the late 1960s and early
1970s, air quality recorded at the Livermore monitoring station was the worst in the
Bay Area in respect to photochemical oxidants, or ozone (smog). Table 4-2 presents
1982 data for ozone and for other contaminants, recorded for all stations in the Bay
Area by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Air quality in the Dubin area is a function of location, topography, and pollutant-
generating activities both in and out of the Tri-Valley. Sunshine and warm tempera-
tures, valued by many Bay Area residents, contribute to air quality problems in
association with other characteristics of the planning area, making it difficult to
attain air quality standards designed to protect the public health.
The topography of the Valley favors the creation of temperature inversions, a
condition in which warm air traps a layer of cooler air beneath it, thus preventing
vertical mixing and resulting in the concentration of pollutants close to the ground.
Temperature inversions occur as low as 2,500 feet in the Dublin area. Surface winds
are generally channeled through the passes into the Valley, creating predominant
westerly, southwesterly, northwesterly, and northeasterly winds, and carrying
pollutants from the San Francisco and Bay Plain areas.
Due to the sheltering effect of the mountains, wind speeds are low in the Valley.
Additionally, the shape of the Valley itself limits horizontal movement and mixture of
air, further inhibiting the dispersion of pollutants.
Since 1967, all major air pollutants except hydrocarbons have been continually
monitored in the Valley. Air quality problems in the area have been almost exclu-
sively related to one pollutant, photochemical oxidants, the primary component of
which is ozone. Photochemical oxidants and ozone are secondary pollutants created
from the interaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of
sunlight.. Since sunlight is an ingredient in the ozone-producing process, oxidants are a
seasonal problem, occurring principally between the months of April and October.
Ozone has negative health effects as well as adverse economic impacts caused by
damage to crops and materials. Standards for ozone have been designed to prevent
eye irritation and respiratory difficulties. Certain high-risk groups, most notably
infants and the elderly, are particularly-susceptible to health problems created by high
levels of ozone and other pollutants.
Although the Tri-Valley had the highest regional ozone levels 15 years ago, air quality
has improved in recent years, and the Bay Area's worst ozone problems have shifted
southward to the Los Gatos area. In 1969 when ozone reached its highest levels in the
Bay Area, the federal standard was exceeded in the Livermore area on 53 days. By
contrast, standards were violated two days per year in 1980 and 1981 and only one day
in 1982. This record can be compared with data from the Fremont monitoring station,
where ozone standards were exceeded on 6 days in 1980, and 3 days each in 1981 and
1982. Part of this seemingly dramatic change is due to a significant lowering of the
standard, but there is general agreement that significant absolute improvement has
taken place as a result of the regulation of oxidant-generating emissions from both
stationary and mobile sources (industry and cars).
4-7
TABLE 4-2
AIR POLLUTION IN THE BAY AREA BY STATION AND CONTAMINANT: 1982
For ozone(0,)and for nitrogen dioxide(NO,),"max"is the highest hourly average value in parts per hundred million.For car-
bon monoxide(CO),"max"is highest 8-hour average value in parts per million.(The one-hour standard for CO was never ex-
ceeded during the year.)For sulfur dioxide(SO,),"max" is highest 24-hour average value expressed in parts per billion.For
total suspended particulates(TSP), "mean" is annual geometric mean in micrograms per cubic meter. "Days"columns give
number of days per year an air quality standard was exceeded: Federal for 0,and CO,State for NO,and SO,,both for TSP.
For TSP,Days > S refers to State 100 pg/m' standard, Days> F refers to Federal 150 11g/m' secondary standard.The 3-year
average for ozone, adjusted for instrument down-time, is the governing Federal standard (called Expected Annual Ex-
ceedance). Monitoring for 03,CO and NO,is continuous: monitoring for TSP is on the Federal systematic 6-day schedule;
monitoring for SO, includes both time scales. Note: > = greater than, < = less than.
OZONE CO NO, SO, TSP
Stations 3-Yr. Days Days
Max. Days Avg. Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Mean > S > F
San Francisco 8 0 0.0 9.1' 1 13 0 12 0 57 3 0
San Rafael 10 0 0.0 5.6 0 11 0 5 0 50 3 0
Richmond 9 0 0.0 3.9 0 11 0 6 0 50 2 0
Pittsburg 10 0 0.3 4.9 0 9 0 7 0 53 6 0
Concord 13 1 2.4 6.4 0 10 0 10 0 41 2 0
00 Oakland 7 0 0.0 7.5 0 - - - - - - -
San Leandro 15 1 2.4 - - - - - - - - -
Hayward 10 0 2.0 - - - - - - - - -
Fremont 14 3 4.1 4.5 0 12 0 4 0 46 2 0
Livermore 14 1 1.8 4.8 0 10 0 1 0 42 0 0
Alum Rock,S.J. 15 3 5.2 - - - - - - - - -
San Jose 12 0 1.3 12.4 9 16 0 3 0 66 9 1
Moorpark, S.J. - - - - - - - - - 45 1 0
Gilroy 11 0 3.8 3.6 0 - - - - - -
Los Gatos 12 0 6.7 - - - - - - - - -
Mountain View 11 0 0.8 - - - - - - - - -
Redwood City 10 0 1.0 6.0 0 8 0 2 0 42 0 0
Santa Rosa 9 0 0.0 5.8 0 9 0 < 1 0 36 0 0
Sonoma 9 0 0.0 -- - - - - - - - -
Napa 9 0 0.0 6.7 0 9 0 2 0 50 2 0
Vallejo 10 0 0.3 10.9 6 10 0 6 0 48 2 0
Fairfield 11 0 0.0 - - - - - - - - -
*Concurrent 14.5 ppm at Ellis Street micro-scale siting for street-level CO maximums.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
i
• Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide have
never been exceeded at the Livermore monitoring station. As monitoring is done in
• Livermore, it is difficult to assess the effect of the I-580/I-680 interchange on CO
levels in Downtown Dublin. As Valley growth causes increased traffic volumes, CO
may emerge as a problem pollutant in the Valley.
The volume of total suspended particulates (TSP) has been a source of concern in the
Livermore area. While standards were not exceeded in 1981 or 1982, in 1980 Cali-
- forma TSP standards were exceeded on 9 days. In Fremont, state TSP standards were
exceeded 8 days in 1980 (1 day exceeded the lower federal standard), no days in 1981,
and 2 days in 1982. Throughout the Bay Area, about 23 percent of particulate matter
is produced by automobiles. As the Tri-Valley has few sources of industrial pollution,
the high levels of particulates could also be due to pollen and dust generated from
construction, agricultural, and gravel extraction operations.
Air quality standards have been set by the Federal Government since the passage of
the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Two levels of standards exist: primary
standards designed to protect human health, and more stringent secondary standards
that protect property and aesthetics. Attainment and exceedance is in relation to the
primary standards. All standards are figures that reflect a concentration of a particu-
lar pollutant in the air.
Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, the Bay Area is a Nonattainment Area for
ozone, required to submit an air quality implementation plan to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The State of California has designated the entire San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin as an Air Quality Maintenance Area in accordance with
EPA requirements. Three agencies share the responsibility for air quality main
tenance and planning in the Bay Area: the California Air Resources Board, the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Metropolitan Transporta-
tion Commission (MTC). BAAQMD is empowered to control air pollution from sta-
tionary sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The California Air Resources
Board sets motor vehicle emissions standards, and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) is the lead agency for transportation improvements.
Given the regional nature of air pollution problems, and the character of the agencies
addressing them, individual localities have relatively small roles to play in addressing
air quality issues. The primary responsibilities of local government officials are to
inform themselves on air quality issues and to consider air quality in the environ-
mental review process. Additionally, jurisdictions should be aware of any local
impacts of air quality maintenance plan policies.
The 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, part of the State Implementation Plan for
California and the San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Management Plan, describes
air quality problems in the Bay Area and formulates programs to improve air quality.
The goal of the plan is achievement of ambient air quality standards in the Bay Area
by 1987. The 1982 plan is an update of the 1979 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, which
contained four major program elements as follows: use of available control technol-
ogy on existing stationary sources; new source review; motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance; and transportation system improvements. Three factors prompted the
revision of the 1979 plan: 1) the fact that the State Legislature has not authorized the
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program adopted in the 1979 plan; 2) the
4-9
expectation that regulations and programs will be less effective than assumed in the
1979 plan; and 3) the improvement of data base and models used to forecast future air
quality.
The Air Quality Plan is directed at controlling two pollutants—ozone and carbon
monoxide. Area ozone levels can most efficiently be reduced by reducing hydrocarbon
emissions. The fact that there is no single major source of hydrocarbon emission
becomes increasingly clear as the automobile fleet gets cleaner and hydrocarbons
persist in the atmosphere. Smaller sources, both stationary and mobile, are being
addressed by the current plan, now that emissions from cars and major industrial
activity have been reduced. The plan acknowledges that the most efficient and cost-
effective pollution control measures are already in effect in the Bay Area, and that as
a result subsequent measures will be implemented at greater cost and with lesser
results than previous efforts.
The hydrocarbon emission reduction programs initiated by the 1979 plan were: use of
available control technology on existing stationary sources; new source review (e.g.
industry); motor vehicle inspection and maintenance; and transportation system
improvements. The major control programs recommended by the updated plan are
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance; transportation system improvements; and
stationary source control measures consisting of 22 new regulations. The range of
proposed stationary source control measures includes regulations that will affect the
use or production of pesticides, plastics, natural gas and crude oil, and aerosol
propellants.
As pollution control programs reduce emissions, the number of individual sources
continues to rise. Over the past decade, air quality has improved despite increasing
population and industrial activity in the Bay Area. However, projected growth in the
Tri-Valley and elsewhere may reverse the trend toward cleaner air._ Large-scale
development such as that approved for North Pleasanton is likely to provoke commu-
nity concern as well as the scrutiny of agencies charged with protection of air quality.
Funding for projects such as freeway improvments or additional wastewater disposal
capacity could be withheld.
4.1.4 SOILS
Three soil associations predominate in the planning area, corresponding to the varying
slope and topography of the Valley bottom and uplands. Soil types, interacting with
other environmental factors, determine erosion potential and other constraints on
development, as well as fertility and predominant vegetation type. All of the soils
found in the city's extended planning area present high or severe erosion hazards at
greater than 30 percent slopes. Another area of high erosion potential is
streamcourses, where vegetation normally acts to inhibit erosion and reduce
sedimentation. If streamcourses are cleared in the course of development, these
natural functions will be lost and erosion potential will increase.
Typical ridgeland vegetation also serves to prevent hillside erosion and more serious
debris flows. The Hayward Hill Area Study, which examined the environmental
resources of the hill area south of I-580, describes the woodland now covering the
steeper slopes as serving to greatly enhance slope stability. The study notes that few
debris flows exist in the wooded areas while identical adjacent land shows extensive
4-10
sliding, suggesting that a significant increase in debris flows would follow clearing of
the woodland vegetation, presenting,yet another obstacle to development of the area
(Hayward Planning Department, 1976, p. 26).
Western Hills
Three predominant soil series, Los Gatos, Los Osos and Milsholm, are found in the
ridgelands. These three soil types are generally very shallow to moderately deep, with
many areas moderately eroded. Drainage is good to somewhat excessive. Fertility is
low to moderate, primarily due to limited water holding capacity. The Los Osos soils,
which predominate in the area just south of I-580, are subject to frequent shallow
landsliding. Runoff is rapid and cultivation difficult on these steep slopes. All are
used principally for pasture and range land.
Eastern Hills
The uplands east of the incorporated area are almost exclusively Diablo clays and
Linne clay loams. Parent material is the soft sedimentary rocks of the Tassajara and
Orinda formations, known for their slope stability problems. The Diablo series consists
of deep to moderately deep, well-drained, clayey soils on rolling to very steep
uplands. Linne clay loams are well-drained soils formed from soft, interbedded shale
and fine-grained sandstone. Some areas are severely eroded, and the hazard of erosion
in areas of over 30 percent slope is severe, as in the areas of Diablo clays. Soils are
moderately fine to fine textures, with clayey and very hard surface soils. Drainage is
typically good with occasional excessive drainage and poor drainage in small valleys.
Fertility is moderate to high.
The area just north of I-580 and east of Santa Rita, can be considered as a transitional
zone from Valley floor to uplands in terms of soil type as well as slope. The area
contains soils of the Diablo and Linne series, but also clear lake clays, rincon clay
loams, and fine-textured alluvium, more typical of the Valley floor. Gentler terrain
means greatly reduced erosion hazard.
Valley
The soils of the city principally belong to the Clear Lake-Sunnyvale Association,
characterized by well to imperfectly drained soils with generally high fertility, and
formed from unconsolidated recent alluvial sediment. Surface soils are clay to clay
loam with very deep heavy clay subsoils. The western edge of the city has soils
characteristic of the uplands and similar to those found east of Camp Parks and Santa
Rita, principally Diablo clays and Linne clay loams.
4.1.5 NEMERALS
No mineral extraction takes place within the planning area. Between Pleasanton and
Livermore are major sand and gravel deposits, which are the Valley's major mineral
resources. Petroleum, chromite, coal, manganese, and silver have also been extracted
at different times.
4-11
4.1.6 ARCHAEOLOGIC RESOURCES
The California Archaeological Inventory of the Northwest Information Center at .
Sonoma State University has conducted an archaeological records search for known
archaeological sites within the planning area. While numberous sites have been
identified in the Livermore Valley and surrounding hills in environments similar to that
of the planning area, only one prehistoric site has been identified in the planning
area. The great majority of the planning area has not been subject to archaeological
investigation.
4.1.7 HLSTORIC RESOURCES
The Dublin area was explored in the early 1770s. Ranching began in the 18301s, with
large-scale settlement in the area about twenty years later. No sites in the planning
area are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (1979-1983), but several are
listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory (1976) as follows:
The Alviso Adobe (p. 123)
The Amador Adobe (p. 146)
The Green Home (p. 86)1
The Green Store (p. 86)1
The Murray House (p. 146)
Palomares School (p. 213)
St. Raymond's Church (p. 199), also listed in the California Historical Landmarks
(1979; 2).
Old St. Raymond's Church, constructed in 1859, was moved from its original location
with the construction of I-580, and is now located in Dublin's Heritage Park. The
church is in the ownership of the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society. On the
grounds of the Heritage Park also stands the schoolhouse which was constructed in
Dublin in 1856. Green's store (1861), around the corner from the Heritage Park on
Dublin Boulevard, has been recently rennovated for use as a restaurant. Dublin has an
active historical preservation association.
1Sites in the City of Dublin
4-12
4.2 SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENTS
4.2.1 GEOMORPHOLOGY
The Dublin planning area is located east of San Francisco Bay within the Diablo
Range, a mountainous area extending from the northwest to the southeast, and a part
of the California Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The range is discontinuous,
being broken by erosional and structural valleys. The City of Dublin is located within
a flat alluvial valley within the Diablo Range. The hills to the west are steep: the
hills to the east are subdued and are approximately 1,200 feet maximum elevation.
The highest point within the western portion of the extended planning area is 1,600
feet above sea level; the Dougherty Hills within Dublin are 600 feet and most of the
city is approximately 400 feet.
4.2.2 GEOLOGY
The Dublin valley site is underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary (less than 2,000,000
to 3,000,000 years old) deposits. These deposits are primarily alluvial and estuarine in
origin, and are composed of coarsely bedded, interfingering deposits of clay, silt, sand,
and gravel. These sediments are underlain by a much thicker accumulation of older,
consolidated sedimentary rocks. A major discontinuity, the Calaveras Fault, separates
the valley lowlands from the hill area to the west. Figure 4-1 shows the geology in the
primary planning area.
The hill areas east and west of Dublin are underlain by various types of sedimentary
bedrock. These rocks are well portrayed by Dibblee (1980a, b, c). Sedimentary rocks
in the planning area are commonly inclined at angles of 40 to 70 degrees from the
.horizontal, and are deformed into a series of sub-parallel folds, generally trending
west-northwest. The major drainages cut, at an angle, across this structure.
The hills are mantled by soil and weathered bedrock, varying in thickness from a few
inches to many feet. Common thicknesses are 3 to 10 feet. Numerous shallow and
deep landslides occur within the hill areas. Some of these are pre-historic ("Quater-
nary"), i.e:, they have not moved in historic times. Others are currently active.
4.2.3 TECTONICS
Introduction
Tectonics are the processes that cause deformation of the earth's crust. The most
significant manifestations of tectonic processes are earthquakes, which result from
the release of stored energy within the earth's crust along faults, or planes of
weakness between two large masses of the earth's crust. Numerous faults exist in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Several are considered to be active or potentially active, and
are close enough to Dublin to cause damaging earthquakes.
4-13
The most widely held theory of the cause of earthquakes is the elastic rebound
theory. The theory holds that masses within the earth's crust, held together by fric-
tion, slowly move past each other along faults. As the masses continue to move,
strain builds up along the faults. Eventually, the strain becomes too great for the
friction to withstand, failure occurs along the fault, energy is released, and an earth-
quake occurs. If the resisting friction is relatively limited, only small amounts of
strain will build, and the resulting earthquake will be small. If, on the other hand, a
large amount of strain develops, the earthquake that results when failure occurs will
be large.
Several terms are important to an understanding of earthquakes. Fault trace is the
line where a fault plane intersects the earth's surface. Fault planes can be vertical or
inclined.
Different types of relative movement are shown in Figure 4-2. The focus is the point
within the earth where maximum energy is released. The epicenter is the point on the
earth's surface directly above the focus.
Earthquakes are measured in several ways. Magnitude is an indirect measurement of
energy release. It is the measurement of the response of a seismometer to an earth-
quake. Various relationships are used to relate the measured seismograph response to
a specific "base" seismograph. Magnitude measurements, named for Charles F.
Richter, who developed the concept, are logarithmic. Each Richter magnitude in-
crease of one unit corresponds to a measured wave amplitude of ten times greater and
an energy release approximately 31.5 times greater than the lower number. Thus, a
magnitude 8 earthquake releases 31.5 times more energy than a magnitude 7 quake,
and 992 times more energy than a magnitude 6 quake.
There are several non-instrumental measurements of earthquakes. These intensity
scales measure the effects rather than the energy release of an earthquake, and are
based on reports of ground and building damage at different locations within an earth-
quake-affected area. The most commonly utilized scale is the Modified Mercalli (MM)
scale, which categorizes damage on a Roman numeral scale of I (least) to XH (great-
est) (Table 4-3). Intensity and magnitude measure different parameters, but can be
compared for near-epicentral locations. Table 4-4 makes such a comparison.
Regional Tectonics
The San Francisco Bay Area is located within a seismically active region. About 12
damaging earthquakes have occurred within historic times (approximately 200 years).
Numerous studies indicate that a major earthquake, comparable to the 1906 San
Francisco Earthquake, should be expected once every 60 to 100 years (Oakeshott,
1969). This is an indication of expected frequency, not a prediction of a specific
event.
Five earthquakes have caused major damage (or would cause major damage if they
occurred today) within the San Francisco Bay Area. These and other significant tem-
blors are shown in Figure 4-3; Table 4-5 describes seven significant quakes. Damag-
ing earthquakes since 1950 are listed in Table 4-6. The five major earthquakes and
several smaller quakes caused, or were capable of causing, damage to the Dublin area.
4-14
irGoo 1 ► I
d
i• I 1 0
All 0 of
, � '' �; ;• I; ' Ii■ ifs �'�'iC , I;=��.;'1. (� �
air
s I .
1 0 is
Q b _%.
Ll
1"--2000' t
fj
0ts
Ots poor gravel,sand,silt,&clay / '
Q O
Ob clay in poorly drained area / y I
Oyfo fin¢ sand, silt, and silty clay 7
Oyf permeable, fin¢ sand b silt
Oof weak,poorly sorted silt sand & I:
gravel 690 ' C,/i __ � , -1 •
Bas¢map copied from 7-1/2" USGS '!m
sheets; 1953 Diablo quad. 81961
Dublin quad.
Source: DSRSD Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Figure 4-1: GEOLOGIC MAP - WITHIN CITY
1 .
Fault line'
Footwarl
(a)
Hanging wall Left lateral normal fault
Normal foult (Left oblique normal fnitltl
1
(b)
(e)
Left lateral fault
(Strike-slip)
(d) Left lateral reverse fault
(Left oblique reverse fault)
Reverse fault
(c) (f)
Fig. 1.7a f. Diagrammatic sketches of fault types (a) names of components, (b) normal
Fault.(c)reverse fault,(d)left-lateral strike-slip fault,(e)left-lateral normal fault,(f)left-lateral
reverse fault. (After California Geology. November 1971)
Source: Bolt et al, 1975
Figure 4-2: TYPES OF FAULT MOVEMENT
SAN, S 0 L A N 0
NDREAS
FAUL �_
f• 'Epicenter of January 24, 1980
• O -. Greenville Earthquake
?iatnitude_' 5.9
P;Mb U!zD V I CIMMA Oi O
-Aptel.I, 19, 106 sA�4� G 0
RA COSTA
XXW ITUDE 6.3 • '' SAN J O A O U I N
P IQ.SL110;D aP I CDPZ'SA or
'
JNE 10, 16 36, zxMrHQUA A R D FAULT� �
MGNIT= 7.0*0.5 • 1 ; ILpicenter of
SAN F R A N C I SC� i' January 26, 1980"--
0 -
Do O Greenville Earthquake
A p A lKagnitude 5.2
•b o� GREENVILLE
A OF
' o • FAULT J
. pggSU�D tFICZNTt . � Q
na 163! EAYCHQUAKE . O 0— - — v
xkwlTUDE 7.00-5 : ;' O O C�
C
PwSUMED EPICENTER CF
vA1CS !® ••A N T A c C A R
OCTMTA 21, 1i6It, tU►11R'IIQ
, 171= 7.0*0.5 r _ �� x CALAVERAS
P li88 iJ?mD tP I COp:NTt A OF �
0 % 0 FAULT /
OCTCEtlt 2, 1165# SA3CHQtwM 84 t
MA•,N i TULE 6.5a 0.5 r _
PIMSUMED 0IC OMM W
JULY 1, 1911 EA1G OUM
EXPLANATION
0 Xagnitude 4.0 - 4.9
Kagnitu6e 3.0 - 5.9
Kagnitude 6.0 - 6.9 x
a Xagnitude 7.0 - 7.9
A Kagnitude 5= 8.0
(6.2) Xagnitu6a of selected sarthqualus
Ti guru bu i 6e the lccati aas ind,i cats tbs
muae>er of earthquakes at the same place, 0 a 16
all egnal to br ww1ler than the a" �
plotted. SCALE IN MILES
Source: Alameda County Planning Commission, 1982,
Modified from Rodgers and Williams, 1974, Plate 2.
Figure 4-3: ACTIVE FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA
TABLE 4-3
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 19311, (1956 version)2
Masonry A. D. C, D. T'o avoid ambiguily of language, the duality of masonry, prick or
otherwise, is specified by the following lettering.
Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially
laterally. and bound logelher by using steel, concrele, et(:.; desigfwd to resist laleriti
forces.
Masonry B. Good workmanship and murlar; reinforced, but not designed in
detail to resist lainral forces.
Masonry G. Ordinary workmanship and murlar: no extreme weilknusscs like
failing to lie in at corners, bill neither reinforced nor designed against horizonlal for-
ces.
Masonry 1). Weak materials, such as adobe.: poor mortar: low slandards of wo rk-
nlanship: weak horizonlall,y.
1. Not felt. Marginal and long-period effects of large earthquakes.
11. Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed.
Ili. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing.Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May
not be recognized as an earthquake.
IV. Hanging objects swing.Vibration tike passing of heavy trucks;or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball
striking the walls.Standing motor cars rock.Windows,dishes,doors rattle.Glasses clink. Crockery
clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frame creek.
V. Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small un-
stable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum
clocks stop, start, change rate.
VI. Felt by all.Many frightened and run outdoors.Persons walk unsteadily.Windows,dishes,glassware
broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned.
Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken
visibly, or heard to rustle.
VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken.
Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose
bricks,stones,tiles,cornices also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments. Some cracks in
masonry C.Waves on ponds;water turbid with mud.Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel
banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
VIII. Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C;partial collapse. Some damage to masonry
B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory
stacks,monuments,towers,elevated tanks.Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down;
loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in
flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes.
IX. General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged, sometimes with complete
collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. General damage to foundations. Frame structures, if not
bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes
broken.Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected,earthquake foun-
tains, sand craters.
X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations.Some well-built wooden struc-
tures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides.
Water thrown on banks of canals,rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches
and flat land. Rails bent slightly. '
X1. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service.
XII. Damage neatly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects
thrown into the air.
'Original 1931 version in Wood. H. O..and Neumann. F., 1931.Modified Mercalli inlrnnsiiy scale of 1931: Seismological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 53. no. 5, p. 979-987.
21956 version prepared by Charles F. Richter, in Elementary Seismology, 1958, p. 137-138. W. H. Freeman 8 Co.
4-15
TABLE 4-4
Modified M.ercalli Intensity
. Approximate Richter Approximate Peak
Magnitude Corresponding Horizontal Acceleration
to Highest Intensity Reached I I (a max/g)
.008
3
- III
IV
4 ,pl
V .05
- 5 ............................ill.. ........................
VII
6
VIII .1
IX .5
7
X
8 J XI
XII 1 .0
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAGNITUDE, INTENSITY AND PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
4-16
TABLE 4-5
�T MAJOR HISTORIC SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA EARTHQUAKES
Rupture Richter
Date Fault Length (km) Magnitude
June 10, 1836 Hayward Unknown 6.5-7.0
Late June 1838 San Andreas Unknown 7.0
July 4, 1861 Calaveras-Sunol Unknown 5.3
October 8, 1868 San Andreas Unknown 6+
T October 21, 1868 Hayward 30 6.7
April 24, 1890 San Andreas 10(?) 5.9
April 18, 1906 San Andreas 430 8.2
Source: Las Positas DEIR; Shedlock, et al., 1980.
4-17
TABLE 4-6
RECENT SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA EARTHQUAKES OF
MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN 5.0 SINCE 1950
Rupture Richter
Date Fault Location Length (km) Magnitude
April 25, 1954 — Watsonville — 5.3
September 4, 1955 — San Jose — 5.8
October 24, 1955 Concord Walnut Creek — 5.4
March 22, 1957 San Andreas Daly City — 5.3
April 8, 1961 — So. of Hollister — 5.6
September 14, 1963 — Chittenden — 5.4
October 1, 1969 — Santa Rosa — 5.7
February 24, 1972 — Hollister — 5.1
November 28, 1974 — Hollister — 5.2
August 6, 1979 Calaveras Gilroy 14.4-21.0 5.8
January 24, 1980 Greenville Livermore 4.6-6.2 5.5-5.9
January 27, 1980 Greenville Livermore 1.1 5.2-5.9
Source: Alameda County Planning Commission, 1982; Shedlock, et al., 1980.
4-18
Potential for Earthquakes, Ground Shaking and Surface Rupture
Two types of damaging earthquakes are anticipated for the Dublin area. The first is a
major quake on a fault at some distance from Dublin, such as the San Andreas,
Hayward, or southern Calaveras faults. The major earthquakes described in Table 4-5
are examples of such events. The second type is from a local source, such as the
northern Calaveras, Pleasanton, or Greenville faults. Although the magnitude of
quakes from these closer sources would probably be smaller, the intensity could be as
great as the larger, more distant quakes.
Descriptions of historic earthquake damage to the Dublin area are limited, attribut-
able to the sparse population of the area for many years. The 1906 earthquake caused
the breaking of chimneys and the throwing of objects from shelves and counters.
Several water tanks were damaged, and levee failure and structural damage occurred
in nearby Santa Rita and San Ramon (Lawson, 1908). Modified Mercalli intensity was
greater than VII. Landslide and lateral spreading activity were precipitated in the
hills surrounding the City. The 1861 event initiated fissures and springs in the San
Ramon Valley (Youd and Hoose, 1978).
Considerably greater damage, due to increased population density, would occur if
these earthquakes were to be repeated in the future. The 1969 Santa Rosa earthquake
caused the collapse of open trenches in Pleasanton. Continued local seismicity is indi-
cated by the 1980 Livermore earthquake.
Several faults within the Tri-Valley area are classified as active or potentially
active. These include the Calaveras and Pleasanton Faults, with traces passing
through Dublin and Parks RFTA, respectively. The presence of two active or poten-
tially active faults within the city indicates the potential for surface fault rupture.
The Greenville and Las Positas Faults are located within the Livermore Valley to the
east and south of the planning area.
The Calaveras and Pleasanton faults, both primarily right lateral strike slip, have been
located on 7 1/2 minute (one inch equals 2000 feet) U.S. Geological Survey topographic
maps by the California Division of Mines and Geology, as part of the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zones delineation program (see Geologic Hazards and Constraints map,
Plan Policies Report). The fault locations were originally established in 1973 (Slossen,
J.E.) as a preliminary determination. Several traces of each fault and a wide zone of
study along the faults were delineated on the basis of published work. The faults were
then re-evaluated in detail (California Division of Mines and Geology, FER-109, 1981
and FER-108, 1980 Strict criteria that a fault be "sufficiently active and well-defined
with systematic offset" were applied in this re-evaluation. Several traces that may be
fault-related but failed to meet this criteria were eliminated from the Special Studies
Zone (Earl Hart, 1983, personal communication). The revised.fault locations have
been used primarily for this study, although the preliminary maps should be examined
for studies of major structures.
_ The major active fault with rupture potential in the planning area is the Calaveras
Fault, which transects Dublin parallel to and west of I-680. Several short branches of
the fault are also mapped. The fault trace extends from Hollister, on the south,
through Sunol and Dublin to San Ramon, where it is poorly defined. In the Dublin area
there is evidence of recent (Holocene, less than 11,000 years) rupture of the fault
4-19
(California Division of Mines and Geology, 1981). Seismic slip (creep) along the fault
has been noted between Hollister and Sunol; although not in Dublin (Page, 1982).
The Pleasanton Fault in eastern Dublin is more difficult to locate. Several traces
were identified by Slossen (1973) on the basis of offsets in trenches, groundwater
barriers, geophysical anomalies, and minor scarps. However, there are no systematic
fault zones or indications of Holocene movement. If Holocene faulting has occurred,
it is minor, discontinuous and distributive (California Division of Mines and Geology,
FER-109, 1981), and thus impossible to predict. The remaining traces through Parks
RFTA are inferred and might be eliminated by detailed site evaluations. The fault
must thus be classified as "potentially active."
Surface rupture occurs during some earthquakes. The Special Studies Zones (Davis,
1982) for the Dublin Quadrangle delineate likely rupture locations; others may exist,
but are not predictable. Surface rupture generally occurs along lines of previous
rupture. Slight deviations, especially in alluvium, may occur. In addition, multiple
traces may exist, and the fault trace may be only approximately located. For these
reasons, the Special Studies Zone maps delineate a zone parallel to the mapped fault
trace in which detailed site investigations for fault rupture hazards are required.
The maximum credible earthquake determined for the Dublin area is on the Calaveras
Fault. This is a magnitude of 7.5 (Greensfelder, 1974). Site-specific ground motion
parameters have not been determined, but should be resolved for all proposed major
projects within Dublin. Surface rupture is also a potential hazard along the Calaveras
and Pleasanton Faults. Dublin is subject to a severe shaking from more distant faults
(e.g., San Andreas Fault), as well as the Calaveras and'Pleasanton Faults. The flat-
lying, alluvial parts of the area are more likely to be subjected to severe shaking than
the hill areas.
Ground shaking is a complex earthquake phenomenon. The potential damage caused by
an earthquake is related to magnitude, duration, and depth of the earthquake, soil and
rock conditions at the site and along the seismic wave path, type of fault movement,
slope/topography conditions, and distance to the causitive fault. Table 4-4 relates
magnitude, intensity and peak ground accelerations, without accounting for ground
conditions.
Earthquake waves change in velocity and period as they move through the ground. As
they leave solid rock and enter less-dense alluvial'and water-saturated materials, the
waves tend to become reduced in velocity, increased in amplitude, and accelerations
become greater. Ground motions are amplified and last longer. Structures situated on
such materials often suffer greater damage than those situated on more solid rocks.
Ground motion tends to increase with the depth of alluvium (Alameda County Planning.
Commission, 1982). Of particular significance is the site vibration period. The
vibration period increases as the alluvial thickness becomes greater. All-structures
vibrate at a particular period. If this period is the same as the site period, ground
motions are amplified in the structure. Particular care must be taken in Dublin in
siting and designing any structure over two stories.
4-20
4.2.4 DOWNSLOPE MOVEMENT
- • Several forms of downslope movement affect Dublin and the adjacent hill areas.
These include landslides, rock falls, debris flows, and soil creep. The first three
phenomena occur under both static and seismic conditions.
Factors affecting downslope movement are groundwater conditions, rock and soil type,
slope angle, proximity to erosion, seismic conditions, vegetation and alterations to the
landscape by human activity, as follows:
- Increased groundwater levels generally decrease slope stability, both by adding
weight to the soil mass and by reducing shearing resistance to sliding.
Certain soil and rock types, such as soft sediments or surficial deposits, are more
prone to sliding than other, more consolidated materials.
Steeper slopes generally increase downslope movement.
-. - Undercutting of slopes by streams removes support, increasing susceptibility to
sliding.
Earthquakes can trigger downslope movement, especially if water levels are high.
Earthquake-induced downslope movement has been documented in the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area.
Deep rooted vegetation increases slope stability.
Grading for development can decrease slope stability by removing support at cuts
and surcharging slopes with fills or conversely, can increase slope stability by
buttressing the lower parts of slopes.
Downslope movement in the Dublin area varies in nature. Major, deep slides occur
mainly to the west, in the steeper, higher hills. These slides cover much of the east
facing escarpment west of I-680, in places covering and in turn being broken by the
Calaveras Fault. At some locations, especially in the newly developed areas of west-
ern Dublin, confusion exists as to whether certain discontinuities are fault or landslide
related. Active deep and shallow landslides occur both east and west of Dublin. Their
activity generally increases during wetter than average winters. Debris flows also
occur on both sides of Dublin, although they are more common within the lower, but
less resistant hills east of Parks RFTA.
Landslide and debris flow occurrence has been mapped by Nilsen and other investiga-
tors. Stereophotographic methods were employed, with a minimum of ground check-
ing. Figure 4-4 shows landslide and debris flow distribution. It must be noted that this
map gives only an indication of downslope movement. Some indicated areas may be
free of significant movement; at other locations, movement may be missed due to
heavy forest cover, movement more recent than the photographic coverage, or other
reasons. Thus, it is not a definitive interpretation, and should not be utilized for site-
specific studies, except as an indication of general conditions surrounding the site.
- Downslope movement commonly occurs in hillside areas subject to human activity.
Examples of human-induced failure are evident along highway cuts on I-580 west of
4-21
Dublin, and at the crest of Old Ranch Road north of Dublin, where it crosses the
Dougherty Hills.
The potential for movement at or adjacent to a site must be evaluated during the
feasibility stage of planning. Although most potential downslope movement may be
mitigated, the expense and environmental and/or aesthetic damage may be prohibi-
tive. Several landslide occurrences and mitigative measures are shown in Figures 4-5
and 4-6. The presence of active or potential downslope movement does not preclude
development, but must be a major design factor.
The various types of downslope movement may be discussed as one group. Landslides
are a potential hazard under both static and seismic conditions. In planning develop-
ment of hillside areas, the worst case, i.e., saturated soil and a "design" earthquake,
must be considered.
Soil Creep
Soil creep commonly occurs on hillsides in the Dublin area. The mechanism of creep is
only partially understood. It is a slow process, and generally is non-catastrophic.
However, because it is nearly ubiquitous in the Dublin area, and because it can slowly
bend and destroy fences, retaining walls and structures with insufficient foundations,
it should be an important consideration in development-planning.
Landslides
A landslide (Figure 4-7) is the downslope movement of a coherent mass of soil or
rock. Movement rates are commonly a few inches to feet per day. Landslides cover a
significant portion of the Dublin area hills, between 20 and 50 percent of the land
surface in some areas. The slides occur on the steepest hills to the west, as well as
the Dougherty Hills and the hills east of Parks RFTA.
Three types of landslides are common. The first are very large, "ancient" Quaternary
age slides. Some of these slides are up to 300 feet deep, are of the "rotational" type,
and cover areas of several acres to square miles. These are common west and espe-
cially southwest of Dublin. Some geologists consider these slides stable. Others
believe that abnormally wet weather, producing high water tables combined with a
strong earthquake, could trigger movement on at least some of these slide masses.
Movement of the Calaveras Fault, at the base of some of these slides, is especially
likely to trigger renewed slide activity.
Other landslides are actively moving. These slides range from a few to many hundreds
of feet in extent. Depth of these slides is normally on the order of several tens of
feet. These slides can be individual bodies or masses of coalescing, smaller features.
The third type of landslide common to the Dublin areas is a shallow slip of less than
100 feet in extent and 10 feet in thickness. These occur in isolated areas, although
they often coalesce in larger masses.
4-22
i
• #yam~ . •.0 7 Q' �i• � �A i. �i�.
PC
i 47j Vl _ I •�
.A K• v�b 'v
tJ•w t'0 ��... 5i `� I JOB CORPSp•
RA141140 CENTER, y• �. . a
} �'� � .4.4 j, •__', , ,i . F,) of' '' .� '� •�� ,�'.,
� '?��` •'.-,L� i' I _'C •, ,• ail_ � o._� '(� '
r:• �•�i pnG r •R • '.: DUBLIN
[a/] C. St ''v aF��, �r. •' , �-, � 'Ehl J '"� �,lu .. .{l.�� ,. -
) �� w 5 t'- r 1 a ••',• ^ �.:�+ Q t--o.•i� fry-•. ' i. — A r' f'•
9 - _ -���`� ;Iµ •� z Landslide Deposits:
'� �,fit+.t
t=i r��• `:.;ti.N�"��`•1iI - Greater than 500 ft. in Longest Dimension
> r' • '''%� •1 -
' :T1_ Less than 500 ft in Longest Dimension
rA
0 1 2 miles
ro Source: Isopleth Map of Landslide Deposits, Southern San Francisco Bay Region, Wright and Nilsen, 1974
O
En
1 1
1
CUT SURFACES
� ON BEDROCK
BEDDING SURFACES
\�\ Source: Leighton, 1969
Figure 4-5: DEVELOPMENT OF MAN-MADE BEDROCK LANDSLIDES:
A Naturally Stable "Dip-,Slope" Has Been Made Unstable
By Removing The Support From Bedding Planes
INITIAL CUT
\\\ 4SME9 jPj l€VEL
- STEEPEN SLOPE ANGLE
INCREASE IN HEIGHT
FILL
i
. ceeAropi
SATURATE WITH WATER PLACE EXTRA LOAD ON SLOPE Source: Leighton, 1969
Figure 4-6: FOUR WAYS TO MAKE A STABLE CUT SLOPE UNSTABLE
i
F1 -
ad
_ V\scarp/ . (t lank
I�'! j-
%% transverse
cracks,,
Shear,rupture or sli
surl9c p ! i Compression �I
I e
ridges i.h
r 1 if Toe'
A.Cross-sectional view of idealised landslide
F:-
- \4�alhcri•J
_ ,halr
r/
Slew lu rapid -
Shalt:
B. Block diagram of flow(slow earthflow).Figure at left of foot of flow is;uthor,drawn for scale. (Modified from Varner, 1958.)
1 f i
t
I
i
1 `.z
1
_ Sander_. Y -- --
Clay_
r s \\ Vy\
('lay— �� F
('layer
h
_ C. Block diagram of complex movernnnt. (a)Slump;(b)earthf low.(Modified from Varner, 1958J
Sources: A. Bolt, 1975; B. and C. Pestrong, 1974
Figure 4-7: SCHEMATIC LANDSLIDE DIAGRAMS
Debris Flows
Debris or mud flows (Figure 4-. occur miler essentially the sa1110 c'citiclitiUtiti :15
landslides. However, they differ in that the material involved behaves as a viscous
_ liquid, and commonly moves with greater rapidity than landslides. Debris flows are
generally relatively thin, and can move significant distances from the slopes on which
' they originate to the adjacent stream flatlands. Some debris flows develop from
highly fluid landslides; others occur directly from rainfall on a steep slope.
4.2.5 LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is a hazard in saturated loose granular material, generally when the
water table is near the ground surface. It occurs when earthquake vibrations cause
pore pressures within the material to increase. The water flows, and the material
loses its strength, and thus its ability to support structures. Light, buried structures
may float to the surface. Heavy structures on the surface may sink or rotate.
Liquefaction is a potential problem in alluvial valleys. Youd, et al, (1975) classify the
liquefaction potential of Holocene alluvium in the San Francisco Bay Area with the
depth of water less than 10 feet as moderate. This applies to part of the Dublin low-
lands. High potential zones probably also exist.
Mitigative measures must be taken where geotechnical studies identify high or mode-
rate liquefaction potential. In most cases, properly designed foundations will be suf-
ficient. In some.cases, a project might be unfeasible or uneconomic due to lique-
faction potential.
4.2.6 SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL
Expansive soils are common within the Dublin area. These soils expand when wet, and
contract as they dry. Shrink-swell potential is a minor problem throughout much of
the planning area, and a significant problem in localized areas. Required preliminary
geotechnical investigations will indicate a warning of shrink-swell conditions, and soil
investigations will provide site-specific information on shrink-swell potential.
Expansive soils can damage certain types of buildings, especially those which are of
slab-on=grade construction. Roads; driveways, and sidewalks are also damaged by
cracking caused by expansive soils, causing potential",injury to pedestrians and neces-
sitating early replacement. Such conditions are thus an economic burden to the city
and should be mitigated by proper sub-grade preparation and structural design.
4.2.7 LURCH CRACKING AND LATERAL SPREADING
Lurch cracking is commonly related to liquefaction; thus, it occurs mainly in allu-
vium. It has been observed in most earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6. It can
also occur in weathered rock or soil, especially on slopes. The banks of streams are
especially vulnerable.
4-23
I �
LJ
The precise location of potential lurch cracking damage is difficult to predict;
planning and design in-relation to landslides and liquefaction should be sufficient to
mitigate this phenomenon.
A related phenomenon is lateral spreading. When liquefaction occurs under a slope
and adjacent to an open, unsupported face, the soil mass can move toward that ex-
posed area. Streams, excavated channels and deep cuts in unconsolidated materials
are the most likely locations for lateral spreading. Structures in these areas should be
designed accordingly. Critical structures should not be located in potential lateral
spreading areas.
4.2.8 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
Differential settlement of poorly or incompletely compacted sediments or fill com-
monly occurs as a result of earthquake vibrations or of gradual settlement through
time by consolidation due to weight of the fill mass. This process is especially
common in areas subject to liquefaction.
Differential settlement must be considered in the design of any structure. Proper
geotechnical studies will identify areas of potential settlement. Fills and liquefiable
settlements are especially prone to this phenomenon. Structures which are situated
astride two soil masses, such as fill and natural soil of a different density, and those
structures which contain more than one structural element, are especially prone to
this problem.
4.2.9 SEICHE AND TSUNAMI
A seiche is an oscillation in a body of water caused by earthquake motion or by the
sudden filling of a water body by a soil mass. Seiches can overtop dams, resulting in
the inundation of downstream areas. Seiche potential must be considered in the design
of dams, water tanks and related structures. Structures located downstream from
facilities subject to seiche damage should be designed with this potential in mind. It
would be prudent to avoid locating major emergency or high occupancy structures at
such locations.
Tsunami are seismically-induced sea waves that occur along coastal areas. Dublin is
too far inland to be subject to tsunami.
4.2.10 SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence occurs in two ways. Regional subsidence may occur due to tectonic
forces. There is little evidence for significant regional subsidence in the Dublin
area. Movement along a fault during an earthquake may cause one side of the fault to
move down relative to the other side. Although vertical movements have occurred in
the past during earthquakes in the Bay Area, movement is primarily horizontal.
Subsidence also occurs due to groundwater pumping when the amount of water with-
drawn is substantially greater than that recharged to the ground. This type of sub-
sidence has not occurred historically in the Dublin area, as groundwater pumping has
4-24
i-
been limited. If groundwater utilization increases significantly in the future, sub-
__ sidence could occur.
i
4.2.11 HIGH WATER TABLE
Groundwater levels are at or above the ground surface in several areas, especially the
lower hills west of downtown Dublin. This condition can generally be recognized by
_ the presence of springs, and by high water levels in test borings and in trenches. A
high water table is not a hazard. However, it does impact development by flooding
utility trenches, invading basements, weakening foundations and roads, and infiltrating
water and sewer pipes. A high water table also exacerbates landslide conditions.
4.2.12 FIRE PROTECTION
The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides fire protection with a sworn staff of
35.plus 12 volunteers. Full-time manning is six firefighters at Fire Station #1 on
Donohue Drive at Amador Valley Boulevard and three at Fire Station #2 on Fircrest
Lane at Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. The District enjoys an excellent #3 rating
from the Insurance Service Office (ISO), the best rating reasonably achievable.
The present city is adequately protected with current staff and equipment, and an
improvement fee of $550 per dwelling unit or per 2,000 square feet of commercial
floor area is collected and set aside for equipment replacement.
The western foothills constitute a high fire hazard because of the large quantity of
brush, steep slopes, and difficult access. If the DSRSD fire department were to
assume primary responsiblity for protection in the eastern or western hills of the
extended planning area, additional firefighters and equipment would be needed.
DSRSD now sends one truck to fires in the western hills under a mutual aid agreement.
The California Department of Forestry in Sunol has primary responsibility, but
response time is about 20 minutes. If DSRSD were to add this area to the district,
Chief Phillips would request that all homes more than 5 minutes from a station have
automatic sprinklers. It would not be feasible to maintain a three-firefighter company
in the foothills, although a station manned by volunteers might be practical if there
were sufficient interest. Homes should have an available water supply of 10,000
gallons or more and the department would need a tanker truck, two pieces of grass
fire equipment, and additional temporary staff during the summer fire season.
Service to the area east of Santa Rita would require one or two additional fire stations
and a proportional staff increase.
4-25
I '
4.3 NOISE ELEMENT
Noise level measurements for the General Plan were taken by Charles M. Salter
Associates in May, 1983 at 10 locations throughout Dublin, including eight spot
measurements and two 24-hour continous measurements. Both peak hour and off-peak
spot measurements were taken, and in two cases nighttime levels were recorded.
Results of the measurements are shown in Table 4-7. The following Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL)l values were tabulated based on the data from the two
24-hour samples and the various spot measurements. Unless otherwise noted, meas-
urement points are 50 feet from the centerline of the outer moving lane of the street
listed.
TABLE 4-7
CNEL VALUES
Site No. CNEL
Amarillo Court at edge of development on western hillside 1 50
San Ramon Road and Shannon Avenue 2 64
Cronin Park 3 60
Kolb Park 4 61
Village Parkway 5 61
Amador Valley Blvd. near Brighton Drive 6 68
In Sports Grounds midway between I-580 and Dublin Blvd. 7 67
Amador Valley Road at Amador'Piaza Road 8, 70
Elgin Lane opposite I-680 9 65
Padre Way at edge of development on western hillside 10 58
Traffic is the major noise source in Dublin and I-680 and I-580 are the predominnat
noise sources, with Amador Valley Road, San Ramon Road, and Village Parkway Road
also being major contributors. It is important to note that the noise'levels vary sig-
nificantly with the proximity to these noise sources; the residences closest to the
freeways and the major roads are exposed to higher levels. Many communities have
adopted a 60 CNEL as the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level in residential
areas. Additionally, the State of California requires that all new multi-family housing
projects exposed to a CNEL of 60 dB or higher are required to have an acoustical
consultant assess mitigation procedures to reduce the indoor CNEL to 45 dB. It can be
seen from the data that new residential developments along Amador Valley Road, San
Ramon Road, Village Parkway, and those close to I-680 or I-580 could be considered
unacceptable without proper mitigation.
Table 4-9 provides a means of comparing noise levels from different sources.
lCommunity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a descriptor for the 24-hour average
noise level measured in decibels (dB) that accounts for the increased sensitivity of
people during the evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels during the hours from
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. are penalized 5 dB; sound levels during the hours from 10 p.m. to
7 a.m. are penalized 10 dB. The dB scale is logarithmic; a 3 dB difference normally
is discernable and a 10 dB increase is subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness.
4-26
T �
O TABLE 4-8 RESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS
-e
v,
Site Day ant Time
No. Location of Measurement Leq* L10** L50 L90 Comments
1 End of Amarillo Ct. 4 ft. from 5/17/83 3:11 pm 45 49 40 37 Sparse traffic on .
curb in front of 11606 Amarillo Amarillo Dr. ; none on
Ct. on sidewalk Amarillo Ct.
0
N 1 5/17/83 5 :12 pm 45 48 42 40 4 cars in 15 minutes
O
F%
2 Corner of San Ramon and Shannon, 5/17/83 3:44 pm 62 65 62 55 Typical car passbys:
50 ft. from center of near lane
62-65 dBA; 350 cars in
of Shannon, 100 ft. from center 15 minutes
�• of left turn lane of San Ramon
2 If . 5/17/83 4 :32 pm, 63 66 62 56 7 trucks in 10 minutes ;
w 395 cars in 15 minutes
s
0
3 50 ft. from center of near lane 5/17/83 5.41 pm 58 60 52 50 42 cars in 15 minutes
nof York-Penn in playground on
N grass
a
:3 3 50 ft. from center of near lane 5/17183 10:00 pm 54 57 50 46 Average car passbys:
of York-Penn in playground on 61 dBA; 9 cars in 15
y grass minutes
3 5/19/83 1 :30 pm 50 54 45 43 20 cars in 15 minutes
U
4 50 ft. from center of near lane 5/17/83 10:30 pm 55 58 52 49 Typical car passbys:
of Brighton upon grassy slope 66 dBA; 21 cars in 15
a next to tree. Directly across minutes
from 7377 Brighton
4 5/19/83 8:14 am 57 61 54 51 36 cars in 15 minutes
4 5/19/83 12:38 pm 58 61 52 48 30 cars in 15 minutes
u
fh
*The L is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a stated period of time, would contain the same
o acoustTS energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period .
**The sound level in dBA that was equaled or exceeded lVpercent of the time; L50 and L90 are the levels
Pot
3 TABLE 4-8 (continued)
w
Site Day and Time * **
dNo. Location of Measurement Leq L10 L50 L90 Comments
5 Village Parkway Rd. at Dublin 5/19/83 8:40 am 63 65 60 55 165 cars in 15 minutes;
Community Swim Center 50 ft. typical passby: 63 dBP
from center of near lane
O5 " " 5/19/83 9.15 am 61 64 60 55 150 cars in 15 minutes
M. 6 Amador Valley Rd. 15 ft. from 5/19/83 2 :00 pm 64 69 58 48 Cars go about 30-35 mpF
� 67 cars in 15 minutes
center of near lane on sidewalk
at 6849 Amador Valley Rd.
� 6 " 5/20/83 8:03 am 64 69 60 53 Traffic turning left or
^ to Brighton; 112 cars
in 15 minutes
w
0
7 In Big Park between I-580 and 5/19/83 3:20 pm 61 63 60 58 Approx. 750 cars in
Dublin Blvd. 650 ft. from 15 minutes (westbround
00 right-of-way fence of I-580, only) on I-580
a same to center of near lane
of Dublin Blvd.
7 " 5/19/83 4:00 pm 61 63 60 58
8 Amador Valley Rd. west of 5/20/83 8:30 am 66 69 65 61 135 cars near lane;
0 90 cars far lane;
n 1-680 l truck far lane in
o
15 minutes
n
a
ND
V
1.1
N
V
V1
V
I'
PLANNING ISSUES
1. Appropriate uses in areas of high noise exposure.
2. Acceptability of noise mitigation measures that reduce indoor noise to prescribed
levels, but subject residents to excessive noise when windows are open.
3. Feasibility and likelihood of construction of noise barriers on freeways.
is
4. Visual character of noise walls along major arterial streets.
Existing and Projected Noise Exposure
Noise contour maps in the Plan Policies report show current areas subject to CNEL of
60 or more by 5 dB increments. Standards of land use compatibility are listed and
' implementation policies are proposed to reduce noise nuisances.
Section 65302 (g) of the Government Code requires that "a part of the noise element
i shall also include the preparation of a community noise exposure inventory, current
and projected, which identifies the number of persons exposed to serious levels of
noise throughout the community." Table 4-10 was compiled from the noise contours
and an existing land use map.
i .
i
i
4-29
TABLE 4-9
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Decibels,
A-Weighted
CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN (1001) 140
JET TAKEOFF (2001) 130
RIVETING MACHINE 110 ROCK MUSIC BAND
DC-10 FLYOVER (7001) 100 PILE DRIVER (501)
TEXTILE WEAVING PLANT BOILER ROOM
SUBWAY TRAIN (201) 90 PRINTING PRESS PLANT
JACKHAMMER (501)
BULLDOZER (501) 80 GARBAGE DISPOSAL IN HOME (31)
INSIDE SPORT CAR, 50 MPH
75 PORTABLE LEAF BLOWER (501)
VACUUM CLEANER (101) 70
SPEECH (11)
60 AUTO TRAFFIC NEAR FREEWAY
LARGE STORE
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
LARGE TRANSFORMER (2001) 50 PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE
LIGHT TRAFFIC (1001)
AVERAGE RESIDENCE
35 MINIMUM LEVELS -
RESIDENTIAL AREAS AT NIGHT
SOFT WHISPER (51) 30
RUSTLING LEAVES 20 RECORDING STUDIO
10
THRESHOLD OF HEARING IN
YOUTHS (1000-4000 Hz) 0
NOTE: The distance (in feet) between the source and listener is shown in parentheses.
Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. from General Radio Company, 1972, and
other data.
4-30
• I.'1
TABLE 4-10
ff 1983 AND PROJECTED 2005 NOISE EXPOSURE
f-
Noise Level Persons Exposed
(CNEL)
1983 1983 2005 2005
l Total I-680 Total . I-680
Corridor Corridor
60-65 7,500 — 7,300 —
65-70 1,400 . 900 2,600 1,300
70-75 400 300 1,100 1,100
75-80 -0- -0- 300 300
( TOTALS 9,300 1,200 11,300 2,700
f �
i I
(yl 4-31
l._
i
5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
I ` .
' Population and Employment
City of Pleasanton. Final EIR Hacienda Business Park Planned Unit Development
?. Volume H. May 1T92.
De Leuw, Cather & Company and DKS Associates. BART Livermore-Pleasanton
Extension Study: Update Analysis. Interim Report No. 1 - Task I system
conceptual design. San Francisco: May, 1983.
Gruen Gruen + Associates. A Survey Analysis of the Employment, Demographic and
Housing Characteristics of the Hacienda Business Park Labor Pool. San
Francisco: October, 1982.
Gruen Gruen + Associates. The Jobs/Housing Balance in the City of Pleasanton. San
Francisco: December 29, 1981.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census, Summary Tape Files 1 and 3.
United Way of the Bay Area. Valleys Corridor Project, Executive Report. Concord:
November, 1982.
Housing
Alameda County Planning Department. Housing Element of the Alameda Count
General Plan (Revision), Volume 1 (Summary). Hayward: Adopted February 7,
1980, July 21, 1981, and September 22, 1981.
Association of Bay. Area Governments. Housing Needs Determinations, San Francisco
Bay Region. Berkeley: July, 1983.
California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housing
Directory: A Guide to State, Federal and Local Housing and Community.
Development Laws and Programs. Second Edition. Sacramento: May, 1980.
Eden Housing, Inc. Annual Report. Hayward: June, 1982
California Energy Commission, Local Government Assistance Program. Local Energy
Planning Handbook. Sacramento: November 1981
Office of Appropriate Technology, State of California. The Affordable Housing Book,
Strategies for the Eighties from the California Affordable Housing Competition.
Sacramento, 1
R. McCubbin and C. Bush, Fair Share Housing Project, Legal Aid Society of Marin
i County. The Housing Element Handbook, An Advocates' Guide. San Rafael:
April 1983
5-1
State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of
Community Affairs. Utilizing Public Surplus Lands, A Housing Developers Guide.
Sacramento: October 1980
California State Department of Housing and Community Development. Model
Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Prepared by the California State Department
of Housing and Community Development Under Contract to the California Coastal
Commission. (Revised July 1981) Sacramento: August, 1980
Soloway, Jennifer, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Condos, Co-
ops, and Conversions: A Guide on Rental Conversions for Local Officials
Sacramento: November,
Land Use
Contra Costa County. West Branch General Plan Amendment Draft EIR. February,
1983.
East Bay Regional Park District. Comments of the East Bay Regional Park District
with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Reactivation and Develoment of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Pleasanton,
California. Oakland: September 2, 1982.
U.S. Army Engineer District and HQ Presidio of San Francisco. Reactivation and
Development Plans, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, California, Draft EIR. San Francisco: April, 1982.
Martin Carpenter Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Sunol
Development, Alameda County, California Prepared for the Alameda County
Tanning Department: August,
Alameda County Planning Department. Las Positas General Plan Amendments and
Rezoning Considerations, Draft Environmental Impact Report a revision of the
June 1982 DEIR). Alameda County: March 1983
Bissel & Karn, Inc. Preliminary Review, Transportation Corridor San Ramon Branch
Line, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Radum Wye to Alameda County
Line. Prepared for The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Callahan-
Pentz Properties. Pleasanton: October, 1983/Revised November 1983
Public Facilities
Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978-
1990. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978-
1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costal Insurance Company of
America and Callahan-Pentz Properties. Pleasanton: October, 1983/Revised
November 1983
5-2
r-
Public Facilities
Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978-
1990. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: .1978.
t Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978-
1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978.
Murray School District. Murray School District Master Plan (Revised). Dublin: June,
1982.
Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School
Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization. Dublin: December, 1982.
Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School
Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization, Appendix. Dublin: December, 1982.
Public Services
1 ,
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Water Master Plan for Dublin. Prepared for the Dublin
San Ramon Services District. Walnut Creek: December, 1981.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Water System Analysis for the Proposed Third Pressure
Zone. Prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Walnut Creek:
August, 1982.
East Bay Regional Park District. Comments of the East Bay Regional Park District_
with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Reactivation and Develoment of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Pleasanton,
California. Oakland: September 2, 1982.
Environmental Resources
Alameda County Planning Department. Conservation Element of the Alameda County
General Plan. Hayward: Adopted November 23, 1976.
Alameda County Planning Department. General Plan Amendment Consideration
Nielsen Ranch, Unincorporated Alameda County, Drat EIR. Hayward: April 4,
1980.
Alameda County Planning Department. Livermore Amador Valley Planning Unit Plan
Amendment Consideration and EIR (Draft). Hayward: November 9, 1976.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Bay Area Air Quality Plan (Draft).
Berkeley: July, 1982.
City of Pleasanton. Pleasanton General Plan. Adopted 1976.
1 Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978-
1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978.
I 5-3
Madrone Associates. Stream and Creekside Conservation Zones - City-Centered .
Corridor (East Marin Second Working Draft). Novato: 1980.
Ridgelands Administrative Board. Rideglands: A Multijurisdictional Open Space
Study. East Bay: Adopted May 19, 1977.
U.S. Army Engineer District. Upper Alameda Creek Urban Study, Volumes I and H.
San Francisco: September, 1981.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of the
Alameda Area, California. Series 1961, No. 41. March, 1966.
U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service. New Area Feasibility Study,
Ridgelands, California. January, 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Wastewater Management Program,
Liver m ore-Am ador Valley, Draft EIS. 1975.
People for Open Space. Bay Area Farmland Loss: Trends and Case Studies,
Background Report #4 POS Farmlands Conservation Project, San Francisco:
anuary,
Seismic Safety and Safety
Alameda, County of, Planning Department, Seismic Safety and Safety Elements of the
County of Alameda General Plan, January 1976, revised August 5, 1982.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1980, Fault Evaluation Report FER-108,
(12/23/80), Calaveras and Verona Faults, Dublin Quadrangle. (Earl Hart)
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1981, Fault Evaluation Report FER-109,
(1/30/81), Pleasanton and Related Faults, Dublin Quadrangle Vicinity. (Earl Hart)
Davis, James L., 1982, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Dublin Quadrangle,
revised official map, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:24,000.
Davis, James L., 1982, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Hayward
Quadrangle, revised official map, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale
1:24,000.
Davis, James L., 1982, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Livermore
Quadrangle, revised official map, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale
1:24,000.
Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr., 1980, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Hayward Quadrangle,
Alameda and Contra Costa County, CA., U.S. Geologic Survey Open File Report
80-540, Scale 1:24,000.
Greensf elder, R., 1974, "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes in
California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
5-4
Hart, Earl W., 1983, California Division of Mines and Geology, personal
communication.
Lawson, Andrew C., 1908, (reprinted 1969), "The California Earthquake of April 18,
1906, Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, Washington, D.C.
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
Nilsen, T.H., 1973, "Preliminary Photo interpretation Map of Landslide and Other
Surficial Deposits of the Livermore and Part of the Hayward 15-Minute
Quadrangles," Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, U.S. Geologic Survey, Map
MF-519 (HUD Series).
Nilsen, T.H., Taylor, F.A., and Brabb, E.E., 1976, "Recent Landslides in Alameda
County, California (1940-71): An Estimate of Economic Losses and Correlations
with Slope Rainfall, and Ancient Landslide Deposits," U.S. Geological Survey,
Bulletin 1398.
Oakeshott, G.B., 1969, "Geologic Features of Earthquakes in the Bay Area," in
Goldman, H.B., Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill, Specia
Report 97, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Slosson, J.E., 1973, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Dublin Quadrangle,
California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:24,000, Preliminary Review Map.
Woodward-Lundgren and Associates, 1973, Phase I-Preliminary Evaluation of Geologic
Problems in the County of Alameda, Report to Director of Public Works, County of
Alameda.
Youd, T.L. and Hoose S.M., 1978, Historic Ground Failure in Northern California
Triggered by Earthquakes, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 993.
Youd, T.L., Nichols, D.R., E4.,Helley, E ., and Lajoie, K.R., 1975, "Liquefaction
Potential" in Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, Edited
by R.D. Borcherdt, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A.
5-5
f-
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 84011002
February 8, 1984
Prepared for the City of Dublin by
Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners
TJKM, Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek
Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Emeryville
Charles M. Salter & Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, San Francisco
I ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Increased Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Designation of Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Loss of Agricultural and Grazing Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4. Loss of Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5. Impacts Not Found To Be Significant . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.6. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. EIR Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Environmental Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Population, Housing, and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.0. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Air Quality . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Seismic and Geologic Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. Schools, Public Lands and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.0. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Short Term Uses vs. Long Term Productivity
of the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Significant Unavoidable Environmental Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Impacts Found Not Be Significant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.5. Growth Inducing Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDIX A List of Persons and Organizations Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B Notice of Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C Initial Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
APPENDIX D Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
_ I
`eSONOMA ) NAPA SOLANO
1 — — — z1
3 7
_ 4
v
101
a
Antiocl
San Rafael 80
Richmon
660
M A R I :Q Walnut Creek
�.. �
24
1
CONTRA COST .-Ii
Oakland
J, \
San Francisco 9rG
DUBLIN
�9 Pro'ect Location '
•. . °' — ��
A' r sao
Hayward Livermore
O
101 'yam 92 Union City
O San `-- 17 84
0 Mateo
Fremont
co
ALAMEDA
280 �-----
680
' Palo Alto \
SAN MATEO �
SANTA CLARA
'0'
San Jose
REGIONAL LOCATION
1.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies the impacts of buildout of the City
of Dublin's planning area as envisioned by the city's draft General-Plan. Mitigation
measures are discussed in the Analysis of Impacts section of the EIR, and are incor-
porated into the project as policies of the General Plan (Volume 1, Plan Policies
Report). For purposes of this impact analysis, it is assumed that all mitigation mea-
sures (policies and programs included in the Plan) will be implemented.
The Summary outlines the significant adverse impacts and options for mitigation. It
does not include full discussion of impacts nor discussion of all areas of impact.
Reading of the Summary does not substitute for reading of the-full environmental
document and General Plan volumes.
Except for traffic, development within the primary planning area is not judged to
result in environmental changes at the scale the EIR authors believe is significant for
the purpose of analysis under CEQA.
1.1 INCREASED TRAFFIC
Build-out under the Plan policies will result in unacceptable levels of service at two
Dublin intersections, and increased traffic volumes throughout the city. No mitigation
is available at the affected intersections, as unacceptable levels of service are antici-
pated even after feasible improvements are complete.
Planned development in Tri-Valley communities other than Dublin will result in mini-
mally acceptable (LOS D) or unacceptable service levels (LOS F) on both I-580 and
I-680 regardless of Dublin's development policies, although the projected 21,000 jobs
resulting from development in the extended planning area would make a significant
contribution to the congestion. Mitigation measures are transit systems that would
attract more than 10-15 percent of all trips includingBART, local transit, and a
transportation corridor along the Southern Pacific railroad San Ramon Branch Line.
Neither impact nor mitigation is within the independent discretion of the City of
Dublin, and the success of mitigation efforts is predictable only within a broad range.
1.2 DESIGNATION OF AIR QUALITY
Anticipated traffic volumes over 20,000 vehicles per day would result in carbon mono-
xide "hot spots" and violation of applicable standards at times during the year when
calm weather and peak traffic congestion occur at several locations in Dublin. An air
quality monitoring station in Dublin would provide necessary data to implement
specific mitigation techniques as warranted.
As individual projects are proposed for both the primary and extended planning areas
the environmental review process will ensure consideration of air quality impacts and
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.
-1-
1.3 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL AND GRAZING LAND
Urban development as proposed by the Plan would, in the long term, result in disconti-
nuation of viable agricultural operations in most of the planning area. In the short
term, urban expansion in accord with the P14n would have unavoidable adverse impacts
on adjoining agricultural operations adjoining urban development including:
- Creation of incentives to plan for conversion to urban use.
- Potential complaints about odor, conflicts in road use, and vandalism.
- Disruption of lifestyle of owners who live on agricultural properties.
The Plan Policies Report includes measures intended to prevent premature urbani-
zation of agricultural lands. In the long term, however, no mitigation is available for
the loss of agricultural and grazing land envisioned by the Plan.
1.4 LOSS OF OPEN SPACE
The loss of open space that would result from buildout under General .Plan policies is a
significant impact on a visual and aesthetic resource that defines the City of Dublin.
Mitigation measures include policies to prohibit development on prominent ridgelines
and to retain woodlands and limit mass grading.
Even with these measures, the visual quality of open space around Dublin will be
significantly affected.
1.5 IMPACTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Hydrology and ground water quality, wildlife habitats, schools, public lands and utili-
ties would be affected by development, but these changes are not judged to be signifi-
cant. Residents' exposure to freeway noise and geologic hazards are not specifically
affected by the Plan's proposals.
1.6 ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives, No Project and High Density, are discussed in Section 4. Buildout
under the Draft Plan would result in densities between the two alternatives.
-2-
i
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 EIR APPROACH
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the probable environmental effects
of the City of Dublin's General Plan as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and State EIR Guidelines. The General Plan consists of two
documents, Volume 1, the Plan Policies Report, and Volume 2, the Technical
Supplement/EIR. Both volumes constitute portions of the EIR and are incorporated by
reference into this document. This approach reduces needless repetition.
Impacts associated with a General Plan cannot be predicted with the samed degree of
accuracy as impacts associated with a specific development project, so analyses of
impacts are necessarily general. This document assumes that all General Plan policies
will be implemented and that all projected development will occur by 2005. Two
alternatives to the proposed project are considered in Section 4.0 (No Project and High
Density).
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Dublin General Plan includes the four square miles of the incorporated city and a
small adjoining area to the west (primary planning area), and a 33 square mile area
extending to the east, west and southwest (extended planning area). General Plan
policies, constituting the full project description, are included in the "Plan Policies
Report," with supporting information and discussion included in the "Technical
Supplement." For purposes of analysis, the "project" is the level of development
envisioned by the General Plan at city build-out as compared to current conditions.
The plan distinguishes between the primary and extended planning areas. At this time
the land use plan for the extended planning area is schematic in nature. Due to the
limited amount of remaining undeveloped land in the city, the General Plan for the
primary planning area is in many cases site-specific. This EIR is not a substitute for
project EIRs, but it provides information that can reduce the number of projects
requiring EIRs and can allow project EIRs to be more narrowly focused.
The primary objective of the General Plan is to provide a policy guide for decisions on
future physical development. Additional functions of the plan are discussed in Section
1.3 of the Plan Policies Report. The "guiding policies" presented in each section of
the Plan Policies Report present the objectives for the individual elements of the
plan. The plan is also written to satisfy state planning law requirements. The EIR will
be used as a tool in the General Plan review and approval process.
The principal components of the project as defined by CEQA include, for the primary
planning area, development of vacant land at medium and medium-high residential
densities; intensification of land uses in downtown Dublin; conversion of school sites to
residential use; creation of a transportation corridor on the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way and other improvements to the circulation system.
Principal components of the plan in the extended planning area are residential deve-
lopment at single family densities and commercial/industrial development on land
-3-
currently in an agriculatural preserve. Development in the extended planning area
would require provision of public services and facilities currently unavailable. By
contrast, in the primary planning area, sites identified for development or intensifi-
cation are mainly inf ill sites that can be efficiently served.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Both volumes of the General Plan document the environmental, social and economic
conditions of the planning area. In Volume 1, Section 1.2, Development History, and
Section 1.7, Subregional Development Trends, establish the framework in which
choices regarding Dublin's future development are made. In Volume 2, Section 4.2,
Seismic Safety and Safety, Section 2.2, Open Space, and Section 4.1, Conservation,
describe the physical environment of the planning area. The Housing Element, Section
3 includes an inventory of housing resources and analysis of housing needs as required
by state law.
2.4 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
With only 167 acres of undeveloped land available for residential development in
Dublin, housing and population increases will result in few significant changes in the
city's environment. As can be seen from Table 2-1 in the Land Use Element, 76 per-
cent of the city's projected housing units are existing or approved. The table in the
Analysis of Alternatives section of the EIR illustrates that the greatest difference in
projected population increase resulting from the project and its alternatives is less
than fifteen percent.
Under the proposed Plan, the City's housing stock would increase by 1,930 units,
representing 31 percent of existing and approved units. The mix of unit types would
change, with the multi-family units share rising from 9 percent in 1983 to 37 percent
at build-out. Anticipated population increase is 64 percent above the 1983 estimate of
13,700.
Population and housing projections for the extended planning area are presented in the
Land Use Element. These are rough estimates based on amount of land under 30
percent slope and may change as a result of detailed site studies and availability of
public services. Employment figures in the extended area could vary significantly
from the projected figures because businesses attracted may employ 5 to 50
employees per acre.
Another major variable in the projections of commercial/industrial development in the
extended planning area is the disposition by Alameda County of land which is now part
of the Santa Rita prison grounds. With plans for the rebuilding of the prison underway,
County officials expect that some of the freeway frontage will be declared surplus and
sold or leased by the County. The Plan assumes that approximately 180 acres will
become available; the actual figure may be considerably higher or lower.
Several sections of the General Plan discuss the issue of jobs/housing balance, i.e. the
ratio between jobs and employed and residents in a given area. Valley-wide
jobs/housing balance is a major subregional problem because planned employment, if
attained, would result in a net in-commute. In this EIR jobs/housing balance is not
-4-
r
discussed as an environmental impact. Rather, the effects of lack of jobs/housing
balance are considered directly. For example, jobs/housing imbalance is expected to
increase total traffic, so the EIR will consider traffic, air quality and noise and, as
appropriate, note the relationship of these factors to the imbalance of Valley-wide
jobs and housing.
S
-5-
3.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
3.1 AIR QUALITY
The air quality impacts of the project would result almost exclusively from increased
automobile travel. Section 7.4 of the Technical Supplement discusses the natural
factors affecting air quality in the Tri-Valley, regulation of air pollutants, and the
history of air quality in the Dublin area.
Air quality standards are set by the Federal Government and the State of California.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulates air pollution form stationary
sources; the California Air.Resources Board sets motor vehicle emissions standards,
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the principal agency involved in
development and improvement of transportation. Given this established network of
agencies working to maintain and improve air quality, the City of Dublin does not have
a major role in air quality regulation. The significance of the plan's impact on air
quality stems from the effect of designated land uses on activities that generate air
pollutants, most notably automobile travel.
Historically, photochemical oxidant, also known as ozone, or, more commonly, smog,
has been the Valley's most serious air quality problem. Ozone levels can be most
efficiently reduced through the control of hydrocarbon emissions. The fact that there
is no one major source of hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere makes their
control particularly difficult. Automobile emissions are a major source, despite
increasingly strict emissions controls. With increased automobile travel air quality
deteriorates incrementally. The overall effect of regional employment growth at the
scale anticipated in the Tri-Valley without corresponding housing increase will be in
increased travel and decreased air quality. In addition to the historic smog problem,
increased traffic may create localized carbon monoxide problems.
Within the City limits, increased'traffic resulting in unacceptable Levels of Service at
two Dublin Boulevard intersections and traffic volumes over 20,000 may result in
localized carbon monoxide "hot spots." The severity of these impacts will vary
depending on the nature and proximity of adjacent land uses and on the weather.
Carbon monoxide (CO) problems will be localized, with greatest air quality problems
where traffic flows are high, levels of service are low, and the air is calm.
Mitigation
Localized carbon monoxide problems should lessen with time as the automobile fleet
turns over and new, cleaner cars come into use, and as the CO standards are inforced
and the Motor Vehicle Implementation and Maintenance program is implemented. In
order to make available information about carbon monoxide generation, the city
should request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish a moni-
toring station in downtown Dublin, as the project's greatest air quality impacts are
within the city and air quality data is currently available only from the Livermore
station.
The impact on air quality of specific projects in both the primary and extended plan-
ping areas will be considered through the environmental review process.
-6-
3.2 HYDROLOGY
Like air quality, water quality is protected by federal, state and regional agencies.
Section 7.2 of the Technical Supplement discusses the hydrology of the planning area.
Given the limited amount of vacant land in the city, development in the primary
planning area consistent with the proposed Plan would not significantly affect surface
or groundwater quality if mitigation measures regarding erosion and siltation control
are implemented. The location where stream bank erosion is most likely to become a
problem is along the banks of Alamo creek, east of the Dougherty hills.
In the extended planning area, water quality will be affected by the dramatic changes
in land use envisioned by the Plan. The increase in impervious surfaces will cause
increased runoff, and commercial and industrial activities may lead to infiltration of
the groundwater supply by industrial pollutants. Residential land use results in the
release of many harmful substances in everyday use, such as fertilizers and pesticides,
solvents and oils. Any urbanization establishes the presence of these pollutants where
previously rainwater percolated directly into the groundwater supply or flowed into
streams.
As groundwater is not currently part of the potable water supply, potential pollutants
would not have an immediate impact on the population. However, contaminants in
groundwater disperse slowly, and the potential future demand for groundwater is just
one reason for continued protection of the water supply.
Mitigation
Several mitigation measures are included in the Plan Policies report, Section 7.2.
These include enactment and enforcement of ordinances requiring control of erosion
and sedimentation, as well as on-site runoff control.
3.3 OPEN SPACE
The proposed General Plan would have significant effects on agricultural open space
which occupies more than 90 percent of the private land in the extended planning
area. Full development of the business park and single family residential areas indi-
cated on the plan would occupy 2,600 acres or 12 percent of the extended planning
area. Before the designated sites are fully developed, applications for amendments to
the General Plan to expand the urban area would be likely. Urban development as
proposed by the plan would have unavoidable adverse impacts on adjoining agricultural
operations including:
- Creation of incentives to plan for conversion to urban use.
- Potential complaints about odor, conflicts in use, and vandalism.
- Disruption of lifestyle of owners who live on agricultural properties.
Business park development on the north frontage of I-580 east of Tassajara Road
would significantly affect the area's visual character by converting agricultural land
to urban use. Approved business park development west of Collier Canyon Road in
-7-
Livermore, similar development south of I-580 adjoining the Livermore Airport, and
Pleasanton General Plan designations to the west would create a continuous urban
area along both sides of the freeway except for an agricultural clear zone to be main-
tained adjoining the Livermore Airport.
Visual impacts resulting from residential development in the east and west hills of the
extended planning area would vary greatly depending on the specific site. Three-
quarters or more of the residential land designated is on low ridges or knolls, or in
canyons where development would not be seen by freeway travelers. Where develop-
ment on exposed slopes is proposed, it would significantly alter existing views of
natural hillsides.
]litigation
No mitigation for the loss of agricultural open space is available. Plan policies would
require denial or mitigation of urban development proposals that would have "signifi-
cant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under (Williamson) contract," and
would regulate the location of development to lessen visual impacts.
Were development of agricultural open space prohibited in the Dublin planning area,
the cumulative effects would be somewhat increased pressure for development of
similar land at the edges of the Tri-Valley or for development of prime agricultural
land in western San Joaquin County. With less Tri-Valley land available, homes would
cost more and new employers would find the area slightly less attractive.
3.4 HABITATS
The biotic habitats of the planning area are discussed in Section 7.3 of the Technical
Supplement. The most unusual and valuable habitat in the planning area is the area to
the west of the City which forms part of the ridgelands stretching from Santa Clara to
Contra Costa counties. Development in this area is envisioned by the plan, with use of
mitigation measures relating to protection of riparian vegetation and watercourses,
and oak woodlands. Other policies are intended to protect the scenic quality of the
ridgelands by prohibiting development on visible ridgelines and limiting mass grading.
No endangered species or rare habitats have been identified in the planning area.
Impacts on the scenic quality of the ridgelands is mitigated to some extent by the
policies of the General Plan while individual environmental factors would not be
significantly affected by development in the ridgelands, residential development at
single family densities would have a significant impact because of the combined
function of the ridgeland as a natural habitat, and scenic and.open space resource.
The grasslands of the eastern planning area, while considered of unusually high value
as grazing lands, are less distinctive habitats, and the impacts of development would
not be significant in relation to habitat value.
Mitigation
Policies for the protection of riparian areas and oak woodlands are included in
Sections 7.1 and 7.3 of the Plan Policies report.
-8-
3.5 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Geology and seismic safety are discussed in Section 7.0 of the Plan Policies Report
and Section 4.2 of the Technical Supplement.
New development can create seismic and geologic hazards in one of two ways: either
by increasing the potential for occurence of seismic or geologic events as a result of
inadequate design, or by locating a project so as to expose people to hazards. The
first type of hazard is frequently created by inappropriate site planning or construc-
tion techniques, as illustrated in figure 4-6, Technical Supplement. The second type is
created by designating areas with recognized geologic hazards for human occupancy.
Few locations in the Bay Area are without natural hazard. While the natural
constraints and hazards posed by some sites in the planning area must be recognized
and taken into account in planning efforts, it is important to note that the result of
development in the extended area is more likely to be movement of people from one
hazardous area to another than into an area of hazards from an area with none.
While specific sites designated for development on the General Plan may be
discovered, through detailed geotechnical investigation, to be unsuitable for develop-
ment, the project does not have a significant impact relating to exposure to seismic
and geologic hazards.
Mitigation
The mitigation measures which form the implementation policies section of the Seis-
mic Safety and Safety elements establish regulations for siting of structures and
required geotechnical studies, and are intended to prevent creation of hazards through
human action as well as to reduce exposure to natural hazards.
3.6 TRAFFIC
If development in Tri-Valley communities other than Dublin occurs as planned, it will
result in minimally acceptable or unacceptable service levels on both I-580 and I-680
regardless of Dublin's development policies, although the.projected 21,000 jobs
resulting from development in the extended planning area would make a significant
contribution to the total. Section 5.0 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 2.4 of
the Technical Supplement discuss traffic.
Except for eastward extension of Dublin Boulevard, the proposed plan does not add
new routes. San Ramon Road will continue to carry through traffic and Dougherty
Road north of Dublin Boulevard will serve primarily trips to and from Contra Costa
County.
Freeway congestion or congestion at intersections that provide access to any inter-
_- change will cause drivers to seek alternative routes. As employment in Pleasanton
and San Ramon increases, drivers wishing to avoid a congested freeway or interchange
may use Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, or Alcosta Boulevard, and would
increase their use of San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. Construction of the
-' downtown I-680 interchange, as proposed by the General Plan, would attract trips with
a Dublin trip end away from congested intersections on Dublin Boulevard, but also
-9-
k
would attract some through trips if other interchanges (San Ramon Road, Dougherty,
or Hacienda Drive) are congested. A Dublin Boulevard extension would connect down-
town Dublin and the proposed business park east of Parks RFTA. If I-580 is congested,
it also would attract through trips to Contra Costa County or trips that otherwise
would use the Alcosta interchange to reach northern Dublin.
The Dublin Boulevard Traffic Study (TJKM, 1984) projects a"volume/capacity (v/c)
ratio of 1.24 at the Dublin Boulevard-San Ramon Road intersection, indicating an
unacceptable future level of service (LOS F). No further mitigation is available;
LOS F is expected when Dublin is fully developed and improvements to Dublin Boule-
vard are complete.
An unacceptable level of service is also probable at the Dublin Boulevard-Dougherty
Road intersection. Continuation of present conditions would likely result in LOS D
(.87 v/c ratio), the lowest acceptable level of service. With the planned construction
of an eastward extension of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty and assumption of addi-
tional development in Contra Costa County (Gumpert Ranch) the level of service at
the intersection would decrease.
The model used for analysis of the Dublin trafficways network assumes continued use
of most direct routes and did not assign excess capacity_to alternative routes. It is
possible that the new I-680 downtown interchange would provide relief for congested
intersections.
Although modeling assumptions relating to intensity of development or travel habits
may include significant errors, it is highly likely that both of these intersections will
operate at LOS F. The results will be lengthening of the peak hours of travel, shift of
travel modes, and diversion of trips to the proposed downtown and Algosta I-680 inter-
changes and the Hacienda I-580 interchange to the extent that greater capacity re-
mains available at those locations.
Mitigation
Residential densities for remaining uncommitted land in Dublin could be reduced, but
this would not ensure better intersection service levels because trips between Contra
Costa County residential and employment areas and Pleasanton employment and resi-
dential areas likely would increase to absorb available capacity as drivers avoid con-
• gestion elsewhere.
The proposed plan includes BART, local transit, and the SP Transportation Corridor
(potential light rail, bus, or trafficway) as traffic mitigations. The plan rejects reduc-
tion of residential density in the primary planning area as a mitigation because
regional travel would be increased and Housing Element goals would be compromised
without sufficient assurance that traffic congestion would be mitigated. The proposed
plan also rejects elimination of proposed business park development east of Parks
RFTA because this site is as well suited to the proposed use as other sites on which
development has been proposed or commenced. If reductions in planned employment
E
-10-
are necessary to ensure a workable transportation system in the Tri-Valley, the Dublin
extended planning area should be entitled to a proportional share of available capa-
city.
The effective mitigation measures would be major expansion and reconstruction of
transportation facilities, including freeways, or substantial reduction in planned busi-
ness park and residential development in the Tri-Valley. The first mitigation is infea-
sible and the second is beyond the control of the City of Dublin. It should be noted
- that F service levels are common during peak periods at points in many Bay Area
commute corridors.
3.7 NOISE
Noise is discussed in Section 8.3 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 4.3 of the
Technical Supplement. Noise impacts are defined by the 1983 and 2005 Noise Expo-
sure Contours Maps in the Noise Element. The addition of 2,700 persons residing in
areas subject to at least marginally unacceptable noise environment by 2005 is not
significantly affected by the plans proposals, but is the result of development deci-
sions outside the planning area that increase freeway volumes.
Mitigation
The General Plan proposes mitigation by constructing noise barriers where they would
be effective.
3.8 SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILI=
Section 44 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 2.3 of the Technical Supplement
discuss schools, public lands and utilities. Proposals for schools and utilities serving
the extended planning area are not offered in the General Plan, and will not be consi-
dered in this EIR.
Schools
As can be seen from Table 2-4 in the Technical Supplement, Murray School District
built capacity will continue to exceed enrollment under the draft Plan or any of the
alternatives considered by this EIR. However, K-6 enrollment may exceed planned
capacity slightly in the eastern part of the city and more substantially in the western
part of the city.
The School District has flexibility in accommodating anticipated enrollment. West of
- I-680 the Dublin school, now leased to a private school, may be needed. As long as the
District maintains the facility it will have the option of re-opening it to serve antici-
pated new development. In the eastern part of the city, where planned capacity is for
approximately 200 students than anticipated at city buildout, portable classrooms or
shifted attendance areas could provide capacity as needed on existing sites.
i
Public Lands
The city's planning area includes three major public holdings: Parks RFTA, Tassajara
Creek Regional Park, and Santa Rita Prison. The Plan does not envision major chan-
ges in the operations of any of these areas, and does not have a significant impact on
them.
Utilities
Sewage treatment and disposal and water supply are the two utilities issues of
greatest concern in the planning area.
Additional wastewater disposal capacity is necessary before many of the Valley's
proposed projects are completed. While a moratorium on development may be neces-
sary if a new disposal system is not developed promptly, lack of disposal capacity is
unlikely to act as a permanent constraint on development in the Valley. Given the
extent of planned development outside of Dublin's planning area the project itself does
not have a significant impact on the sewage disposal capacity.
Additional development envisioned by the draft plan may tax the capacity of the
water supply system.
Mitigation
No mitigation is necessary for impacts on schools and public lands. Dublin is partici-
pating in a wastewater disposal study in an attempt to meet the sewage disposal
demands of development valleywide. While the General Plan has significant effects on
water and sewage disposal systems, these effects are commensurante with develop-
ment capability of the site and have been anticipated. The appropriate mitigation is
financial participation in expansion of the systems.
-12-
4.0 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The planning process leading to the draft General Plan for Dublin used an analysis of
options approach to explore issues and alternatives for the city's future development.
Working Paper #3, Analysis of Alternative Sketch Plans, discusses three alternatives
in detail. The draft plan combines features of two of the three sketch plans
considered earlier in the planning process. For CEQA purposes a "high density" alter-
" native and a "no project" (current zoning) alternative are compared with the draft
plan.
Several components of the alternative plans remained as constants throughout the
planning process. These included acquisition of a five acre neighborhood park on the
east side of the Dougherty Hills, as well as several implementing policies regarding
conservation: prohibition of development in slide-prone areas, preservation of oak
woodlands and riparian vegetation, and designation of steep slopes (generally over 30
percent) as permanent open space.
All of the alternatives plans assume improved I-680 freeway access to Dublin achieved
through the construction of a new interchange between Dublin and Amador Valley
boulevards. Additionally, all designate.a road connecting Amador Plaza Road and
Regional Street, improving access to the area between Dublin Boulevard and I-580,
and distribution traffic from the proposed BART station to three Dublin Boulevard
intersections.
In the extended planning area all of the alternatives envision commercial/industrial
development on the relatively flat land in the eastern part of the planning area, but
extent and intensity vary. Measurements of developable acreage in the hill areas are
very rough because the true cutoff point for development on steep lands can be
determined only during site planning and because access to some otherwise develo-
pable land may be difficult.
Some of the Plan policies could be implemented under any of the alternatives or the
draft plan, as they call for programs or regulations rather than decisions on the use of
specific parcels. These include housing program strategies, safety and seismic safety
policies, and other programs and regulatory policies presented throughout the Plan.
Description of Alternatives
The alternatives to the draft Plan have identical circulation systems, but differ in
their land use proposals with the main difference being residential density.
No Project. The "no project" alternative is assumed to be build-out of the Primary
Planning area under Alameda County zoning adopted by the City following incorpor-
ation. In analyzing this alternative, zoning consistent with densities approved on
_:. adjacent parcels was assumed for sites in the primary planning area but outside of the
incorporated area.
The No Project alternative minimizes park acquisition by developing a portion of the
Shannon Commmunity Center as a neighborhood park and by assuming that five acres
of the Murray School site could function as a park by formal or informal agreement
-13-
with the Murray School District. Kolb Park and the rest of the Fallon School site
would be subdivided for single family homes, thereby limiting access to a neighborhood
park for residents of the central part of the city.
Buildout based on the No Project alternative would not include intensification of the
downtown or significant employment growth in the City. In the extended planning
area, the current agricultural designation and the 100 acre minimum parcel 'size would
apply, except on Santa Rita surplus land where 180 acres is assumed to generate 5,400
jobs.
High Density Alternative. Under this alternative, allowable residential densities
would be increased to an average of 20 units per acre on all residential sites available
for development and parks would be added to maintain the current ratio of park area
per 1,000 residents. A community park of 15 acres would be located on the Dolan
school site, with the remaining 12 acres designated for medium-high density residen-
tial development. Medium-high residential densities would also be allowed east of the
Dougherty Hills, with a five acre neighborhood park. The Fallon and Frederiksen
school sites have neighborhood parks and medium-high density residential develop-
ment.
The Downtown Intensification Area concept presented in the Draft Plan is also inc-
luded in this alternative.
In the extended planning area, this alternative would allow development similar to the
draft Plan with commercial/industrial use on Santa Rita surplus land and on flat or
gently sloping freeway east of Tassajara Road (generally under 10 percent). In the
remainder of the extended area, single family residential Aensities (2.0 per acre) on
slopes 20 to 30 percent or under would be allowed, with clustering of multi-family
units on suitable sites.
Analysis of Alternatives
Due to the limited amount of available land in Dublin, the three alternatives (no
project, high density, and draft Pl4n) are similar in many areas of impact relating to
the primary planning area. While present residents may have very different responses
to the various proposals, their measurable environmental impacts are not substantially
different.
In the primary planning area, the difference among the alternatives is in potential for
achievement of the housing goals as presented in the Housing Element, and the
resulting effects on traffic and neighborhood character. The two alternatives to the
draft Plan represent opposite ends of a reasonable density range, with the draft plan
falling in the middle. The total number of housing units could vary by 30 percent, as
illustrated by the table following this section.
The principal adverse impact of higher residential densities in Dublin would be inc-
reased traffic and associated noise, congestion, and localized air quality impacts.
With lower density development, localized impacts would be mitigated, but the Valley-
wide jobs/housing relationship would be in greater imbalance, resulting in a probable
increase in total travel with consequent air quality impacts of greater magnitude than
those generated by high density development within the-City. Given anticipated
-14-
growth in Tri-Valley employment, development of infill sites at low densities would
- increase freeway congestion and increased urbanization outside of the planning area
with resulting effects on the natural environment and the agricultural land supply.
Alternatives to the proposed General Plan would not signficantly affect traffic service
levels. As compared with the proposed plan, the "no project" alternative would gen-
erate 16 percent fewer residential trips and the high density alternative would gene-
rate 9 percent more trips. Residential collector streets and Dublin arterial streets
could accommodate the traffic from each alternative, but the trips added to the "no
project" base would affect levels of service at the congested intersections unless it is
assumed that if these trips were not made they would be replaced by through trips
made by drivers avoiding freeway congestion. The 2,000 additional units in the high
density alternative would generate about 1,260 more evening peak hour trips than the
no project alternative—roughly two lanes worth of traffic capacity. The proposed plan
would cause 470 more evening peak hour residential trips than the no project plan.
In the extended planning area the choices between alternatives are more clear-cut,
with only the No Project alternative retaining agricultural use throughout.
The table at the end of this section, Comparison of Alternatives and Proposed Project
Primary Planning Area, presents, for each of_the alternatives, housing units at build-
-- out; population at buildout; total multi-family units; and percent multi-family. It can
be seen that in each of these categories the proposed project-falls in between the no
project and high density alternatives.
No Project Alternative. With a total of 6,700 units at buildout, the No Project alter-
: native would introduce few major changes to the city. The cumulative proportion of
multi-family units would rise from 9 percent in 1983 to 23 percent, with single family
homes remaining dominant and relatively little housing choice available, contrary to
the city's stated housing goals. With housing developed at low densities, opportunities
for creation of affordable units are minimized, as many of the approaches described in
the Housing Element are contingent on medium or medium-high densities for success.
In the extended area, the No Project alternative would retain the existing agricultural
designation and uses. Established grazing operations would continue. Impacts asso-
ciated with loss of open space, disruption of habitats, public facilities development
and geologic hazards would not be present.
Under the No Project alternative, Dublin jobs/housing balance could be maintained,
because new job creation would be minimal. There would be a favorable effect on the
valley-wide jobs/housing balance only if it is assumed that jobs not created in the
Dublin planning area would not exist elsewhere in the Tri-Valley.
High Density Alternative. The High Density alternative would result in construction
of 3,700 units in addition to those already built or approved, all of which would be
multi-family units. With nine percent more units than anticipated at buildout under
the draft plan, this option would result in new multi-family projects at up to 25 units
per acre adjoining single family development. The larger number of multi-family
projects and of small units would present more opportunities for development of
affordable housing than either the no project alternative or the draft plan.
- The High Density alternative would have a higher ratio of park acreage per 1,000
-15-
residents, with parks more evenly distributed throughout the City than.under the draft
plan, but project open space would likely be reduced by higher densities. Generally,
the High Density option would have a greater adverse impact on Dublin's neighbor-
hoods resulting from noise and traffic increases. The traffic Level of Service F pro-
jected at San Ramon Road under the draft Plan would be worse under the high density
alternative.
In the extended planning area impacts would be comparable to those expected under
the proposed Plan.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PROJECT
PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
Housing Units Population Total Multi- Percent
at Buildouta at Buildoutb Family Units Multi-Family
No Project 6,900 19,500 1,600 23%
High Density 8,730 22,800 4,300 49%
Proposed Project 89100 229400 3,000 37%
a Assumes 14 units per acre on sites designated medium density; 20 units per acre on
sites designated medium-high density.
b Assumes 3.2 persons per single family unit; 2.0 persons per multi-family unit.
-16-
i
i
r-
5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW
5.1 SHORT TERM USES VS. LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The cumulative long-term adverse effects of the proposed project are relative decline in
air quality, disruption of the natural landscape, and loss of agricultural and grazing
land. The City of Dublin (project sponsor) believes the project is justified now because
the "no project" alternative would exacerbate a potential housing shortage in the Tri-
Valley with resulting upward pressure on housing costs and additional vehicle miles of
travel by Tri-Valley jobholders who would not be able to afford to live there or could not
find suitable housing there.
Dublin believes additional business park space is justified because the proposed location
is suited for the use and, if annexed to Dublin, would be expected to contribute municipal
revenue exceeding service costs over the long term. The revenue is expected to be
needed to maintain Dublin services at levels comparable with those provided by other
Tri-Valley communities, thereby maintaining Dublin's desirability as a residential com-
munity.
5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Except for traffic, development within the primary planning area is not judged to result
in environmental changes at the scale the EIR authors believe is significant for the
purpose of analysis under CEQA. In the extended planning area, removal of grazing land
from production and construction of homes in the hill areas would cause significant
unmitigatible and irreversible changes. Assuming development in other Tri-Valley com-
munities will proceed as planned, the balancing factor warranting acceptance of these
effects in the Dublin planning area would be avoidance of them elsewhere. For example,
conversion of grazing land in the Dublin Planning Area to urban use may preserve prime
agricultural land in western San Joaquin County that otherwise would be developed as a
residential support area for the Tri-Valley. However, the aesthetic value of,the Tri-
Valley open space loss would not be balanced.
5.3 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Through the General Plan and EIR preparation processes, the project has been found to
not have significant impact in the following areas:
Hydrology
- Habitats
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Noise
Schools, Public Lands and Utilities
Soils
Historic and Archaeologic Resources
Scenic Highways
Soils, Historic and Archeological Resources and Scenic Highways are discussed in both
volumes of the General Plan.
-17-
5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 1.7 of the Plan Policies Report describes subregional development trends that
will have significant adverse environmental impacts. These impacts include congested
freeways and arterials and resulting effects on air quality, long journeys to work affec-
ting energy consumption and air quality, and intense pressure to develop all buildable
sites, thus causing loss of open space, grazing land, and wildlife habitat. The feasible
mitigation would be development in accord with the Tri-Valley-wide plan that matches
job and housing development to a determined environmental capacity and allocates
shares to each jurisdiction.
5.5 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The draft Plan proposals for the primary planning area would serve committed and
planned job growth in the Tri-Valley and are growth-inducing only in the sense that they
would enable this growth to occur. The business park area allocated to the extended
planning area would be growth-inducing, potentially creating additional housing demand
and increased travel as well as pressure to convert additional agricultural land to urban
uses.
-18-
r r
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
I Laurence Tong, City of Dublin, Planning Director
Lee Thompson, Dublin City Engineer
Vic Taugher, Dublin Building Inspector
Chief Philips, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Fire Department
Emile Kattan, Dublin San Ramon Services District
Miles Ferris, Dublin San Ramon Services District
Jerry Wallace, Alameda County Planning Department
Betty Croly, Alameda County Planning Department
_ Vince Wong, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7
Jerry Killingstead, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Zone 7, Water Resources
Harris Teshema, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Zone 7, Water Supply
Bob Borek, Alameda County Assessor's Office
Gabrielle Swanson, Alameda County Assessor's Office
Harry Hecht, Alameda County Department of Public Works
Undersheriff Vole, Alameda County Sheriffs Office
Chief Cain, Alameda County Sheriff's Office
Patty MacNamee, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
Bud Murphy, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works
- Kevin Gailey, Contra Costa County Planning Department
Sally Freedman, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Irwin Mussen, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Richard Rago, Supervisor, Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utilities District
Alex Maciejiewicz, U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco
A-1
� a
Fran Roberts, U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco
Bill Beatty, U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Louanna Kiger, U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Paul Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game
Noreen Brown, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base
Susann Wall, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base
Eileen Allen, State Department of Conservation
California Archeaological Inventory
Elizabeth Kilham, Conservationist
Neil Havelick, East Bay Regional Parks District
Jim Walker, LAVWMA/Pleasanton
A-2
i�
I.
APPENDIX B
r i
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO: FROM: City of Dublin
(Responsible Agency) Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D
Dublin, CA 94568
(Address )
- SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report
- PROJECT TITLE: Dublin General Plan
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Dublin
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an
environmental impact report for the project identified below.
We need to know the views of vour agency as to the scope and
content. of the environmental information which is germane to
your agency ' s statutory responsibilities in connection with the
-- proposed project . Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared
by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for
the project .
The project description, location, and probable environmental
effects are contained in the attached materials .
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response
must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than
45 days after receipt of this notice .
Please send your response to me at the address shown above .
We will need the name of a contact person in your agency.
CONTACT PERSON:
TELEPHONE :
SIGNATURE:
aurence L. Tong , P1 nn ng Director
TELEPHONE : ( 415 ) 829-4916
DATE : December 30 , 1983
cc : State Clearinghouse
B-1
• ] 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : City of Dublin General Plan
LOCATION: See Exhibit "A" for Map of Dublin Planning Area
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:
Water : Sewage capacity studies are being prepared to address
the effect of sewage disposal on water quality.
Air : The impact of additional traffic on air quality will
need to be studied.
Earth : Detailed geologic investigations will be required for
development in certain portions of the Planning Area
to the east , west and south of the existing City.
Plants & Animals : It is unknown whether rare or endangered
species are present in the outlying
portions of the Planning Area .
Facilities & Services :
- Additional development may require reopening an
existing school .
- Studies are being undertaken to determine sewage
capacity and disposal needs . '
- Water supply may become a problem in future if no new
sources are brought into use.
- Certain portions of the City are within the Special
Flood Hazard Area designated by FEMA.
- Additional fire protection services may be needed to
serve development in the outlying portions of the
Planning Area .
Transportation: The traffic demands on certain roads are or
will be at capacity.
Noise : Certain residential areas of the City are exposed to
adverse noise levels .
Historic & Cultural Resources : The location of archaeological
resources within the Planning
Area is unknown .
B-2
APPENDIX C
r �
CITY OF VUBLlt�1 PA No. N.A.
FiNVIROriMENTA L. ASSE:SS aNT FORM , (NMIZIM
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et se,.)
Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY ' - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF
Name of Project or Applicant: Dublin General Plan
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SITTING - Description of project site before the project, including
information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and
scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures The planning area of the
Dublin General Plan includes 1) the urban area 2 ) the eastern area and
3 ) the western area . The urban area is art of the flat floor of the
Amador Valley . The eastern area has grassy rolling hills & occassional
steep slopes. The western area has ri.dgelands, steep slopes, & winding canyons with some
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; oak woodlands
historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or grasslands.
development. ( See above for description of surrounding urban areas_to the
north and south, the eastern areas adjacent to the planning area, and
the western areas adjacent to the planning area ) .
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- .
quired on attached sheets.
II�1T IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT
NO 9LJAL_I1= YES UNKNC7rN
NO
� I 1 � 1F
011010
1.0 WATER
1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- ✓ t
logic balance?
1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of
ground water supplies?
1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rote of water withdrawal change the depth
or gradient of the water table?
1.4 Droinoge and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern
or cause alteration of stream channel form?
1.5 sedimentation Wi11 construction in on area result in major sediment I
influx into adjacent water bodies?
t 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due ' f
a floodin 7
C-1
o"iFO1l1T -DIPAC TS SCAM OF IMPACT •, ;.
NO QUALIFIED YES UN1<NOWN
NO
I � I 120
rzl I � IE-
0 1 :5
` 1�
1.7 Water Qvolity Does drinking water supply.foil to meet state and
federal standards?
Will sewage be ineie-l•jotely occommc?atcd and
treated?
Will receiving voters fnil to rrer.t to=-il, W'e and I }
federal stondards?
Will ground water suffer contamination by s,sfu-e s
seep�as, intrusion of soft or polluted water from I
adjacent water bodies or from another con!.-irinated ; !
o rri(er7 1
•
2.0 AIR
I I I
2.1 Air Pollution Will there be generation and dispersior.of F-llutonts f
by project related ortis•ities or in pr0A`r.,it, tr.
project which will erceed s'a'c n:nn!;-.no a.: } I }
quality stordo.ds?
2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure onj terrain-impedc provcilire vrinA } I
flow tossing channeling along certain,rorri:3-s or } }
obstruction of wind movements?
I I
3.0 EARTH } } }
3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dcng-rs related to s'ape rail•ires?
I I 1
3.2 Foundotion Support Will there be risk to life or p•operty of I I I
excessive deformation of mo:eriols?
3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or propert• bczo,r:e of I
excessive consolidation or foundati-)r rvsrr-ials? r
3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground svb3idi:n,v 2ssncictcd d I I I
with the project?
3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss res rltino frrm earth- I }
quo'ac activity? t
3.6 Liquefaction Will the project coos^or be--faOS[d to liqu^faction ✓ } } }
of soils in siepes or undrr fovndoli-�ns?
3.7 Erodibiliry Will there be s.-ibstantiol loss of soi; !a crn- I I I
struction practices?
3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils ossoc:ct+l will:the I I I
project present adverco conditionsrelat:ve tc de- I }
velopment of wells? I }
3.7 U%ique Features Will any unique geological.features bo domc)ed
or destroyed by project activities? I I I
3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potential r.-)n-nercinl
value close to the protect?
4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or erufangcred species present?
Arc there species prezn! which are p,3-1ic,rlarly } I
susceptiolc to impact from human activity?
Is there v zetation present, the !cis;of s•:hi!F will t s
deny food or habitat to important wild'ife specics? I ( I
Are there nuisance sfsc:ies or plant or nlim::!s for I }
which conditions will be improved by tFe project? or
4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts thor may I I }
be of scientific interest?
Are there vegcrctive community ryfnes v,hir.h ore -/ I
particularly su:cep.'iblc to impact fwrn lsumon ccrivity? s
Are thzrc major trees or major vcgetntiai that will } } }
h=cj•.crr.l�•nff4r.tr I by th-prof-cr? _
rnmmvniry typos
of which wall deny fr-)i or hc�itc'.tr, i 'art .:;!dG:- I I
specics, rr to a ;utiU.ntial nurn5 or r•"-•-r-::
4.3 Diversity Is there subston:iol diversity in tl. n^:••:n' rnr..,n:!-1 I ( I
as reflected in the nrrmbrr,and tyfrr f -:nr.i7il } I I
species present or the thrc^-dimcn;inrrl nrr^nq^r.^n: } I I
of plant species present? ( } }
I I (
1 I
I I I
I I 1
C-2
i .
r.
CaML"VNLNT NO QUALg'IED YES UI]QiagN .
NO
• oIWIC; 'I
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES
5.1 Educational Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely effect the ex- I I
(sting or proposed Facilities in terms of spacing for I I
ell activities, including classrooms, recreational
areas, end staffing needs?
Will Ike project impact the p•jpil/teccher ratio so
as to impede the learning process?
Is the sclsool locoted such thol it presents o hardship
for o portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, I I
distance, or safety hazards? I I I
5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and occess to
commercial focililies for the project?
5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for se,..oge capacity inadequate for
the needs of the project without exceeding quality ( I
standards?
Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odor I
associated with wastewater heotment plants?
5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadeguato provision for disposal of solid
wastes generoteel by the project?
5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantify or quality of water ( I
supply to meet the needs of the,project?
5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water be inadequate to prevent I ( I
dowrsstream flooding and to meet Federal State and I✓I I
local standards?
5.7 Police Will the project's odditiorwl population, facilities, ) I
or other feotures acnerote on increase in police service I I
or ereote'o police hozord? I
5.8 Fire Will the project's cdditionol population, facilities,
or other feotures gene+ote on increase in fire services I I I v
of creole o fire hazard?
5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet
the recreational needs of the residenh7
5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project
residents?
6.0 TRANSPORTATION
6.1 Tronsportolion Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent toads currently
of or above capacity? If not, will the traffic gen-
eroted by the project couse the odjocent roods to I I I
reach or exceed capacity?
Are the other transportation facilities which serve the I I�
project inadequate to accommodate the project's
travel demands?
6.2�Circvlotion Conflicts will design of th project or conditions in the surround- I I I
rs due to circulation conflicts
ins ore- increase occiden .
6.3 Rood Safety and Desicn Will project rosidents and users be exposed to increased 1
occident risks dun to roodway and street design or lock
of trcffi( controls?
7,0 HEALTH
7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense
odors?
7.2 Dowding and Density Will the residerts and users be exposed to crowding«
high density in their physical living environment?
7-3 Nuisances Will the project be cxposed to or generate factors that
rn-y be considered as nuisances?
7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques fail I I I
to meet state and local building codes?
8.0 NOISE I I
B.) Noise Levels Will the project be expo»d to rr generate adverse
noise levels? 1
8.2 Vibrations Will the pr.�jcct be exposed to vibrarinns nnnoying to I I 1
humans? I 1
1
i
C-3
COMPONENT IMPACTS -SCALE OF IMPACT
NO QxMIFIID YES UNKNaV,
NO
) � io
o to i o
9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER ) )
9.1 Community Organization Will the project divupt on existing set of I
orgonizntions or grovps within the community?
9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the I
community in terms of distribution or concentration
of income, ethnic, housing, or age group?
9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be expos-zd to or generate an I )
nysicol Conditions area of poor stability onJ ph)esical conditions? I )
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY s
I 1 {
10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be adversely )
affected by view:of or from the project?
V;ill the project residents be adversely affected by
views of or from the surrounding nrea? '
10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive I {
shsodosus?
11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL I
RESOI .'CES
I ( I
11.1 Historic and Cultural Will 16-_ project involve the destrvction or alter- ( I )
Resources otion of c historic resource?
Will the project result in isolation of a historic ) ) )
resource irom its surrounding environment?
Will the project introduce physical, ,isvol, audible I I )
or o!mo;pheric elements thn.,arc not in c!sorocter with ) ) )
o historic resou ce or i:s setting?
11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or a!tcrotion I ) )
and Structures of an orcSoeolo:)icol rciwrce?
Will the project resv!t in is-)lotion of on oschoeologicol I I )
resource?
Wili the p.ojeet wro,3vice physical, visual, audible I { I
or atmospheric elements that arc not in character with I I I
an archaeological resource or its setting? I I {
t
12.0 ENERGY I I {
I {
12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems w:th the supply of I ( )
energy required for tine project?
Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity
of the s-fvice utility company?
Will there be o net incrcosc in energy used for the I I
project comp-ired to the no project oltern-30ve?
12.2 Conservotion Measures Does the project plonning and design frsii to include I {
evoilob!c crrer7Y co's;:rvntion m^_a;urr;?
13.0 LAND USE
13.1 Site Hazards Do conditions of the site, proposed site development, VO ) ) )
or svrrounding area create potentiolly hazardoussity-
ations?
13,2 Physicol Threat. Viii! the project or the surrounding oreo create a feclin
of insecurity and physical threat among the residents ( { {
and users?
13.3 Sonitcry Londfill Wil! the project bA !xposed to strue:tvrn!<immngc,
moist, air, or vjrfact and g-aunrt w^.tcr pollution �/ I
ar other nuisrrncr-;ossacicte3 wire a sanitory landfill
13.4 Wotervoys Will tlw project offect on existinj vr_tcrwoy through ( ( I
filling, dredgino, dru;ining, cvlvertinu, vo;tc dis- I )
ehorges, loss of visual quality or other land u:c I ) )
practices?
I 1 {
) I {
C-4
i
IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT
":-
1\10 QUALIFIED YES UNh2�a,N
NO
olfof �
� I� I� Is
{
01her Environmenlol ComWnentr. { {
{
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4UALI-:F_
NO 210 YES UN-tQ3CN
(�) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
susroining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant /
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict a/
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate imporfont exa-mples of the major periods
or California history cr prehistory?
(2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental {�
goals?
(3) Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect o` the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
(4) Does the project have environmental effects which /
i will cause substantial adverse effects on human
_ beings, either directly or indirectly?
C-5
Y
D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e ` e significant effects
identified, if any: _
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Q The City of Dublih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par-
titular characteristics of this project and the mitigation -measures incorporated into
the design of the project provide `he factual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS 7, ;--QUIRED.
[� The City of Vublih :finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
Signature and date: December 30, 1983
Name and title: Laurence L. Tong_,_-(P1kninq Director
**NOTc: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so tha, poi a..itial adverse
effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a .
revised Initial S�u�jy will be prepared and a Negative Ceclaration will be requ-red iis`eod of
-- CID r_a
D=3"M I IM-71CH ice.'- ?CR 3C3 If
3 - 9ea- by Lead Agency t -Seat by C1 eLri=9tose
�.. Ar,;1- Grs:;=•t7 5111
Ai.- Dept. of Hous-a3 h ('7rr•^1 ty D--,
liG2 Q SL--e: 921 - 10th Street, 5th Floor
3a ra rs to, U 41 t °ac.^aaeato, CA 9„E13
919,-320- lEi 916/3=,-6170
?,iertx-*, L r!na Allen
-_� of 9cx.:1_g & 71ate R}s O Votive A::,--r-c= Hera:-re Cam.
0 _c S hire: 915 Capitol Yf 11, Ro= 2°.S
°:^- - 5: Ca 95814 Ssy^sr nto, CA 9`..314
S15r�,-y•;33 91d/3."''r.-T'31-
Cr_, =clic§ap Vick del Coppo
/'1 �Sor-'s C:sp inl CS: . C::ice of & storic P� :a
- tica
4th ?loci 1050 20th S:_-"t
+
F---Cis, CA 9y105 atr-,..,., a, CA 95814
41 ,`
Doyle
3ze-,f C==-' sioc Dept. of Pa..-#s and J&--v--tl on
4.51E Nlz= 3'C-ect iC. ZM P.O. Sox 2090
916/3:4-6421
31'er:S Georg-- Hers, %v. Section
C",-n-as - Public Gtllli:ies C'-==+Rien
V °:r-^^ O 35; 11:.111ister St-�et
::.c-= to, Cx 95S1y Sxn F:s 1-9=, CA 94102
?!ual�: Public Tor=
�
0
1 V h=amt- O 6SO Hc" Avea.a
o, CA 95-514 CA 95 oS
916 j::3 9 i 6/9'2:}-r"3
Wit. C c���erv�.tica ?�'_a.•4cr Bca_-±
�1 1410 Vic:h -1 PC= =,4 1-416 :tia-t St_--ct
CA .8,1814 0 °s.;--20ento, CA 9�S:4
916/4-Z-2456
C/ Dj.v. of Yi:.aa and :eolccrRte'e_: Ut!U
3.?. 3+t7 aervx cc L De
—Y. Cam.
0 Di 7. of 01.1 &X4 Gu � 37 71: ;;ess Avenue, ?.D= 2041-
0 S= ?: ia�, CA 94iC2
!srxr Rems:mes r re 3 ai: All%S57-3686
?on Pte, Jeaf±:s
an-' Game Solid YLste 3cr-?
CA 95914 Sac.-anenma, CA 9`014
"o—. O' ?.A Ind .ice=C'"-'=-- S'•� '
to .1.�s ^"'�"'•�iOC
C:, 0-5614 � Sacz-�ecto, Cd 9 S14
rrs] i. c_r Zen Hot t
r�1
Dept— o! ?Or°st--7 of aster 3e-50u_--es
1414 1=1 Stmt
CA ?5813 ac 9-.4314
:+2.re—al . er7:cias
Cf Heal=
!� CA
D-1
C-.-w.-=n.-,nt Of i`-snsrv:�t,on l Y
Dis -:cL C cuc_ `aL sze- Car," - ,fir,:oax! C-1
f,
Don A.
o_ i�r_Ypc- atiocl ^ % ?_
SG:^belle Gi '> Jeci.!n, Besr±c al Vi�s;e^
rrt-r�_cct cf ?�c�sir' tivc
of P.
D:s - ct Cruzc;: s
?Z-.—'ho corrosa , Ck 35670
91 C 4i--55404
3 °=' H nte^ ?eg=c s1 Y Vie-
Dew of
?'s:
(�Jl a.or •��r
z t 3 ccyzt�.+lle ?tc!L'^�, dl c
CA
i v/�r�-•i.'-fir
a' •, ::.a on Jew_meat of ?:sh &nd
?u� Al-r--ex U), ca 931:.6
Sri: C1 C«;1'?
Jet
-.1 !At r ? r�
of of
�5 -Ctl O 24n Teat BraLd X7
c
rf� yr t L.Ccg 3eumt a sraw t
2-,M,
Lor g u x�S, G1 X115
Ck
TL�v 3�!l~nt;ce --te
of Z_
7 ;cza
CA 9XI2
CA 9�wll
3'S/z 3413
State is:T..-
.Y
o. .:1.:1S-�C :1t .. ,�� �`�:==1i Tat.... _:
nt o_ cc
Diego. CA ?2123
D-2
4'
f PROJECT STAFF
BLAYNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
John Blayney, Project Manager
I Ellen Greenberg, Planning Analyst
Nicklaus Von Rotz, Environmental Designer; Graphics Designer
Nicholas Gravina, Graphics
_ Scott Kingsley, Graphics
Pamela Minet, Word Processing
Daryl Hewitt, Word Processing
TJKM, Transportation Consultants
Chris D. Kinzel
John Sun
Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
David Hoexter
Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants
Richard Illingworth
Richard McGillis
i '
}
{
i
l�