The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.2 General Plan Review (2)'yt ~ •i 2 ~ • • v ezss~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT • MEETING DATE: July 25, 1983 SUBJECT: General Plan Program - Review of Working Paper I: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues . EXHIBITS ATTACHED: /l. Tentative Meeting Schedule regarding General Plan Program /2. Citizen's Workshop Participants' Name List /3. Annotated Draft of Dublin General Plan Issues ,/4. Working.Paper #1: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues RECOMMENDATIONS: ~ Review and comment on Annotated Draft of Dublin General Plan Issues from Working Paper #1, Citizens' Workshop and Planning Commission Meeting. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Nor.e DESCRIPTION: As part of the Dublin General Plan program, the Staff and the General Plan Consultant have prepared the Working Paper I: Existing Conditions and Planninq Issues. The planning issues identified in the Working Paper were utilized as the basis for discussion at a Citizen's Workshop, held on Tuesday, July 12, 1983, at the Shannon Community Center. Prior to the Workshop, notices were sent to community organizations, notices were posted in various public buildings, and display ads were published in the Tri-Valley Herald. Approximately two dozen citizens participated in the Citizen's Workshop. The citizens were divided into three groups, with Planning Commissioners, Sta_ff, and General Plan Consultants acting as facilitators. The citizens discussed the planning issues, then reconvened, as a whole, and spokespersons from each group gave a brief summary of the issues discussed. The issues have been included in the Annotated Draft of Dublin General Plan issues. At its July 18, 1983 meeting, the Planning Commission heard or emphasized several issues which have also been included in the Annotated Draft. The Planning Commission directed that the issues listed in the Annotated Draft be forwarded to the City Council for review and comment. Staff recommends that the.Council review and comment on the various issues raised and determine which are appropriate for Dublin General Plan discussion and which are not. CCPIES T0: ITEM NO. ~ d/ • ' ~ 4 I • • July 22, 1983 ' JUNE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 JULY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ~ AUGUSi 2 i Tuesday 7 8 9 0 11 1 3 J u 1 y 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 • SEPTEMBER Monday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jul 18 `1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monday 25 26 27 28 29 30 J u 1 y 2 5 OCTOBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 id 15 ;. Tuesday 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 September 6 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ~ NOVEMBER MondaV 1 2 3 4 5 September 12 6 7 8 9• 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~o n d a v 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 27 28 29 30 October 17 DEC'c.M66~ 1 2 3 Monday 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 October 2~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 yo n d a y 1ANUARY Dec°mber 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ll 18 19 20 21 Tues~la ~ ~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28:;-. 29 30 31 ' December 27 FEBRUARY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 Nlonday 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yla r c h 1 2 26 27 28 29 ~ MARCH 1 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APR1L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE Joint meeting regarding: Detailed bJork Program. - ACTION: (Mayor to chair this joint meeting only. Council to adopt.) Citizen Workshop: Citizen input and dialog regarding: purnose, process, and issues. Planninq Commission Meeting regarding~ Planning Issues. City Council Meeting regarding: Planning Issues. Planning Commission Nleeting regarding: Planning Options. City Council Meeting regarding: Planning ODtions. Planning Commission Nleeting rega_ding: Alternative Sketch Plans. City Council Meeting reqarding: Alternative Sketch Plans. Planning Commission meeting regarcing: Draft General Plan and EIR. (recommend) City Council Meeting regarding: Draft General Plan and EIR. (approve for distribution) City Council Meeting regarding: General Plan and EIR. (adopt) Ai%zff( ~ ~, C,T~-z~ ~- C~b2 t~.~~ P~ ~ ~~/ 8 3 ~~ ~ ~ C P / ~ C~cc-,~l~~P ~N~~~ . . . ~ _ __ _ _ ._ _ . .. ~l~m~ A -~ ~ ~ro ~ ~?A ~ ~~ ,~~ ~~~ss ~T~ ~ ~b: ~ ' ~ _ ~ ~"`-~` ~~8 C~2& r/.~d~ i~~ _ ~a q--~~1 y ~~ l~ ~ ~ ., b ~/ !t ~~ . ~. ~ .. . . ~0'~ ...._~~. . ..-----_..__.____.__._. _.___..____.___.. __ _ . . ..__ .._- -.. __~,.~_..___ ..__._ _____._ - -- -__ ___..__._~----.....~.._ ,. . ~--- --- -- . ~ A ~- _. ~' ~ __ _ ~ ___.._. _. ___~__. ~•___._..__~..._~.._ _ _.._.__ ~ -rt7y .. _ t~loo~-~, C-f. __ ,_.____._ .. :~- ~` ~ 9 ~ ~ Vsa~.~. ~ - ~ . S~ _. r__. _. ._.. .. . L . ~ . _------__..,___.~____ __._.__._._._._.---,--.________.__,:__._.___________._..-- - -._._~~___~ _._~.~_.~...____..~.~._ ..__.__ . .. ~ ~ ~ , , .~ , a S~-~ s-- g'2Q--s's~? ~ -~__ .. ~~{ __ _._..___--__.___.._..,__--~___..__.__.__,..._.._.____.,._ f'- -- ~o~r~_ __ ...- --.t_m.~._._...~.---..,_ . _, ..._ _. ._ . ~ I /^ . .~~.' G _ _ • Q'T E. ~.. ~~ ` .. .~ C,~.fie E.~ __.... ._- - • - ~~ ~ ~'/ ~ . ~! //~G2 ~~'~ : ~d `f ~. ~~ ~ ~~._ ~ _ . ~~!~ -.. ~o.~ry!~~~, ~ , .~%9_y.~ _~~ 9~'~. ~z- c~o n__ .~~y~' _~B/arr.~y-_~y~G~~ii P/a~ ~rs __7o Za~ s~__S~'_~~ll'J s~3'`~~~ .4--~/~2 ~~~~ ~. ~~~ - ~~~~~ _ ~ _ ._ . -_ .. ~ ~ fl~~~rP a ~1 ~ c ~.l ~1e. ~ .P (~ss -~Z S~ ~~l !~-_ .. __ __ __ _ _ _ _. __ __ _ ~53~~ c r~~rs. c ~ /~G~r __~'C~ok-i.__ __...__--.--_______.. __...---.__.._._..__.. ._,.. $o~~ -~Ot~Ouir~.tt. :~-~ • _ _ _ _. ~ ~ .__~t ~.l ~~_ . // 6 ~ r__ . . _ __.~.~ _------Y--- .__._____-_-- _.________.~ __.,_ _. ~~`~ - . ~..__ ,~....1_ ~.--- 3/ ~~~-._ __/~ ~_%~3 ~~°~_ ~_ ~_._ ~j7~ ..~p.~ _l,~e._~._._.__. . ... ~~e. ~Q~s~4.d _.:T ;_: el~_ .~fa~_~i~ ~ _ C~sy3 ~.'~~-.e»~/ S-~ ~~~~~ ~ „_ _ __ _..M...~._~_._.....~u LL.___._ ~ ......_. _ _._ ~JXXx^^-.._ . _ ._. _ ~ _ ~_. ~ ._. _ __~ ---- - -- --------..__.~.._.__ .. . . _~ ._.._. ~~ ~~ ~d ~ ~1.~~~ ~° ~~l S ~'vl~~~~ 7' ~7' . .. . _ ,._~ ._ _ __ ~._ _ _ _ _ ___ ._. _._ _ . _.~ _ _. _.~ ._ _ _..._.. . .___.. . ~~_ ~~ ~.~~ .__ _. _ _.._ __..___ .._._C_. _.. _ __ __ _. _ _ . _ . ._ . _ . _ . D ~r mE ~ ~~ ~: Q~~3~'~ ~ ~~~- _~~~~ . ~a~'- ~3~ .,~z~'~~Ss : ~2 ~'- ~~~ , I, ~~3 ~ ~~ , I ~°_.~-_~~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ I , , , __ _ ~~ . . R. ~< <-~1 ~ /z, ~ 3 (~ u e L ~ ~ C ~ ~~-r~ Z~ ~ G~ ~s~ - ~ ~ ~ ~-U~P ~-~~ ~`~ ~ Ao,~'I~a f~~ ~ ~ ~ ~K ~,,-.t ~so - ~'~/Iyl a.~~'~9C~~i 0 c>i3 U~?/ ~~i c S~-G(°, i'9' 9D /~ •~ ~>.t ~- do tuC'. 9 3 7 ~~/ 6/ ~..... ~ ~p~/:~ctil~~ ~ ~~a~6 - , 9 /r> 4 _ 1 ,, ~ ~ ~O ~~ . ~...1 ~~'~ _~__ ~~~ ~~,~~s .~ss ~3~~_ .~~!~>dN/ Y /?~- .. . `~9'-~~z~ ;~t2.y...FQ~Tsr~ _..._ ._ ______.. ~ - ---- - - - . ~.. _ _ 6~s9 ~6ru~ooQ. A~Y &Ya 6 3 ~-JasJ . ~ot~p ;,«n~e~u :.7itl•_VA`m~ ~st~ ~ `Sy~. .~~e~.~~s~ .d~'. . ~t t ~sr~o " ~ ' __.G~ew~ ~L~ -.. G~~~. .~~, __. _. _ C~~~ . ~~/ ~~~.t°~ LEe~- ~~~ --- ~~ ~~J- _ . . ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~" ~~Z- . -_ _.. -_ ~; ~ ~,bts ~ ~ ~' . ~I~ . ~a-~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~_ ~~~_ ~.t . ~~~~K ~~ ~~ ~~., ~f ~~C. ~~ • ~~ ~~ 3. ~ g ~ ~~ ~ e `~. ~.q/~4 ~ !/~~"~K ~.~~c ~a~ ~~ ~. o~~~ ~o.v</e~~; cS.r- v,;~ f ~ ~ ~f~.P/~~ .~~,C~crs i~o~~~s ~ss.~ /J7fl~ /3~%/c~.~ 17~ ~/30 ~227 ~ J ~ ~• V 1 ~ ~ ~ ~. ANNOTATED DRAFT June 1983 DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ISSUES FROM WORKING PAPER #l, CITIZEN's WORKSHOP, AND PLANNING CO~I~IISSION MEETING The following list of planning issues is from Working Paper #1: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, the Dublin General Plan Citizen's Workshop held on July 12, 1983 and the Planning Commission of July 18, 1983. I. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 l. Potential stress on transportation system essential to Dublin that could result from imbalance between Tri-Valley jobs and housing. 2. Effect on Dublin housing costs of imbalance between Tri- Valley jobs and housing. 3. Ability or obligation of Dublin to set development policies designed to mitigate effects of development policies in neighboring jurisdictions. B. From Citizen's Workshop 1. Relationship to San Ramon and Pleasanton regarding business parks, employment, housing and traffic. C. From Planning Commission Meeting l. Concern about Dublin providing housing for the entire tri- valley area. II. HOUSING ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 l. Higher residential density on east side of Dougherty hills 2. Multi-family housing near San Ramon Road 3. Residential potential of land in proposed sphere of influence given environmental hazards and constraints 4. Development of housing which a typical Dublin resident could afford to rent or buy 5. Pc~tential for luxury housing to broaden the income range of Dublin residents 6. Amount of rental housing or multi-family housing needed, desired, and likely to be built 7. Potential for conversion of existing rental housing to condominiums 8. Use of second units to provide relatively low-cost housing for seniors or other households B. From Citizen's Workshop l. Amount of low-cost housing 2. Consideration to people of moderate income including senior citizens 3. Mobile home parks as affordable housing 4. Desirability of high-density housing S. Opportunity for affordable housing on east side of~City 6. Need for a choice in housing types 7. Niixture of housing densities throughout City, rather than segregated 8. Lowering development standards for affordable housing III. GOM~iEREIAb-A~D I~D~STR~A~-D~VEL-OPM~N~-~~SUES A. From Working Paper #1 1. Attract higher quality/higher priced stores to improve character of downtown 2. Improve downtown identity, image, landscaping, and identification of stores ~ 3. Potential for cooperation among shopping center o~aners to improve appearance and circulation between centers .. 1 ;: ~~t/3 . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ . 4. Intensification and concentration of downtown by adding stores, offices, parlcing structures and possibly housing in multi-story buildings rather than by expanding the area S. Type and timing of development of north I-580 frontage east of Santa Rita IV. V. B. From Citizen's Workshop l. Design review committee to review site development applications 2. Assistance to srop owners to improve maintenance 3. Height limits of commercial and industrial developments 4. Improve appearance of development along Village Parkway 5. Sign program to improve visibility and identification of stores 6. Signage to improve ingress and egress to downtown stores 7. Street improvements to including signs, lighting and trees 8. Improved numbering system gUB~~G-~APIDS-I~~U~S A. From Working Paper #1 ~ l. Annexation and use of public lands in the eastern portion of the proposed sphere of inf luence 2. Possible negative impacts (visual, noise, etc.) of Camp Parks activity on land west of Dougherty Road 3. Effect of possible reacquisition of Tassajara Creek Regional Park by Army on area park lands/open space resources B. From Citizen's Workshop l. Landscaping on Camp Parks g~JB~.~G-~'AG~~~~'~~S- ~SS~I~~ A. From Working Paper #1 l. Disposition or use of undeveloped Dolan site and sites of closed schools 2. Effect of land use in housing density decisions on school population and socio-economic mix in school service areas 3. Effect of decline of school enrollment and closure of schools on park facilities 4. Service providers for Arroyo Vista housing 5. Use of current and future park dedication fees 6. Priority for acquisition or expansion of park lar.ds versus more intensive of existing sites 7. Fewer larger parks versus more smaller parks 8. Future of parks on Murray School District property if adjoining school is closed 9. Potential for acquisition of school property for park use B. From Citizen's Workshop l. Need for recreational facilities, services and programs 2. Use of surplus school sites for offices, moderately priced housing and other uses 3. Additional open space 4. Need for new cemetary 5. Potential for City to provide library services C. From Planning Commission Nieeting ~ l. Lack of recreational activities for teenagers 2. Need to unify school districts VI. PUBLIC SERVICES ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 1. Adequacy of sewage treatment and disposal capacity given projected Tri-Valley development 2. Funding and voter approval of expansion of sewage treatment and disposal capacity 3. Development of alternative sewage disposal plans 4. Adequacy of Zone 7 water supply for projected Tri-Valley development ~ ;: 2 :. i ~ • , 4 ~ • VII. VIII. IX. 5. Feasibility of extending all public services into City's proposed sphere of influence B. From Citizen's Workshop 1. Improved relationship with Dublin San Ramon Services District 2. Adequacy of police and fire services to sphere area 3. City Hall location 4. Lease of school property for recreational uses S. Need for development to pay its.own way for public services 6. Public services capacity and capacity of infrastructuze CIRCULATION ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 l. BART extension to Dublin and Tri-Valley area 2. Coordination and expansion of local transit service 3. Possible light rail transit along Southern Pacific Railroad lines 4. Interstate 680 freeway improvements 5. Interstate 580 freeway capacity 6. Extension of Dublin Boulevard to the east 7. Improved access to downtown from I-680 freeway 8. Protection of Dublin neighborhoods from through traffic B. From Citizen's Workshop l. Traffic increases and congestion on City streets and on freeways 2. Parking congestion in certain parts of the downtown area 3. Impact of BART extension on parking and station locations 4. Feasibility of ]ocal bus system S. I-580/I-680 interchange improvements 6. Additional entrances into the City 7. ValleywidE~ bus system C. From Planning Commission Meeting l. Need for additional east west transportation route (Dougherty Road to Village Parkway) NOISE ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 1. Appropriate uses in areas of high noise exposure 2. Acceptability of noise mitigation measures that require residents to use air conditioning and to keep windows closed 3. Feasibility and likelihood of construction of noise barriers on freeway 4. Visual character of noise walls along major arterial streets CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ISSUES A. From Working Paper #1 l. Preservation of stream courses and riparian vegetation 2. Future of grazing and agricultural uses 3. Preservation of oak woodlands as a vegetative resource 4. Preservation of ridgelands as a regional open space resource S. Erosion potential on steep slopes 6. Retaining the character and visual quality of hills if development does take place in proposed sphere 7. Nature of development in hills 8. Impacts and hazards of development in lands over 30% slope 9. Effect of projected development on Tri-Valley air quality • 10. Roll of City in air quality management B. From Citizen's Workshop 1. Protection of trees as an environmental resource ,. 3 ;: ~ ~ ,i ~ 4 ~ ti DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WOB~tG PAPER 1: EXLSTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNIIdG LSSUES Prepared for City of Dublin By BLAYNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS TJK M, Transportation Consultants Hallenbeck-McKay dc Associates, Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants June 21, 1983 A77z~/ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa~e LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... iii LIST OF FIGU RES ..................................................... iv 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Woridng Papers and Public Meetings ....... .. ... ........ .. ... . .... .. 1 N ature of the G eneralPlan ......................................... 1 Levels of Detail in Primary and Extended Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 D evelopm ent History .............................................. 2 2. SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS . .. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4 D ublin Jobs/Housing Balance ........................................ 6 Plannin~Issues .................................................... 6 3. POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................... ........ .... 7 Existing H ousing .................................................. 7 Projected Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Housing Need, Affordability, and Availability ............. ........ .... 10 Affordability ................................................. 11 Affordable Housing and Housing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT .................... 17 Retailing ......................................................... 17 Offices .......................................................... 19 M anufacturing and Distribution ..................................... 19 5. P UB LIC LAN DS ................................................... 21 Par}cs RF TA ...................................................... 21 Tassajara Creek Regional Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Santa Rita Rehabilitation C enter .................................... 22 6. P UB LIC F A CILITIES ............................................... 23 Schools .......................................................... 23 District Boundaries ............................................ 23 Parks and Recreation .............................................. 25 ?. P UB LIC SE RVICES ................................................ 30 Sewage Treatment and Disposal . . . . . .. . .. .. . .... .. .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 30 C urrent and Projected Usage ................................... 30 Obstacles to Further Expansion . . . .. . . . .. . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 W ater Supply ..................................................... 31 Solid W aste Disposal ............................................... 32 Fire Protection ................................................... 32 -i- 1 ~ S ~ a Pa e 8. CIRCULATION ..................................... ............ 34 Daily Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service . . .. .. . ..... .. ..... .... ... 34 Traffic Accidents ................................................. 36 Parldng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . ...... ... . . .. . .. 37 9. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Earthquakes .................... ................................ 39 Downslope Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10. NOISE ........................................................... 41 PlanningIssues .......................................... ........ 44 11. CONSER,VATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ................ 45 Hydrology ........................................................ 45 Surface W ater ................................................ 45 Groundwater .......... ..................................... 45 Flood Hazards and Control~ ..................................... 46 Habitats ......................................................... 46 The Urban Environm ent ........................................ 46 ~ Grasslands .................. ............................... 46 W oodlands .................................................... 46 Riparian W oodlands ............................................ 47 Agricultural O pen Space ........................................... 47 Air .............................................................. 48 Soils ............................................................. 51 Minerals ....................... ................................ 52 Archaeologic R esources ............................................ 52 12. BIB LIO GftA P H Y .................................................. 53 -ii- J ~ ~ ! LIST OF TABLFS No. Title Pa~e 1 Projected Tri-Valley Employment Additions at Full Developm entin 2005+ ......................................... 4 2 Existing and Projected Tri-Valley Housing and Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 City of Dublin and Dublin Planning Area Current and Potential Housing Units and Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Approved Housing Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Tri-Valley Single-Family Homes: Average and Median Resale Prices, lst Quarter 1983 . .. .. ........ .. ... . .... . . . . . . . . .. 12 6 Subsidized Housing in the Livermore/Amador Valley . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . 13 7 Comparative Taxable Sales, 1979 Vs. 1982 (Third Quarter) .... ... ... 18 8 Murray School District: Current and Potential Enrollment .......... 24 9 Park Sites Within the City of Dublin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 10 Popular Activities . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11 Estimated 1983 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Selected Streets ...................................................... 35 12 Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Conditions . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 / -iii- ti ~ , , LIS'f OF FIGURES Follows No. Title pa~e N 1 Existing City and Extended Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Locations of Approved Housng Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Dublin School and park Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4 Study Area Landslide Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 -iv- ~ 1 ~ 1. BACKGftOIIND - WORKING PAPERS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS This worldng paper has two main purposes: 1. To summarize the basic information about Dublin from which the planning issues emerge. Existing conditions are described and projections of the future-some of which may be altered by General Plan policies-are presented. 2. To present planning issues. A planning issue is anything the Dublin community believes is important that is likely to be affected by the City's planning policies. We ask members of the community to bring issues we may have omitted to our attention and to tell us if we have listed matters that are not of broad interest. I+IATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN The General Plan will provide a policy framework for development decisions. It has three f unetions: 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. For this reason, development decisions must be made in the context of a plan looldng 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 demand is the most obvious. General: Because it is long-range and comprehensive, the plan must be general. Neither time nor knowledge exist to make it detailed or specific. Its purpose is to serve as a framework for detailed public and private development proposals. The Dublin General Plan will consist of three sections incorporating the nine General Plan elements required by State law: 1. Land Use and Cireulation Section, including Land Use, Open Space, Circulation, and Scenic Highways Elements; -1- ~ , 2. Housng Section (Housing Elem ent); and 3. Environmental Resotn~ces bianagement Section, including Conservation, Safety, Seismic Safety, and Noise Elements. Woclang Paper #2: Analysis of Planning Options will be available in mic}-August and Waridng Paper #3: Description and Comparison of Alternative Sketch Plans will be complete in early October. The Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report will be available by November 30. A Commi.mity Workshop and several Planning Commission and City Council meetings will provide opportunities for public participation in the plan-maldng process before public hearings on the Draft General Plan begin. LEYELS OF DETAII, IN PBIMARY AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREAS In March, 1983 the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission submitted a proposed 37-square-mile sphere of influence request to the Alameda County Local Agencies Formation Commission (LAFCO). The current city includes 4.1 square miles and constitutes the primary planning area together with about 0.3-square-mile adjoining to the west. The General Plan for this primary planning area will be parcel-specific and will be mapped at 1"=400', using a new base map expected to be available about July 1. The plan will be schematic in the remaining 32.6 square miles-termed the secondary planning area. Data and proposals for the secondary area will be displayed on a topographic map base at 1"=1,000'. Environmental resources and hazards data are from the same sources for both the primary and extended planning areas. Parcel- specific land use will be determined only for the primary planning area. A parcel-specific land use survey within the city will be conducted and mapped after July 1 when the city's new base map is scheduled to be complete. This wor-dng paper necessarily omits some analyses that will be prepared after land use data are available. ~ DEVELOPMENT HISTORY 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 1850s, Amador sold portions of his 16,100-acre holding to James Dougherty, Michael Murray, and Jeremiah Fallon, forming the basis of the hamlet which grew slowly during most of the next century. During World War II, the Navy built Camp Parks to house 10,000 servicemen, presaging the spurt of growth soon to take place. Construction of the modern community began 23 years ago with Volk-MeLain Company's San Ramon Village-tracts of 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). In 1967 an effort to incorporate Dublin was denied by LAFCO as contrary to Alameda County policy supporting only one city in the west valley. A subsequent referendum on annexation of Dublin to Pleasanton failed in Dublin. Before the 1982 incorporation -2- • V ~ ~ ~ ~ n~-y ~"7 ~ x t~ ~ x ~ b ~ x ~ c~ a ~ ~ a ~~l ~ ~;k~ ~ ; I, .. ?y~ ~ 0 1 2 mnes ~ ~ ~'.;1_ _~ ,~~ `,~' i. . ~ - [=-I.I:.r. !'- `~ - , i ~ ;..aII~~y~~ ':' `I 1 ~ \I ~1/a ~~ ~\ ~L1~ '`\ i -i ' ~~,~ i ~~ - w - . _ i r~ dn,r:_.., j ~ ,~ ' ~t.,. h,C ' I ~ .. ' _ ,a=~~ fJ ° ~e ~'^.. y, ~~';.:._ ~ ... ~. , (%~, - ~~ ~~~r -~( ,. , ^ I 1:~ F~ ! ' _ . _ .~~I: aa~~ _ ..~ -~- -~ '~ ~ ;;, ~~ ~=~ ,,.. ~ ._. I~~~ ~ ° ~a, ~ i~ ~i~:~,'. .~'.'~a.~,~;.,, ~s.~;.',,_r ;`', . '~. ...r . , _:I ... . L'~ n.. ; ~ . ~ ~ , ~~~:~~~ ~ ..,~.~~,: .'.rti~;tin, ~~ ~1 - T . - ~ ` election was held, consideration was given to detaching Dublin from DSRSD and maldng it a"full-service" city, but keeping the existing arrangements was simpler and this choice did not appear on the ballot. In February, 1982, 75 percent of the votes cast were for incorporation. By State law, Dublin must adopt a General Plan by June 30, 1984, two years after starting operation as a city. The City's General Plan schedule calls for adoption in February. The City faced few difficult development decisions in 1982, when growth throughout the region approached a standstill. Now, with lower interest rates and accumulated demand, the need for a new General Plan that expresses the City's policies is evident. -3- 2. SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS In 1980, the Tri-Valley area (San Ramon, Livermore, and Amador valleys) had 160,000 residents, 51,300 housng 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. It 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 con- tinued to be built during the 20-year projection 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 projection of 129,615 based on announced projects (see Table 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, proxirnity to desirable residential areas, and absence of the political uncertainty characteristic of larger cities. TABLE 1 PROJECTED TRI-VALLEY EMPLOYMENT ADDITIONS AT FULL DEYELOPMfiNT IN 2005+a City Dublin Pleasanton Livermore San Ramon Spillover secon~ary employm ent @ 20 percent Las Positas Subtotal TOTAL Johs Adde~ 1,400 48,945 17,800 21,375 89,520 17,900 22,195 129,615 aAlameda County Planning Department. Las Positas DEIR. June, 1982, Tables 2.2, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9. bGruen Gruen + Associates. An Analysis of the Secondary Employment Impacts of Approved North Pleasanton Commercial/Industrial Develo ment. November, 1982, p. 42. Spill-over impacts are projected at 21 to 28 percent of employment in industrial/business park projects.) 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 houisng units and 122,000 employed residents (at 1.35 per unit). ABAG projects 132,200 jobs in the Tri-Valley, so the ratio of jobs to employed residents would be 1.1:1 (see Table 2). If, however, all of the 129,615 "planned jobs" listed in Table 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 2.0 unless housing con- struction also exceeds ABAG's projection. -4- , ' • ~ TABLE 2 EXLSTING AND PROJECTED TRI-VALLEY HOIISING AND JOBS Ratio of Z~i- dohs to Housc~ Valley Employedb Employed P ationg Dnits dobs Besidents B.esidents 1980 160,000 51,302 50,373 69,300 0.73 2000; ABAG '83 with Las Positas 253,000 90,000 132,200a 122,000 1.10 Builc}-out ? ? 180,000~ ? ? gABAG Series'83: Preliminary Population, Household, and Employment Projections: 1980-2000, Wor{dng Draft, March 1983. bAssumes 1.35 per housing,unit. ~Total of Table 1 projection and 1980 employment. A 1982 telephone sample survey determined that 48 percent of Tri-Valley employed residents commute to jobs outside the Valley. Even if there were a surplus of jobs in the Valley, nof all employed residents would work there. Two wage-earner households, in particular, often are unable to locate near both workers' jobs. Loo{dng at commute rates from similar suburban areas, we conclude that 30 percent or more of the resident wor{d'orce is likely to continue to commute outside the Valley. If local jobs equal or exceed resident workers, every out-commuter must be balanced by an , irrcommuter. Using the ABAG jobs and housing projections and a 30 percent out- ` commute, the irrcommute would be 46,800 by the year 2000. If all "planned jobs" exist by then and housing supply reaches only the ABAG projection, the irrcommute would rise to 94,600 workers. This latter number equels about one-third of the number of persons entering San Francisco to work each day from residential locations elsewhere in the Bay Area. To state the problem differently, we can consider the number of housing units that would be needed in the Tri-Valley to create jobs/housing balance; i.e., the same number of jobs as resident workers, regardless of commute pattern. This goal is embodied in State law, which requires localities to "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" (Government Code, Section 65913.1). Using the ABAG employment projection, 98,000 housing wuts would be needed to achieve balance, but with the "planned jobs" 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 the present size of Dublin. -5- J ~ ~ DIIBLIN JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE In 1979, 1.45 persons per Dublin household 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. 'About half of Dublin's employed residents commute to jobs outside the Tri-Valley. In 1979, 22 percent of residents worked in Dublin, holding less than a quarter of the jobs in the city. Dublin's current jobs-housing balance is not likely to be maintained within the current city boundaries. The Las Positas DEIR (June, 1982) projects an increase of 1,400 jobs at full development. Using the projected ?,860 housing units (see Table 3) and 1.45 employed persons per unit, the jobs to employed residents ratio would drop to 0.65. If Dublin were to designate 100 acres on Dougherty Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard for industry instead of housing, up to 3,000 jobs might be added and as many as 1,400 housing units subtracted, shifting the ratio to 1.1. , Clearly there is no particular reason to seek jobs-housing balance within small areas, but severe jobs-housing imbalance within the Tri-Valley area can have significant impacts on freeway congestion, e.ir quality, and housing costs. PLANNII~TG LSSDES 1. Potential stress on transportation system essential to Dublin that could result from imbalance between Tri-Valley jobs and housng. 2. Effect on Dublin housing costs of imbalance between Tri-Valley jobs and housing. 3. Ability or obligation of Dublin to set development policies designed to mitigate effects of development policies in neighboring jurisdictions. -6- . ' . ~ 3. POPULATION AND HOUSING EXISTING HOUSING Dublin's housing stock consists largely of singl~family homes built within the last 20 years. With the incorporated area almost built out, and tentative maps approved for several large parcels, use and density options for the remaining buildable area are important decisions about the future of the city's residential character. Whether future development should emphasize singl~family homes on 6,000- to 8,000-square- foot lots, as in the past, or depart from that tradition to provide a.wider range of available housing, will depend in part on the characteristics of land available and in part on the City's perception of needs for different housing types and prices. A May, 1983 Postal Service count shows 4,428 housing units in the city currently or previously occupied (the only units left out are new units as yet unoccupied). Of these, 4,042, or 91 percent, are single-family homes (see Table 3). There are 386 multi-family units. Although household size has been declining since 1970 and is difficult to estimate, the assumptions listed in Table 3 yield a current population of 13,700. While only 9 percent of the city's housing units are in multi-family structures, the 1980 Census reported that 23 percent of Dublin residents rent their homes. Since all but 10 to 15 percent of multi-family units are occupied by renters, about 15 percent of Dublin's single-family homes were rented in 1980. Developments now being completed in Dublin are mainly single-family homes that are considerably more expensive than resale units in the city. New homes in three sub- divisions surveyed range from $115,000 to $209,000, while citywide average resale price in the first quarter of 1983 as reported by the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors was $111,000. Buyers of these new homes, as reported by sales represen- tatives, seem to be divided evenly among those moving from within the Tri-Valley, ~rom 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 representa- tives, apartment managers, and public housing officials have all noted a significant increase in the number of transferees this year, reflecting new major commer- cial/industrial development in the Tri-Valley. PftOJECTED RFSIDENTIAL DEYELOP~NT The City has approved tentative maps with a total of 1,440 units, 605 of which are multi-family (see Table 4). This will nearly double the proportion of multi-family units in the city's housing stock. Of Dublin's residentially zoned lands, only one large holding without development plans remains: the 129-acre parcel west of Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. After deducting unbuildable slopes and Alamo Creek, roughly 100 acres of the site will be available for development. Although current zoning is R-1-B-E, requiring 6,500-square-foot lots for single-family homes, approvals for townhouses at higher densities on the other side of Amador Valley Road suggest possible density increases to as much as 14 units per acre, yielding 1,400 units. -7- J ~ ~ • TABLE 3 C1TY OF DUBLIN AND DIIBLIN PLANNLNG AREA CURRENT AND POTENTIAL HOIISING UI~IITS AND POPULATION Ctarent Citv Bo~mdaries Existing occupied or previously occupied unitsb Units approved or under consideration Potential units on unsubdivided land within city~ Subtotal Remainder of Plannin~ Aread East (1,650 acres) West (675 acres) South (750 acres) Subtotal TOTAL Ciun ulative Percent Total Sitgle- Multi- Multi- Estimated IInits Fam~y Fam~y Famffy Populationg 4,428 4,042 386 9 13,700 1,440 835 605 17 3,880 1,992 42 1,950 37 4,030 7,860 4,919 2,941 21,610 Housirg Units Low H' h 50 4,950 50 2,025 100 2,250 200 9,225 8,060 17,085 Population Low HHi~h 150 14,850 150 6,075 300 5,750 600 26,675 22,210 48,285 aAssumes 3.2 persons per singl~family unit in existing city, 2.0 per multi-family unit, and 3.0 per unit (type undetermined) in remainder of planning area. bEstimate by U.S. Postal Service, May, 1983. ~Assumes 1,400 multi-family units east of Dougherty Hills, north of Amador Valley Boulevard. dLow assumes no residential development other than a few custom homes. High assumes 3 units per acre on land with slope less than 30 percent. -8- r `~ ~ b TABLE 4 APPROYED HOUSING ADDITIONS Multi- Singl~ Tract Ac~es Fatn~ly Units Fam~7y Units Total Units 3733a (Rancho Diablo) 30.50 97 97 4077 (Canyon Creek) 25.20 47 47 4415 (Figgin) 1.95 26 26 4569 (MeGonigle) 4.70 17 17 4668 (Estate Homes) 52.00+ 87. 8? 4719 (Kremco) 180.00 240-558 150 390-708 4736a (Parkway Terrace) 17.00 110 23 133 4749 (Estate Homes) 15.00 40 40 4802 (Estate Homes) 33.00 84 84 4859 (Nielsen R anch) 138.00 129 261 390 4929 (D ilsville ) 4. 71 S g 4930 (Estate Homes) 35.50 72 72 4950 (Knoedler) 21.68 309 309 4988 (Beral tis-Byrd) g g TOTAL 814-1,132 894 1,708-2,026 aUnder construction; some unis o ccupied. Source: Dublin Planning Department. -9- ; ~,d ~ ~ ~ c-- ` . `. ~: - ____ ~ ` ~ ~,, , r , , .:, _ 1, , ~ ~, ~ ~ r~ ~: ~; :~~ ~ . ~. .., ; ~ ~ • ~. = r t - ~;~ . _ • ` iii • ~,,, ~ ~ ffi . ,~ - , ~ ... = 1 ~. ~ . '~" ~ ,.;- - _ ~. . . ., , . - - ~ ,,;, ~ _ ~ 1 ,;~ . '~ ,; , '__ _ ., ., ~~ ` .~, .'~~ , . `- % . . ~ =.y' ~`'`~,_ ='~.o. ~.~, -_.;,...,~ ' + ~ :, 7 ,--~~-~- Q, _ _ _ , ~ ~ o .: . - - ~ x•!`=~ k ~o ~ ,c ,;,:,:~ - ~ . ¢ ~ .~'"'~sli ~~ v P ~~ .... ... ... • ~ ` ~ ~~` . 4~ ~ ( _, .~ , i~\ ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ ~' % ;~ ~ ( ~ ~;` -- J~~---_~`~- ~ - \ ~~ `~-~~ f-i---~i:- + t --~-- ~--- 'I~S31Q ~ . -6'r$VItf.th - , ~'-~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ' ~ ~ o ;' ~ a ~ ti\, ,~ ~ ~ i ... 1 : r ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ f'~--` , fi -:~- . t /' _ ~ - ~. ~~~ Q c, L, . `~ \ - ~ ~ :: 1~' . -- < _ ; '` ~E ; I ,'t S ,s_ ~~ ~~ ~ .~-i ~ , ~ ~~' ~ ~~~ ..~~` 1~ ~J ~~~~ ;~ ~~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~- ~~.',~~=t ~~~ .~ , ~i:\ .. ~ ~ I . .. -.. ,. Y ~~. } ~ _ . ~~~ ~ m ;.; _-_ ., ...- %' .• ~ ~ ~ v- ' - ~ ' . yilt,lt ARt `.R6a =----~.,=--- l,. "~', ~'`~i,` - E< : ~ ~ i *~ ~"~ ~" , , • s "`~~ ~. . ~ .:: _. ......~ Figure 2: LOCATIONS OF APPROVED HOUSING ADDITIONS (See Table 4) , Y , ~ Using the above assumptions, at buil~out Dublin could have about 7,860 housing units, only 56 percent of which are already bu~lt. Another 18 percent have been approved or are in the approval process, and 25 percent have not yet been proposed. At full development multi-family units would comprise 37 percent of Dublin's housing, as compared with Dublin's 9 percent in 1983 and Alameda County's 33 percent in 1980. Residential development in the city's proposed sphere of influence is far less predictable. There are about 3,075 acres of accessible land under 30 percent slope. Some of the land is at a considerable distance from the presently incorporated area, and provision of public services may present difficulties. Possibilities range from a few custom homes served by septic systems to intensive development at an average of 3 units per gross acre, including both high and low density housing and some nonresidential uses. If the I-580 Freeway frontage east of Parks RFTA and Santa Rita were industrial or office park, planning area residential potential would be reduced by up to 1,000 acres. Table 3 shows that planning area population at full development might range from 22,000 to 48,000 persons. HOIISING NEED, AFFORDABILITY, AND AVAII~ABILITY Dublin has 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"precommuter" era and because Dublin's initial subdivisions were moderately priced, developers have been slow to add luxury hom es. However, Dublin's western slopes offer an environment attractive to higher-priced homes and some are beginning to appear. The State of California assigns ABAG a responsibility for determining a"fair share" of the regional need for housing affordable by low and moderate income families that should be met in each jurisdiction. The figures for Dublin are expected to be available in August. We will analyze ABAG's conclusion-and Dublin may agree or disagree-but whatever the conclusion, allocation of shares requires some rather arbitrary assump- tions that will need discussion. While the singl~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. This sharp decline is typical of similar communi- ties in the state and nation. At what point household size will "bottom out" is unclear; factors influencir~g household size and struct~e 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 dats 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 carr not afford their first homes, elderly family members move in with children, and many people are reluctant or unable to make major financial commitments. , -10- , 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 reluctance 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. Recent State laws are intended to push cities to recognize and permit second units in single-family neighborhoods. Due to decreasing household size, it can be argued that a substantial number of second units could be added before the former peak population would be exceeded, maintaining the same low density despite an overall increase in units. Overcrowc~ng is rare. The 1980 Census defined overcrowded housing units as having 1.01+ persons per room, and reported 101 ir~stances in Dublin, representing 2.4 percent of the city's housing stock. Aff oraability A survey of three new Dublin developments, Rancho Diablo, Parkway Terrace, and Woodcrest homes, indicates that minimum household income necessary to qualify for financing is $40,000. While these homes are selling well, most are unavailable to all but a few first-time homebuyers, as well as to most families with median household incomes currently living in the city. No current income data by household size are available for Dublin, but the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates regional median household income in 1982 at $31,600-half of all households were above and half below. Federal and State guidelines describe moderate and low income households in relation to regional median household income: Moderate income (80 to 1209~6 of inedian) $25,280 to $37,920 Low income (50 to 80% of inedian) $15,800 to $25,280 Very low income (less than 50% of ine~an) under $15,800 These figures do not account for assets, so there are low income families living comfortably in good houses with little or no mortgage, while families with the same income cannot afford such a house today. Dublin's homes are relatively affordable when compared with home prices in other Tri- Valley communities (see Table 5). Still, home ownership may be 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 951 additional units, all single-family, were rented out in 1979. Counting multi and single 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. ~ -11- ~ i TABLE 5 TRI-VALLEY SINGLE-FANIILY HOMES: AVERAGE AND MEDIAN RESALE PRICES, 1ST QUARTEft 1983 Dublin San Bamon Plea.santon Livermoce Average Sales Price, lst Quarter 1983 $ 110,831 $ 154,709 $ 145,291 $ 109,538 Median Price, January 1983 109,225 154,225 135,500 102,225 Median Price, , February 1983 107,060 142,250 137,500 102,896 Median Price, March 1983 99,900 138,000 135,000 103,225 Source: Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors. Affotdable Housng and Housrg Services While federally subsidized housing for low and rnoderate income households exists in Dublin and elsewhere in the Tri-Valley, there is a demonstrated need for more low rental units (see Table 6). Four types of subsidized housing exist in the Livermore- Amador Valley: public housing constructed and managed by local housing authorities; subsidized housing constructed and managed by private non-profit organizations; private development including units subsidized under the Federal Section 8 new housing program; and rental units with tenants who hold certificates under the Section 8 existing housing program. Households eligible for housing assistance under the Section 8 certificate program must have incomes not exceeding 80 percent of the regional median and are not required to pay more than 30 percent of their gross income as rent. The main source of federal housing assistance for low-income persons is the Section 8 rent subsidy program. The two parts of the program relevant to Dublin are new con- struction and existing housing. In the new construction program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracts with the developer of a project that will be all or part subsidized units to make payment for a specified term following completion. Subsidized units are rented out on the basis of tenants' income. By contrast, the existing housing program is "attached" to the tenants rather than to the housing units, with qualifying families receiving Certificates of Family Partici- pation, which allow them to seek housing anywhere within the Housing Authority's jurisdiction. When a participating family locates housing, a lease is made between the owner and the family, and a contract is executed between the Housing Authority and the owner to make up the difference between what the family pays and the market rent. HUD pays the difference directly to the owner, with the family paying its share directly as well. -12- TABLE 6 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY Cit Complea Dublin Arroyo Vista (Pleasanton Housing Authority) Dublin The Springs ~ w Livermore Hillcrest Gardens Livermore Leahy Square (Livermore Housing Authority) Livermore Livermore Gardens Livermore Meadowbrook Unit Size Total (# of Age Gro~ (# of Units) Be~ooms) of Tenants 150 16 - 1's Elderly (85 complete 78 - 2's Family as of 6/83) 32 - 3's Handicapped 24 - 4's 8 - fIdep. 36 7 - 1's Elderly 29 - 2's Family 3 - Hdep. Handicapped 54 28 - Studio Elderly 26 - 1's Handicapped 125 12 - 1's Family 48 - 2's . Elderly 45 - 3's I-Iandicnpped 18 - 4's 2 - 5's 96 56 - 2's Family 32 - 3's 8 - 4's 47 20 - 1's Elderly 22 - 2's Family 3 - 3's Handicapped O N W AITIN G LIST 1~pe Rent From From From Su~ D~lin Pleasanton Livermore Q.I. 4 Elderly 9 Elderly - 86 Family 88 Family Q.I. Long-term waiting list not maintained. Q.I. Estimated at 110, almost all S.S. from Livermore; no breakdown available. ~.I. Estimated at 150; no breakdown available. Q.I. Estimated at 50; no breakdown S.S. available. Q.I. 70 on waiting list; no breakdown available. 2 - Hdcp. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ON WAITING L1ST ~ U nit Size Z~ype Total (# of Age Gro~ Rent From From From C~ Complea (# of Units) Eiedrooms) of Tenants Su~ Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Livermore Vineyard Village 74 74 - 1's Elderly Q.1. Estimated at 85 elderly, 1 dis- ~ 8 - Hdep. Handicapped abled; no breakdown available. Pleasanton Kottinger Place 50 32 - Studio Elderly Q.I. n/a 29 elderly n/a 16 - 1's Handicapped 2 - 2's Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens 39 19 - Studio Elderly S.S. n/a 27 Elderly n/a 20 - 1's IIandicapped Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens 131 31 - 1's Elderly S.S. n/a 57 Elderly n/a 66 - 2's Family 34 - 3's Handicapped Q.I. = Quarter Income S.S. = Sliding Scale The usefulness of waiting lists as an indicator of need lies in the fact that the figures reflect people who are actively seeldng low-priced housing, rather than people who may be spending over 30 percent of their monthly income for housing but who would not necessarily move if lowe~priced housng became available. While it is by no means clear that households currently see}dng subsidized housing in Livermore would relocate to Dublin if affordable units were available (or vice versa), the existence of wa.itirg lists for all Valley subsidized housing strongly suggests that any foreseeable future affordable housing would be quickly occupied by Tri-Valley residents. A variety of services exist in the Valley to assist those with housing needs not met by most market-rate housing. These range from Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO), a housing advisory service providing shared housing placement and general housing cour~eling services, to the Emergency Fund Center, which serves those with immediate shelter needs resulting from emergencies. A Hayward program provides temporary shelter for women and children, and a Livermore service houses youth in need. Providers of these and other housing services feel that area residents do not have adequate information regarding available services, reducing the effectiveness of housing programs. In Dublin, the Pleasanton Housing Authority is currently developing Arroyo Vista, a 150-unit housing project for low income families on the site of the former Komarr dors{d 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. Eighty-five units at Arroyo Vista are currently occupied. Applicants are selected on the basis of housing authority policies that make income the primary criterion. Local applicants are given preference. The Housing Authority defines local as currently living or woridng in the Dublin or Pleasanton. Numerous applications have recently 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 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 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 276-urtit 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 Housng Authority contracts for 19 Section 8 units in Dublin According to a representative of the County Housing Authority, applica- tions for certificates by Dublin resdents are few, and Dublin is the Alameda County city with the least perticipation in the Section 8 certificate program. -15- PLANATING LSSIIES 1. Residential density on east side of Dougherty Hills. 2. Best use of land west of San Ramon Road between Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard. A Specific Plan prepared for the City recommends multi-family housng as one feasible use. 3. Residential potential of land in proposed sphere of influence, given environmental hazard~ and constr8ints identified elsewhere in this report. 4. Fut~e development of affordable housing in Dublin 5. Potential for lux~y housing to broaden the income range of Dublin residents. 6. Amount of rental housing or multi-family housing needed, desired, and likely to be built under alternative policies. 7. Potential for conversion of existing rental housing to condos. 8. Use of second units to provide relatively low-cost housng for seniors or other sm all households. -16- , ~ 4. COMMEftCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEYELOPMENT ~~ RETAII~IN G Virtually all of Dublin's commercial and industriel 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 downtown 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 centec~-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. in 1982 total taxable sales are estimated at $265 million, based on of third and fourth quarter reports. Dublin's 251 retail outlets held 39 percent of the total permits and accounted for 77 percent of the dollar volume. Table 7 compares Dublin sales with those in compet- ing 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 is still below Dublin's. Strengths: - 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. - Offers large enough trade area and low enough rents for one-of-a-ldnd stores serving trade area such as pianos, coins, wigs, trophies, and dictating equipment. - Has dominant auto sales, service, parts, and accessories concentration for trade area. -17- r ~ ~ TABLE 7 COMPARATIYE TAXABLE SALFS, 1979 V5. 1982 (Third Quarter) Crty Oakland Hayward Concord Fremont Walnut Creek Pleasant Hill Dublin Pleasanton Liverm ore East Bay (Alam eda and Contra Costa Counties) Percentage Sales in Share of Total M~11iac~s of Dollars Sales in East Bay Percent Percent 1979 1982 Cha~e 1979 1982 Ct~ ge $447 $480 +7.4 18.2 17.3 -4.7 218 216 -0.9 8.9 7.8 -12.3 168 203 +20.8 6.8 7.3 +7.9 133 159 +19.5 5.4 5.7 +6.4 103 136 +32.0 4.2 4.9 +17.0 51 73 +43.1 2.1 2.6 +25.6 45g 62 +37.8 1.8 2.2 +24.5 22 51 +131.8 0.9 1.8 +100.8 35 46 +31.4 1.4 17 +18.7 2,454 2,767 +12.8 100.0 100.0 - BSales 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. -18- . . - Dominant building specialties center. - Trade area's largest restaurant choice within sm all area. In siunmery, Dublin offers many of the advantages of the traditional downtowr2- variety, wide rent range, and accessbility. W eaimesses: - Lack of intensity and blacktop dominance make downtown much like a commercial strip despite its relatively compact form. - Lack of public street frontage and lack of strong shopping center identity make many stores hard to find for new shoppers. - Asde from tlifficulty in finding specific establishments, the overall layout is difficult to comprehend and offers the newcomer few points of orientation. The predominance of one-story buildings is du1L - Lack of public streets and pedestrian amenities concentrates traffic at a small number of intersections. - Vehicular circulation between perldng lots of adjoining shopping centers in some instances is inconvient or not well-defined. OFFICBS Dublin's populsrity 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 locations, 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 of~ce tenants will have the best choice of restaurants and most convenient business services. MANIIFACTIIRING AND INSTBIBVI'ION By 1980 two-thirds of Dublin's industrially zoned land wes developed. It is significant that total floor area in industrial districts represented 28 percent of developed land area, indicating little opporttmity for expansion on partially developed sites. With parlang and minimal landscaping, a floor area to site area ratio of 35 percent is close to the maximum attainable. With only about 60 acres of ia-developed industrial land remaining, Dublin continues to lose manufacturecs and distributors as they outgrow their space and are unable to find larger space in Dublin The ava~7ability of a variety of small spaces and the relatively low cost basis for Dublin industrial bu~~ngs makes them very attractive for new and young industries, allowing Dublin to fwiction as an incubator and ens~ing high occupancy. -19- , ~ . ~ The 23 percent of Dublin's taxable sales that are contributed by the 393 businesses not classified as reta~l outlets are evidence of the importance of Dublin as a location for manufacturers and small businesses that rnake 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 Pleasanton 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 20 years or longer, although industries desiring freeway visibility might snap up the frontage. About 650 gross acres would be available extending to an average depth of 1, 500 f eet f rom the f reeway. A t the 46.4 em ployees per acre assum ed as an average for Pleasanton commercial industrial development projects by the Las Positas EIR (Table 5.7), this north freeway frontage could accommodate up to 30,000 employees-increasing the currently projected "planned jobs" additions to Tri-Valley employment by 1? percent to a total of 210,000. As noted in the Subregional Development section of this paper, severe jobs/ housing imbalance would be likely if all employment-generating projects were completed at the projected densities without very large increases in the projected housing supply. PLANrTING LSSLTES 1. Future character of downtown retailing-continue as low-priced retail center or make effort to attract more higtrend 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, par}flng 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 par}dng structures or mi~rise buildings. 7. Type and timing of development of north I-580 frontage east of Santa Rita. - 20- F ~ ' ~ 5. PIIBLIC 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. Within the city, public lands are parks owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services District and school sites owned by the Murray and Amador Valley Joint Union High School Districts. The properties of both these jurisdictions are discussed in the Public Facilities section of this paper. The western part of the city's proposed sphere of influence contains no significant public lands. PARHS 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 ir~tallation reached from Dougherty to Tassajara roads, extending 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 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 marrdays 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 ni rg. 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 development 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 increased. 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 Dougherty Road remain in a state of disrepair. Noise impacts of activity at Parks RFTA will be discussed in subsequent woridng papers and in the General Plan. -21- , • , , 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 REHABII~ITATION 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 th~ parcel, are those that were originally constructed by the Navy when Camp Parics was first developed. The County Sheriffls 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. PLANIIING LSSUES 1. ftole public lands play as barriers to City's annexation of land in the eastern portion of the proposed sphere of influence. 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 devel oped. 3. Effect of possible reacquisition of Tassajara Creek Regional Park by Army on area parklands/open space resources. -22- r ~ w 6. PUBLIC FACILTTIFS SCHOOIS As in most communities that have grown rapi~y, declining birth rates and a growing proportion of empty-nest households have caused a drastic decline in Dublin school enrollment. School clos~.u~e is always difficult because it involves loss of both a service and the potentiel for new development in a long-established neighborhood. In Dublin the case for redeveloping s~plus schools is less clear than in a fully developed community because additional housing may bring increased enrollment. District Boundaties 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. Mtn~ray 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 Frederiksen. That decision left Cronin, Dublin, Fallon, Murray, and Nielsen schools as the K-6 schools serving Dublin (see Table 8). 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. A study is currently being conducted to evaluate alternative uses for the District's holclings. 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 is closng Fallon School this June and will close Frederiksen School at the end of the 1984/1985 school year. Frederik- sen School subsequently may reopen as a K-6 school. The General Plan must provide for school sites to meet needs at full development, thus using a longer planning period than the 3 to 5 years normally considered by school districts. Birth rates cannot be predicted, so simplified assumptions must be made. Because a high proportion of Dublin's housing stock will be well-suited for families with school-age children, we believe it is reasonable to assume that enrollment per singl~family household will not remain below the current level over the long term. Each multi-family unit is.arbitrarily assumed to generate one-third as many students as a single-family unit. However, recent wide variations in the size and number of bedrooms of condo units make household compasition difficult to predict and subject to wide variations among projects. -23- TABLE 8 ~ MURRAY SCHOOL DLSTRICT: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ENBOLLMENT Attendance Site Area Enrollment Acea Current Potentisla School Grades Sep~ 1982 (Acres) Capacity Enrollment District Plans Cronin K-6 3,267 7.1b 376 299 - Dublin K-6 - 15.7 850 - Currently leased. Fallon K-6 383 14.0~ 641 383 Close in June, 1983. Frederiksen ?-8 419 12.7 417 490 ~ Murray K-6 271 12.4 647 470 + '~ 210d Nielsen K-6 533 9.2 707 702 Wells 7-8 583 11.0 750 722 Schools in Pleasanton K-6 1,158 - 2,166 1,427 Dolan Site 27,p Close in June, 1985. TOTALS 3,614 6,830 4,493 + 210d aBased on Murray School District Master Plan, June, 1982; potential future units and eacisting units are assumed to generate same enrollment as 1982-1983 (see text). bIncludes Cronin Park. ~ ~Includes Kolb Park. dAssumed enrollment from development east of Dougherty Hills not included in District Master Plan = 210. , Evaluation No change. Not likely to be needed. K-6 ca~acity in quadrant potentially exceeded by 339 with Fallon closed. Conversion to K-6 could handle Murray and Cronin overflow; see comments for Wells. No change. No change. Capacity potentially exceeded by 462 stu- dents if all 7-8 students attend. Not considered. Not likely to be needed. r ~ c_ ~ If these assumptions are correct, full development of residential land in Dublin (and a similar growth rate in the Pleasanton portion of the Murray School District) would cause a 42 percent increase in enrollment. The fut~e total of 5,140 students would be nearly 90 percent of the maximum reached in 1973 and would require about 75 percent of the existing classroom capacity. This projection is about 8 percent less than one derived by taldng all "future growth" and "potential future growth" in each school service area as compiled for the District's 1982 Master Plan, adding 1,400 units in the Dougherty Road area and factoring the enrollment of each school using the same "current level" sssumptions about singl~family and multi-family generation. The projections in Table 8 do not necessarily disagree with District projections to 1985/1986 that show total enrollment 15 percent below the current level. Table 8 argues for caution in disposng of sites because all existing classrooms mighf be needed at full development. Other factors not considered that may affect enrollment i nclude: - Possible reorganization to a K-5, 6-8 system; and - Unification of school districts as recommended for consideration by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Am~dor Valley Joirrt Dnion 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 project. Approximately 25 students from Arroyo Vista attend Fairland and Pleasanton schools. PARHS AND 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 9). In the early 1970s, voters approved a$2.3 million bond issue for improvements and a special tax far equipment and maintenance. In 1978 a detailed Park and Recreation Master Plan Update, prepared with broad community participation, recommended an ambitious program of improvements. 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 parlcs are capital improvement fees levied as a condition of residential subdivision map approval. These fees, authorized unde the State's Qtrimby Act, are determined on the basis of the value of the property being developed. -25- ~ rn ~ Site Shannon Park 11600 Shannon Avenue Dublin Sports Grounds 6800 Dublin Boulevard Valley Community Swim Center 8157 Village Parkway Mape Park 11711 Plata Way Cronin Park Penn ac York Drive TABLE 9 PARK S1TFS WITHIN THE CTI'Y OF DUBLiN Acres Description 9.6 Community Center building, lighted lawns, parking and paved pathways, tot lot, and picnic tables. 22.7 Five soccer fields, one lit; six baseball fields, two lit; tot lot; restrooms; and snack bar. 3.0 Lighted pool with tot and competition areas, solar heating, restrooms, and showers. 2.5 Tot lot and picnic area. 2.5 Tot.lot and lawns. Kolb Park 3.0 Tot lot, lawns, picnic area, Brighton Drive dc 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. Ownerstnp/ Maintenance Developed, owned, and mairr tained by llSRSll. ~3uilding operated by SRVCC Inc. Developed, owned, and main- tained by DSRSD._ Developed, owned and main- tained by DSRSll.~ Developed, owned, and main- tained by DSKSD. Developed by DSRSD, main- tained b~Murray School District. ,. ' i ~ . . : .• _ . ~ ~ i ,~' s' ~ .;~ ~i _':~ ~ ~ ;` ; ; ~' . '.~~~~ " .° ..' ,s.ts~~ . "~ ~ ~~~ ~j~ f`~'l K , ~ ~-, , ~ j: ) , - ~ ~ W ~ z ~ x O r ~x..y V ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ \1. ~ ~;;. I ~~.~ ~ ~' E ~~ ~ ~~~'` !. / ' L~ ~~ . tii n , ~, ' `. ~ ,~ ' '~~' t, . ' ~ _... .~ ~ ~ ~ T~ ' ~ ~ t u t ~:: .. . .., ~ " r ~ ~~ `'^~;.i v 1'. 'c 1- ~{ ~ I114 ~, ( l~ ~S' . r~/ J ~~i ~ I ` 5 _ / 7 , J~ • ~~ ~ 1. P'~ ,~, . ~ .vA I ~ 7V ~ t- {! ~ . ~ ~ ~ : . ~ ~ . ~ ~: :. - a~~ ~ i~ R . ~ ~ ~~~M ~ ,~ .~~ , `,1~ ,. . ,,'. ~ [ ` ~ . ~ „ `~ ~ ' A M A D ~° 01 ~ ) . ~ ~; ~ ; . ( ,: _ , ~ ~ > :~ t ~ , ~' ~ .~~ , ~ ~~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ., _. ~ , ,~ y\1 : ~ ~./1 ~5 :: ~~ , . 42 .. . ~9M ~~ ,~ `' ` .:. ~ ... ` . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- ,;, ~ M~gy cE) ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r~. )l i~ . ~[urr ~ _ ~ ~, , ~ ~ . ~. ~~ . .. ~ . _ ,~ A.~, `\ _ ~ - , ~ ~ . ;. ~'" _ . ~~' . , ., lf , ; ~ J . .~ ; . . . ~ ,;: _.,~ :. . ~ ~- . ~ _ ; , , . . ~ ,, , ;~ , , ~Ln ( ) ~ ~ _ ,~_ II , ~ D H ;~--:; , , m ~ ~ , r Il.d \ . ~JJ~~.~'.=-' I.~ ...' I~ .'ISI~ f ;1,~~=~ ~, ,,~; ; ; „ (, ~ r ~'" ~ Valley Com m~mity Swi m Center J ~ ,`~`~F~ Y ._ ~ ~: f ,:~ ~ ° ± Kolb Park - ~~ . ~ ~ ~. . . ; ~ ~ ~I ,:.. ~- `- •.~F 1 , , ~; ` ~ .. ~,,, ~ ~ , ~ , ' f .. ~ . , ' • , .. ~ ~ i i~ ~ , ~ ~ ~U~11} ~~~i f' ~ ~ ~ , \, ~ ~? ~ ~ :. ~-h~;,, ~ -.,~ ~E)~< '' .. , INI'IN1 ''~I ~ s ~ F ~ ~' ~ ~. ~ . ., . ,~„ ' ` . . .." \ ~• - ~ allon~ 198 ) ' ; _li_ ~i *~_' ~. ,_ ~ ;;r Closing July 3 - ` ~i ~~ . __.. - ; ~ ~; , ~ ~~ Y `~ Shannon Park ~., .. , ~~ ~, ~ Fredetilcsen (I) ,~~ _ ~, ~~ ~r ;. ,~ `~ ~ ,~-~ `'~~ ;~~; _ (Closing July 1985) ' InIM~~~ II II; , '' , , . -, , i .,~u_'~ ,_ ~ ~' ~`D Ln . ,r. ~~' , ~ ~ ~ ~E) , ,~ - ~ I. ~~ ~ • : , , .. ~ ';t: ~~I ~~~'~lll"II -. , : , ~ _.- .. ~~~. --- ' ' ~ ~r Y ) ,>,~ `' ~ (i~u b ~~j~ o~1,s.. ~~~ ` DolanSite ,~ ~ ~Currentl Leased ' `~,' ,'•.~ , ~~•~~~ I ~~ ?~~ ~ ~ ~ . '~/ ~,;' We11s (I) ' ~i~ ~ ~ il •II s 4 ' ! ~ i ~ (Undeveloped)~.,~! ~ " ,~ ;~ ` ; ii l~_~~~ ifi" ~ ~ , . ~, r ~' ~~, Croni ark ~~ ~ '~ ' ~,' ' ; „ ,~ ~ , ~ T i~ ~ J ~ , .. . n P % ~- I u~e ~+~;.~ ,,~ ~ 67i7 'I • • : ~~• .~ ..~~. ,-~^;' . ~c- ~ - - - ..~+ ~.- •w ~-.ni -+i. -~j1- ...~._.-' ~ ss.s _ .s~ -`.l _~ ~ .i .Z.r-~. ~ - -'~- - - - ~~~- ~ ' . . ~ . , ~~,.I~ `' - . . ' I - .i~'.~~ ~~T t ..,I ~ 1~ ~ ~~ ; :.~.~ ?~ •~. ~~ , ~ Cromn (E) -4~ ,~~~qM. ~~~~-i - „ ~ ` ~ ~ ,1t> ;~~,:'j ' ~ ," ~ ~ , rw•. ~ - ~ , ~ ~ . ~y 'i- f~'~t, 1 i \ ~ ^ ~ „•~! ~/ :. p ~ z ~ ~ , ~' ~ 1 , l! „' l j f', x r I n~~^ 1 '~Nielsen (E) :,` ~: • y .,.. .. • _J' , ~; . .. '1.,i- t ~5:~~ , _ ~r~, , . ~ . ,;:,• : ,'!• ...~ :; ~:~ *ff ~? ~, . ,.3~ - ~ { `'~~ ~ ~ , `1,R -`_ , _ { ~~ , ~ : t • ~ ~ '~ .,c~,1JT~ ~~: - a~~ . ~' - o i~~, - ii.~ ~'~~ \ Mape Park ~ ;~~ ~: ; `~ ,: Dublin Sports Gcotmds ' .• ~. ~ *- t- , , , : . ~ , ~ ~ : ~~~ ~ ~ . ~ ,: , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ =~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~~' fin~e i. _~ ~ ~ ~ r_ ~ , 1-' ~ ~ .~..+,, , , ;~I 1~ . __.-~ - . ~ ~,c-i P~ ~ . . - -- ^. ,. ,,., l : , ~ , ,. ` . r . ~ , ~ . `iriaN . . '. t'~ ' . ~': ~.;~•~.:<-..~ ~ • ,. ~.,yL. l., ii~i `.I,.Q ~~ ~ ; ~ ...1 ~\ ~ : y u ;` I-' . ~ • _ ~ •~~t "}~.. . il ~/ ; -" ~/i1~ ~ `~a~'~''' ;~ :~ti ~; ~ ~ ;,,~ 3: .:, ~ ,.;, ; ~,,. \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ J; I "~•.. I~ L...._~- .:...... ,.. -, ~: ~ ~ ', . Z I..AN~~ ~; ; ' .~ I X, ~~~t ~ _.- . s~ ~ . : • •, r . ~.. . . ' .........:: . :.,. . . ~..' : ~1`I`' .. , s ~ ~ a r ' ~ - (; . ~L.~'<, ~ ~~~.. -1 , __.... ~..~ • f' .n ,. ~ . ~`'~'~, ~ ;.: ~ ., ~, ~ ;~: ~..- ~" •:, ~ , ~unttin ' • '• ~ ~ ~ ; ` ~ ~ i. :l__ :~ ~ ~~ w~~ •, ~1 p -- .... _ . _ . , . z. . , , ~~' ._ `r . . i', ~'~. I r"~n. ~.~ 1 .. i ~ , . 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 f~ds 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 de~cient in acreage by over 80 percent and community parks to be lac-dng 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. A March, 1983 s~vey conducted for the City of Dublin Parlcs and Recreation Advisory Committee ranked the 20 most popular activity facilities: TABLE 10 POPIILAR ACTIVII'IES Na of Rank Activity ftespondents 1 Aerobicsa 100 2 Concertsa 94 3 July 4th Celebrationa 87 4 Teen Centera gl 5 Computer Classa 75 6 Longer Pool Hoursa 75 7 Tennis 72 8 Gym nasti es 68 9 Horseback Ridinga 65 10 Hildng Trailsa 57 11 Soccer 53 12 Craf ts 52 13 Tennis Courts - additional 51 14 Ceramics 49 15 Ballet or Tap Dance 45 15 Additional Park Spacea ~ 45 15 Bike Tra~1s 45 16 Family Picnic Areas 43 17 Painting Classes 42 18 Little League 35 aNot 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. -27- ~ ' k 1 In its il~aster Plan, the District identified new types of facilities that should be developed, 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 commtmity besutification 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 culttu~al 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. The 1978 acquisition recommendations were as follows: 1. Ridgetop (Dougherty Hills) trail between Amador Valley Boulevard and OId 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 commimity 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. Where 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 altecr-ative 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 improvements. For its part, the parks and recreation agency interested in acquiring the school si.u~plus land must make a finding of inadequate public land and have a plan for the purchase of s~plus 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 recently closed Fallon School. The provisons 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 perma- nently "substandard" park service. Note that provisions that may allow purchase below current market value would not apply to the undeveloped Dolan school site. PLANATING ISSDES 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 sociceconomic mix in school service areas. -28- • •i i 3. Effect of decline of school enrollment and closure on park sites owned by the Murray School District as part of school sites. 4. Fut~e service provider for Arroyo Vista housing. 5. Use of current and prospective park fees collected as housing is added. 6. Priority for acquistion or expar~sion of park lands vs. more intensive development of existing sites. 7. Fewer larger parks vs. more smaller parks. 8. Future of parks on Murray School District property if adjoining school is closed. 9. Potential for acquisition of school property for park use. -29- . ?. PUBLIC SERYICES SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DLSPOSAL 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 Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipeline used by member j~isdictions. (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 valley would require Valleywide~voter approval. Ctarent and Projected Usage Besdentiel: 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. Nanreta~ Commercial: Distinet 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 F~ther Egpansion With remaining sewage capacity for 1,700 residential permits throughout DSRSD's service area, and remaining residentisl development capacity in Dublin alone allowing approximately 3,430 additional units, it seems probable that pipeline capacity will be reached before Dublin is bu~1t out, and that growth will be curtailed within 2 to 5 years if additional effluent disposal capacity is not 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. Obstacles to further expansion of effluent disposal capacity from the Valley include needed voter appmval; high cost of developing a dispasal system; and development of an environmentally sound and technically feasible disposal technique. While only expanson of the LAVWMA pipeline req~.rires voter approval by law, any alternatives would likely be controversial and 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. -30- , , Any major sewage disposal project would require an EIR considering possible implica- tions for ell Tri-Valley resources, including air and water quality. The cost of a new disposal system would s~ely cause a significant increase in the current $2,100 per unit residential sewage connection f ee. At this tim e sources f or f unds f or such a proj ect are uncertain, but apparent development pressures suggest that financing by user charges will be feasible. WATEB SIIPPLY Dublin's original water system was constructed by the Volk-MeLain 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 Conservation 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 Do~gherty Road. The turnout's capacity is 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Water is fluoridated at the turnout. In 1981, the ~rm of Camp Dresser and MeKee 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 els~ 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 s 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 press~e 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 f eet above sea level. In response to planned development both in and out of the incorporated area, the Master Plan propQSes the creation of a third zone, which will serve elevations of up to 740 feet above sea level. This proposed third zone will have three booster pump stations and a reservoir. Pipes will be i~stalled as part of subdivisions, and pump station cons~uction will begin in conjunetion 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 all 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 futtu~e supply problems may be provided by a major Stat~sponsored water project, or by resuming the use of local well water, requiring extensive treatment. Another response to possible water -31- , ~ 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 cfiopped significantly without any major efforts on the parts of Zone 7 or the Services District. Per capita water consumption has not reti.u~ned to its predrought levels. ~ SOLID WASTE INSP06AL 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 garbage collection and carting, and waste is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill, a sanitary landfill under the criteria established by the Reso~ce 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. FIRE PftOTE~I'ION The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides fire protection with a sworn staff of 35 plus 12 volunteers. F~,til-time manning is 6 firefighters at Fire Station #1 on Donohue Drive at Amador Valley Boulevard and 3 at Fire Station #2 on Fircrest Lane at Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. The District enjoys an excellent #3 rating from the Ir~~ance Service Office (LSO), the best rating reasonably achievable. The present city is adequately protected with current staff and equipment, and an improvement fee of $550 per dwelling uint 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 hi.lls i.mder 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 thre~firefighter company in the foothills, elthough 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. PI,ANAIING LSSUFS 1. Adequacy of sewage treatment and effluent disposal capacity given projected Tri- Valley developm ent. -32- , ~ ; , , 2. Funding and electorate approval of expar~sion 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 into city's proposed sphere of influence. -33- r ~ 8. CIRCULATION Dublin's trafficways system represents the state of the art of trar~sportation planning dur'ing the early 1960s. Within San Ramon V~11age, traffic was to be concentrated on fourlane arteriel streets fed by neighborhood collectors that would not attract through traffic. Downtown apparently was designed, but not developed, as a single huge shopping center. Both interstate freeways have interchanges spaced as infre- quently es feasible in keeping with state and federal design standards. DAII.Y TRA.FFIC VOLIIMES AND LEYEIS OF SERVICE Existing daily traffic volumes on Dublin arterial and collector streets are shown in Table 11. The two busiest roadway sections are the links between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 Freeway on San Ramon Road (35,000 vehicles per day) and on Dougherty Road (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 Dri.ve 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-lane divided streets: 24,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day 6-lane divided streets: 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day - Where a street has homes fronting directly on the street, the acceptable traffic capacity is substantially less than the physical capacity of the street. The term "environmental capacity" represents a subjective determination of traffic volume levels deemed acceptable from the residents' perspective. The "environmental capacity" may be only 25 percent of the physical capacity. For example, a two-lane residentisl street with directly fronting singl~family homes can be expected to present an undesirable environment 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 11 that five streets are in this category. Table 12 presents a partial list of key intersections where recent peak-hour t~sning 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. f -34- a ~ TABLE 11 ESTIMATED 1983 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ON SELECTED STREETS Egstirg F~fimated Ri~t-of- Av~erag+e Street Secti~ Way (Feet) Da1y Traffic San Ramon Road , I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 153 35,000 Dublin Blvd to Alcosta Blvd. 16? 16, 000-18, 000 V~11age Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Amador Valley Blvd. 100 15,000 Amador Valley Blvd to Tamarack Dr. 100 19,000 Tamarack Dr. to Kimball Ave. 100 10,700-15,000 Dougherty Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 100 41,000 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 25,000-27,000 East of Dougherty Rd. 50 3,000 Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to V~11age Pkwy. 108 17,000 Village Pkwy. to Dougherty Rd. 80 4,100 = 7,500 Alcosta Boulevard (San Ramon) Near I-680 100 20, 000 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 2,000 Source: Alameda County; TJKM. -35- ~ ~ , ~ TABLE 12 EXLSTING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS A.M. P.M. Intersection Y/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. 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 in the near future. Residential streets having current traffic volumes considered to be environmentally unacceptable by adjoining residents result from the creation of collector stteets conveniently serving too many homes. The mast 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' compla.ints because of excessive traffic volumes and speeds have included Donohue Drive, Brighton Drive, Starward Drive, Davona Drive, and portions of Silvergate Drive. Other streets, because 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. TBAFFIC 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. -36- ~ 4 PARKING Downtown Dtiblin has either sufficient or surplus off-street par}dng in mast ir~tances. The heaviest observed use occurs in the vicinity of Gemco on Friday nights and Saturday 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 Qresent there is no severe problem. Orrstreet parldng occurs throughout the city in residential districts in both single- family and multipl~family areas. In these cases, on-street par-dng is typically used out of convenience rather than necessity. One area where on-street parldng 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 par}dng lots. Merchants have requested commuters to park elsewhere, either during periods of peak retail dem and or at all tim es. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRiAN CIRCULATION Relatively high standard bicycle lanes exist on portions of Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and V~lage Parkway. Both pedestrian and bicycle circulation in Dublin is hampered by the norttr-south I-680 freeway, which precludes east-west circulation except at Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boule- vard. Access to some community facilities such as the high school and swim club is restricted by this barrier to pedestrian5 and bicyclists. However, most commercial and employrr-ent 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. PLANAtING ISSUES 1. Bart Extension. Extension of BART rail service to Dublin and Pleasanton would have a significant impact on Dublin. While BART would provide service for Dublin residents and Dublin employees, it also would focus traffic to the area near its stations. One station is contemplated at the south end of Golden Gate Drive between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 Freeway. A second station is contem- plated on I-580 in the Santa Rita area. 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. In the future, improved transit for the Dublin/ Pleasanton area should be considered. Transt would connect the residential neigh- borhoods with the commercial and employment areas as well as with BAftT stations. A study is currently being conducted with the City of Pleasanton on this m at ter. 3. Passible Fut~e Li~ht Rail Transit (LRT). Contra Costa County policy calls for preservation of the Southern Pacific ra~1 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 fut~e. -37- • t 4. Interstate 680 Freeway Improvement. I-680 has been identified as a freeway corridor neec~ng additional capacity in the future. Caltrans is contemplating w~idening to eight lanes between I-580 and Walnut creek and six lanes south of I-580. The widening to eight lanes in itself will impact Dublin, particularly homes and businesses along the freeway right-of-way. In addition, the I-580/I-680 inte~ change 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, e.m. peak-hour traffic southbound on I-680 exiting to I-580 in a single lane may back up to Alcosta Boulevard. 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 st,a~face street from the Alcosta interchange or by usng 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 I-680 directly to Dublin 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 I-680. 5. Interstate 580 Freeway Capacit_y. Recent Environmental Impact Reports for projects in the I-580 corridor indicate that freeway capacity will be exceeded, resulting in Level of Service F, between I-680 and Hopyard Road if presently proposed commercial, industrial, and residential projects are completed. As part of its work on the North Pleasanton Traffic Study, TJKM, Transportation Consultants, is examining I-580 capacity in greater detail and will complete a report in July or August. Although projects that may overload I-580 are not in Dublin, the impacts on Dublin residents and employees and on development in the eastern portion of Dublin's proposed sphere may be substantial. 6. 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 Camp Parks. The physical and jtu~isdictional problems related to such an extension include crossng the Southern Pacific Railroad, crossing Federal Government and Alameda County property, and acquisition of private property near the Dougherty Road intersection. This issue needs to be fully explored during the preparation of the Dublin General Plan Circulation Elem ent. -38- r ~ • s 9. GEOLOGIC IiAZARDS The extended planning area offers examples of most of the geologic hazards commonly found in California, but only two--downslope movement (mainly landslides) and earttr quake fault surface rupture-are significant constraints on the location of ~ban development. All hazards will be discussed in the Seismic Safety and Safety Elements, but those that affect mainly the design-rarely the location-of development will not be descxibed in this worldng paper. EARTHQUABFS The five major historic earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area and several smaller quakes caused or were capable of causing damage in Dublin. The major quakes-~an Andreas Fault (1906, 1890, 1838), Hayward Fault (1868, 1836), and southern Calaveras (1861) Fault-were at some distance. Nearby faults such es the northern Calaveras, Pleasanton, and Greenville will probably produce quakes of lesser magnitude, but the intensity in Dublin could be as great as the larger, more distant quakes. The major active fault in the planning area with rupture potential is the Calaveras Fault, which rur~ 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 building construction. In mast instances the appropriate mitigation is to set buildings back about 50 feet from the fault trace. DOWNSLOPE MOVEMENT This term 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. Figure 4 shows that landslides cover a significant portion of the steeper hills in the extended planning area-between 20 and 50 percent of the land surface in some areas--typically where ground slope exceeds 30 percent. Three types of landslides are common. Very large, "ancient" slides are up to 300 feet deep and cover areas of several acres to a square mile or more. These are common west and especially southwest of Dublin. Some geologists consider these slides stable. Hallenbeck-MeKay & Associates, Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, principal authors of the Dublin Seismic Safety Element, take a conservative position. They believe that abnormally wet weather, producing high water tables combined with a strong earthquake, could cause 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. -39- ~ ~• 1~ H C ~C ~ ~ z ~ d t~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, r i ~ - , ^ . - ~ . _ , ~ ,,~, ; ~ :, ~ -~ ~ ~,,>~~ ~ ~ ~r. --< ' ~. • ~_~,.8 ~C~. ..~ L \ ~ J ~,t I '1 . ~ ~ r~ ~ ii a Y ~ ~ ~ - . 6~ ~ d X~>"~ l l ~ t~ '~`I ` L `~ '~'' - ~ 1 ' ;~ ,. , - ,_ `;, ^io ~ \ \ ; ' 1 ~ ~-` , ~ !.' i ~:,;!: • `';,. ` p 'i~ ~.c rY \ - ~ ~ _ J ~ ~ ' •o ~ ~. ~ ~,, ~ ~'Y .:i - ~' + ~ ~ h1I ~'('` ~.~I., ,. ~'.~~~ b ~r . <~::.~ ~ 1 -i in- ~ .ct _~,i ~~` i ° I isi~,,.. ~ y ~ 0 4~I r' ~`',' g ~ !, 1 n. t . @ ' I f~, ~ I ~ '„ ~.: ,~•. ~ i~ S I I" ~ i ~~~~ +- . ~ L ~~ f • b:~-. :I~~ i7. . ~/ I . ~ - : • ~i ~'.f i•.~_~~, r~I.~~:~ ~ A ~_ ~4'~ tll~? ~~• ~j~. ,} ii ~i1:~~ i 9 ~i , ~~-~ ~ - ~ ~(~ ~ J~ rn `I ~ ,~~ ~1 . -,f ~ 1 Q., i . }b ' i~ ~ ' ~ ~ ! « ! r, \ ~ l p ~~- ~" 6l ~ ~~.~J `J ~, ~ ~, S. ~ ~` I << 1 . ~sy ~ ' ~ •~ ` ~' 4 I ~ - .~j... ..~ , ~ . I i ,~y• 1 '~. i I _.- . ~, , r. li ' ~ ~ ~' i ~~.t' A~K ~~,~' ~. ~r ~ `` ~, ~ ._.~~_0 .~. ` '~,` '~~ ~ • JO~ CDRPS ..yd~+~ 0 ~ ~~ ~;. ~ ~.~ `J ` • ~ ' _ _ ' ~ ' `-' ~ 'I f R A I ~,y(I N_G C E N',~ F_ F r; , ~11 ~ '~ ~' ~ , , - _ ; .,~ ~ ~" ~{ ~ ,; . _ ~ ~ `'~-~.t;-~i~ r ~ .' . - _ ~ ' ~, 'I \t-I~~ .. ~~ _ r ~J!, y~ _ •G . ~ ~ ' . ~ ; ~ , ; ~ . _.: .. . , . : ~r- ,~~ ~~~~C ~' '~ ~' + ~Z DUBLIN '~ ~ _ ~t~ ,~ ~ _~ _ ~ .y, 6,... ;~' .. i'i r ~~ : , ~ / ~1- ~ t,i ~~~~ \ ~ ' ~ ' \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~. / F.QS '~ > > ~ i _ / , "( ~ _ - (j,k~C~~ ,~( '`. .. ~ \ . te0 71/ / l ~` ~ • ~ M , . l F t1 - ,~ ^^. S~ ~ ~ _f .~ 'IF ~, • `-~-C~ ~ - --- _ - soo -- `•- ~ •° _ •i L C "~~' '' .- . .1~ ! ~. ~ ~~~.., ~ ~i . . ' ~ r c` ` ~,~. >.'..h1 ~r~ 1 i ~~~~u ~~i.ti :, ~ ` ~. t . ti , ~ . ~'ri'~ r-`r . e, ~~:,v ~ -J ' ' \ . 'i> . .. . - ~. -~ r 1, ~ i i - ~. .. ~` ~ `~.--~ - ~ C.~ 3 J' M'~r *~.",~1~ ~ ~~ ~ 'z.-~- A.~ ~ ~ .r:~~~t-, u~ - A ~ _ 1 ' -' '' µ Landslide Depasits: ~ ~`i : ,; • ~~ ~ ^ ~~1 •'p ~ , ~ ~ , ,•. . `` _ ~~'o ~~d-~ ''~ •/f i i ~ `' : ~ \~ ~j C. 7 ~~ ~~ . ~~i • ~ ~~ ~`~'•. \ \r ~ Hf: ~ ~.F ". ~ • ~ _ ~ 7 '- g 2+,,, '' ~• ~" ' ' , ,~ ~ Greater than 500 ft. in Lon est Dimension ~w i 1-~; .~r' r ~'i ~ 11 , ~,~~ S,~ ~ ,...~.i, l, ti ".~ ~ - ~ .,~. .~ ` ~` -: - r_ . ;~;~+ : ,.... ~ • Less than 500 ft. in Longest Dimension ~ ~ _ ' ~' ' '~ ~ ~j ~' i~r- ` r` ' •: r ~~~`t{t{t{ '~' • ~ ~. - ~ _ .I. r c ' ~ • ~~~ ,Q :M\~' . ~, i r { ,',~+ ~ .! , t> ~ / t ~~ >> ~f ~ ' .\ r ~I .,'f~~ ~ y- ~ • F w . ~ s , _ ~ v ~ i a ~ ~~ ..`z i..~__~ • ~ti '. ~~ ' ~ . ~. r rr~~ ~ ~. i i 0 1 2 ml1PS ~ •, ~ ~, `~ ~: 1 y . ~, (~ ,.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 1 - r~ ~y ~' ~ ~~ ~'~~~>'~~ ~_ ~~a~'_. . . .~K_'•v; ).. ~Ir . ~_' '~.;•~ . . ~.,jl -~f, Source: Isopleth Map of Landslide Deposits, Southern San Francisco Bay Region, Wright and Nilsen, 1974. . R . ~ i r . ~ A third type of landslide common to the Dublin area 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. Ancient slides occur mainly to the west in the steeper higher hills. They 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, notably in the developing areas of western Dublin, uncertainty exists as to whether certain discontinuities are fault or landslide related. Active deep and shallow landslides occur both east and west of Dublin. Activity generally increases during wetter than average winters. Debris flows elso occur in the east and west rural segments of the extended planning area, but are more common in the lower, but less resistant, eastern hills. The landslide map was prepared from photo interpretation (Nilsen, 1973) and is not definitive. Some indicated areas may be free of significant movement. At other locations, movement may have been missed due to tree cover or may have occurred since the photography. The presence of active or potential downslope movement does not preclude develop- ment, but is a major factor in design. As is so often the case, engineering geologists cannot be expected to devise easily followed rules that enable planners to make clear assumptions about future develop- ment. It is fair to say that both the eastern and the western foothills in Dublin's extended planning area have severe constraints on development that will preclude development in some areas and in others would make it more costly than on similar slopes that are less slide prone. -40- ~ . " y 10. NOLSE Noise level measurements for the General Plan were taken by Charles M. Salter Associates at 10 locations throughout Dublin, including eight spot measurements and two 24-hour continous measurements. Both peak hour and. off-peak spot measure- ments were taken, and in two cases the nighttime levels were recorded. Results of the measurements are shown in Table 13. The following Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)1 values were tabulated based on the data from the two 24-hour samples and the various spot measurements. Unless otherwise noted, measurement points are 50 feet from the centerline of the outer moving lane of the street listed. TABLE 13 CNEL VALUES Site Na 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 Plaza 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 CNE1 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. 1Commimity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a descxiptor for the 24-hour average A-weighted 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 f rom 7 p. m. to 10 p. m. are penalized. 5 dB; sound levels during the hours f rom 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. -41- n ~' ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~. fo ~ 0 ~ u+ C~x p`i r7. (~~ :"' ~:i ~ ~: . ~~ ~: r 'r~ ~„ ~, ~~ V~ ~~ ~ 1~ ~~ TAHLE 14: 4ESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS ~~ . Site Day ant Time No. Location of Measurement * ~eq ** ~10 ~50 ~90 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. ~ " " 5/17/83 5:12 pm 45 48 42 40 4 cars in 15 minutes 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 " " 5/17/83 4:32 pr~, 63 66 62 56 7 trucks in 10 minutes; ~ 395 cars in 15 minutes 3 50 ft. from center of near lane 5/17/83 5:41 pm 58 60 52 50 42 cars ~n 15 minutes of York-Penn in playground on grass 3 50 ft. from center of near lane 5/17/83 10:00 pm 54 57 50 46 Average car passbys: of York-Penn in playground on 61 d6A; 9 cars in 15 grass minutes 3 " " 5/19/83 1:30 pm 50 54 45 43 20 cars in 15 minutes 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 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 ~ ~ N ~ *The L is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a stated period of time, would contain the same acoust~t~ energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. **The sound level in dBA tf~at was equaled or exceeded l0 percent of the time; L50 and L90 are the levels equaled or exceeded 50 and 90 percent of the time, respectively. , -- . . -- ---- --- - - - n ~ r~ ~J~ cn ~ ~ . t~+ C~ fn ~ ~ ~ ~ C.~ ti t~ Cp~ ~~, :a~ n J~ ~lJ •;, 1 ` 1':. 1~ fU Ta'liLJ; 14 (Coritinued) Site Day and Time * ~ ** ~ ~ 0 ~ ments C No. Location of Measurement eq 10 50 9 om 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 dBA I from center of near lane '~ -~ 5 " " 5/19/83 9:15 am 61 64 60 55 150 cars in 15 minutes i 6 Amador Valley Rd. 15 ft. from 5/19/83 2:00 pm 64 69 58 48 Cars go about 30-35 mph; center of near lane on sidewalk 67 cars in 15 minutes at 6849 Amador Valley Rd. 6~ " " 5/20/83 8:03 am 64 69 60. 53 Traffic turning left on to Brighton; 112 cars in }5 minutes 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 right-of-way fence of I-580, only) on I-580 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/?_0/83 8:30 am 66 69 65 61 135 cars near lane; I-680 90 cars far lane; 1 truck far lane in 15 minutes ~ w ~ ,. 'r J ~ _.~-.~ . ~~ - ~ i PLANrTING LSSUES 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. 4. Visual character of noise walls along major arterial streets. -44- r ~ . . 11. CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The planning area includes three sections that are distinet in terms of topography, vegetation, and so~1s. The ~ban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area just north of I-580 form part of the flat.floor of the Amador Valley. The land east of Camp Parks and Santa Rita and south of the county line is distinguished by grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning area is composed of ridgelands vegetated primarily with oak woodlands and grasslands on steep slopes and winding canyons. (These areas are referred to below as the central or tu~ban, eastern, and western portions of the planning area, respectively.) HYDROLOGY Stu~face Water The planning area is located in the Livermore ~ainage unit of the Alameda Creek watershed, which includes an area of 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, only San Ramon and Alamo creeks flow through the city, wh~e Tassajara Creek is within the propased sphere of influence. 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 ~y periods of the year. Some are replenished from artificial 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 study area. Groimdwater The Livermore-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 is described as consisting 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 Valley 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 in the area since 1979, when Zone 7 began distributing water from the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) exclusively. This change was brought about because of the hardness of the water and the high level of total dissolved solids in the Valley's groundwaters. -45- ,. . ~ Plood Hazards and Control Zone 7 of the Alameda County Water Conservation and Flood Control District is responsible for flood protection in the area. A special program is now in effect for drainage channel improvements as development occurs. These improvements, funded with development fees, are not expected to be major in Dublin. San ftamon Creek is now being improved, and Tassajara Creek improvements are now being completed. During the winters of 1981 and 1982, no significant flooding problems were reported in the planning area, suggesting that the area's drainage network can accommodate very heavy rainfall. The 100-year flood maps prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, do show a 100-year flood that inundates portions of the planning area, generally in the vicinity of Dougherty Road at I-580, Amador Valley Boulevard/I-680, and Tas~ajara RoadlI-580. HABITATS Three major types of natural habitat are found in the planning area, in addition to the ~ban 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 wate~ courses throughout the area are occasional riparian woodlands. The Urban Envirorun ent The developed portion of the planning area has been ~amatically altered from its natural state and contains largely introduced and highly managed plant species. Present are disti.u~bance-tolerant animals such as rabbits, rodents, skunks, and bats-- species that are, for the most part, considered as pests. An exception is the bird life, which is plentiful though of relatively few species. 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 corr sidered excellent examples of this vegetative community. Common grassland wilcIlife include rodents, rabbits, reptilels such as rabbits, rodents, skunks, and bats-species that are, for the most part, considered as pests. An exception is the bird life, which is plentiful though of relatively few species. Woo~snds The western portion of the planning area forms part of a regional ridgelands resource spanning Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. The Alameda Ridgelands contain scattered woocIlands, particularly characteristic of moist, sheltered, and shaded habitats. Woodlands also cover most of the norttr and east facing slopes of the larger ridges, which are shielded from direct afternoon swilight. Oak species -46- ^ ~ a ., dominate the woocIlands. 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 tmderstory is dominated by poison oak and coffee- berry. There is evidence that no new oak woodlands are becoming established in California, so the current supply may be all that ever will exist. A National Parks Service study conducted in 1980 concludes that the ridgelands "play an ea~tremely important role in terms of providing regiona] open space for the San Francisco Bay Area." A 1977 multi-jurisc~etional 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 ~ban development be confined within and adjacent to existing urban areas and outside of the ridgelands. The Pleasanton General Plan considers the "extensive undisturbed area along the ridges ...(as) a major native California botanical resource." Kip~arian Woo~ands The plant species supported by riparian woocIlands are very similar to those associa- tions common in the cool moist areas of the ridgelands, but the riparian environment serves an important role in protecting watercourse integrity as well as providing a particular habitat. 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 banlcs is to protect the plant and animal habitat created by the stream. Basirr wide, vegetation reduces the total volume of streamflow as well as ma}dng the flow more constant and regular. During the dry season, the riparian vegetation provides shelter to many animals not usually found in it, and throughout the year birds and mammals find food, water, and cover in riparian woo~ands along their migration and movement routes. Riparian woodlands have become scarce in the region due to urbanization and conse- quent flood control efforts. As riparian areas are disrupted as a corzsequence of changes in land use, total basin runoff and peak streamflow increases, water quality becomes more susceptible to change, and a valuable aesthetic resource is lost.. AGRICIILTURAL OPEN SPACE Most of the unwooded portions of the extended plannirtg area are used for graang. Typical yields are three times the state average for rangeland. No survey of the acreage committed or the number of animals graang 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 has a market value far in excess of 10 times these amounts, it is clear that ownership is motivated in different ir~stances by some combination of personal satisfaction, expectation of capital gairy or desire to tax shelter incom e f rom other so~ces. 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 -47- . c , w 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 Proposition 13 cut agricultural property taxes by about on~half. The contract automatically renews each year for a new 10-year period unless the owner states an intention to terminate at the end of the current 10-year period. Cancellation, 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.). Althotgh 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 ban}dng imtil 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 (desirability of retaining agricult~se). 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 operators in the planning area. Agreement with this point does not mean that regula- tion to retain open space should be viewed as inverse condemnation or a taldng of property rights. The environmental quality of the Bay Area as well as the continued viability of agriculture are dependent on regulations that do not permit urban development on every acre of privately owned land in the nine Bay Area counties. AIR 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 smog. Air quality in the Valley is a funetion of location, topography, and pollutant-generating activities both in and out of the Tri-Valley. Sunshine and warm temperatures, valued by many Bay Area residents, contribute to air quelity problems in asociation with other characteristics of the planning area, ma{dng it difficult to attain air quality standards designed to protect the public health. The topography of the Valley favors the creation of temperat~e inversions, a condi- tion in which warm air traps a layer of cooler air beneath it, thus prevenhng vertical mixing of air and resulting in concentration of pollutants in the air mass closest to the ground. Temperature inversions occur as low ss 2,500 feet in the Dublin area. Surface winds are generally channeled through the passes into the Valley, creating predominant westerly, southwesterly, 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. -48- . ~ ~ ~. , Since 1967, all major air pollutants except hydrocarbons have been continually monitored in the Valley. Air quality problems in the area are almost exclusively 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 simlight. Since sunlight is an ingredient in the ozon~producing process, oxidants are a seasonal problem, occurring principally between the months of April and October. Ozone has negative health effects ss 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-cisk groups, most notably infants and the elderly, 8re 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 com pared with data f rom the Frem ont m oni toring stati on, 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). Federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide have never been exceeded at the Livermore monitorirg station. As monitoring is done in Liver- more, it is difficult to assess the effect of the I-580/I-680 interchange on CO levels in the immediate area. As Valley growth causes increased traffic volumes, CO may emeroe as a prbblem pollutant in the Valley. - The volume of total suspended particulates (TSP) has been a source of concern in the Livermore area. Wh~le standards were not exceeded in 1981 or 1982, in 1980 California 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, oNy about 23 percent of par- ticulate matter is produced by automobiles. As the Tri-Valley has few sources of industriel pollution, the high levels of particulates could 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 strirgent secondary standards that protect property and aesthehes. Attainment and exceedance is in relation to the primary standards. All standards are fig~es 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 -49- . ", . maintenance and planning in the Bay Area: the California Air Resources Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). BAAQMD is empowered to control air pollution from stationary sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The California Air Kesources Board sets motor vehicle emissions standards, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commisson (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 addressng 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 envirorr mental review process. Additionally, j~isdictions should be aware of any local im pacts of air quality m aintenance plan polici es. 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 a.ir 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 trarLSportation system improvements. Three factors prompted the revision of the 1979 plan: 1) the fact that the State Legislat~e has not authorized the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program adopted in the 1979 plan; 2) the 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 pollutant~-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 becom es increasingly clear as the automobile fleet gets eleaner 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 industriat activity have been reduced. The plan acknowledges that the most effective and cost- effective pollution control measures are already in effect in the Bay Area, and that as a result subsequent meas~es 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 ava~able control technology on existing stationary sources; new so~ce review (e.g. industry~ motor vehicle inspection and maintenance; and trar~portation system improvements. The major control programs recommended by the updated plan are motor vehicle irspection and maintenance; transportation system improvements; and stationary source control measures consisting of 22 new regulations. The range of proposed stationary source control meastses includes regulations that will affect the use or production of pesticides, plastics, natural gas and crude oil, and aerosol pro- pellants. As pollution control programs reduce emissions, the number of individual sources continues to rise. Over the past decade, air quality has improved despite increasng population and industrial activity in the Bay Area. However, projected growth in the -50- , [.. s 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. Funchng for projects such as freeway improvments or additional wastewater dispasal capacity could be withheld. ti~~ , Three soil associations predominate in the planning area, corresponding to the varying slope and topography of the Valley bottom and uplands. So~1 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 so~1s found in the city's proposed sphere 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 eleared in the course of development, these natural funetions will be last 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 aress while identical adjacent land shows extensive sli~ng, suggesting that a significant increase in debris flows would follow clearing of the woodland vegetation, presenting yet another obstacle to development of the area. Western sectian of piannirg area: Three predominant soil series, Los Gatos, Los Osos and M~lsholm, 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 sectian of plannicg area: The uplands east of the incorporated area are almast 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 so~s 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 te~tu~es, with clayey surface so~1s and very hard surface soils. Drainage is typically good with occasional excessive dra.inage and poor ~ainage in small valleys. Fertility is moderate to high. The area just north of the freeway can be considered as a transitional zone from Valley floor to uplands in terms of so~1 type as well as slope. The area contains so~1s of the Diablo and Linne series, but also clear lake clays, rincon clay loams, and fin~ textured alluvium, more typical of the Valley floor. Gentler terrain mear~s greatly reduced erosion hazard. -51- i; r 0 ~ ~ Urban area: The soils of the city principally belong to the Clear Lake-Sunnyvale Association, characterized by well to imperfectly c~ained 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 so~1s characteristic of the uplands and sim~lar to those found east of Camp Parks and Santa Rita, principally Diablo clays and Linne clay loams. ffiNE RAI~S 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 diff erent tim es. ARCHAEOLOQC RFSOUKCES The planning area is being si.a~veyed for archaeologic sites by the Northwest Information Center of the Department of Archaeology, Sonoma State University. Results of their s~vey will be included in the technical supplement to the General Plan. PLANNIIIG LSSIIES 1. Preservation of streamcourses and riparian vegetation. 2. Future of grazing. 3. Preservation of oak woodlands as a vegetative resource. 4. Preservation of ridgelands as a regional open space resource. 5. Potential effect of steep slope vegetation removal on erosion. 6. Retention of character of hills if development does take place in proposed sphere. 7. Nat~e of development in hills, i.e. ~ban or rural. 8. Effect on air quality of recent dramatic increase in proposed Tri-Valley employ- m ent. 9. Feasibility of development on lands of over 30 percent slope. 10. Effect of projected development on Tri-Valley air quality. 11. Role of City in air quality management. -5 2- ~ ~~ o 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Population and Employment City of Pleasanton. Final EIR on Hacienda Business Park Planned Unit Development, Volume II. May 1982. De Leuw, Cather ~C Company and DKS Associates. BART Extension Study: Update Analysis. Interim Report No. conceptual design. San Francisco: May, 1983. Gruen Gruen + Associates. A Survey Analysis of the Empl Housin~ Characteristics of the Hacienda Business Park Francisco: October. 1982. 1 - Task I system ent, Demographic and ~or Pool. San Gruen Gruen + Associates. The Jobs/Housin~ Balance in the City of Pleasanton. San Francisco: December 29, 1981. Housing Alameda County Planning Department. Housin Element of the Alameda Count • General Plan (Revision), Volume 1(Summary . Hayward: Adopted February 7, 1980, July 21, 1981, and September 22, 1981. California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housin~ Directory: A Guide to State, Federal and Local Housing and Communit_y Development Laws and Programs. Second Edition. Sacramento: May, 1980. Land Use 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 Trainin~ Area, Pleasanto; California. Oakland: September 2, 1982. U.S. Army Engineer District and HQ Presidio of San Francisco. Reactivation ~_. Develpment Plans, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contr~ Costa Counties, California, Draft EIR. San Francisco: April, 1982. Contra Costa County. Draft EIR on West Branch General Plan Amendment. February, 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 Costa Counties: 1978. Liverm ore-Pleasanton -5 3- ~ ' ~ Murray School District. Murray School District iVlaster Plan (Revised). Dublin: June, 1982. Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School Consolidation/Closure/Reor~anization. Dublin: December, 1982. Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization, Appendix. Dublin: December, 1982. Public S~vices Camp Dresser dc MeKee Inc. Water Master Plan for Dublin. Prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Walnut Creek: December, 1981. Camp Dresser dc MeKee 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 Re~ional 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 ftesotu~ces Alameda County Planning Department. Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Hayward: Adopted November 23, 1976. Alameda County Planning Department. Draft EIR on General Plan Amendment Consideration, Nielsen Ranch, Unincorporated Alam eda County. Hayward: April 4, 1980. Alameda County Planning Department. Livermore Amador Valley Plannin~ 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. Bav Area Air Quality Plan (Draft). Berkeley: July, 1982. City of Pleasanton. Pleasanton General Plan. Adopted 1976. Dublin San ftamon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978- 1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978. Madrone Associates. Stream and Creekside Conservation Zones - City-Centered Corridor (East Marin) (Second Worldng Draft). Novato: 1980. Ridgelands Administrative Board. Ride~lands: A Multijurisdictional Open Space Study. East Bay: Adopted May 19, 1977. -54- ~ , . ~ U.S. Army Engineer District. Upper Alameda Creek Urban Study, Volumes I and II. 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 Feasibilit_y Study, Ridgelands, California. January, 1980. 56.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft ELS on Proposed Wastewater Management Pro~ram, Livermare-Amador Valley. 1975. -5 5-