HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.5 General Plan and EIR (2) q zo
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 10, 1984
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING
Dublin General Plan and EIR
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 - Revised Draft General Plan
2 - Revised Draft Housing Element
RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation
2 - Review and discuss any necessary
policy revisions with Staff
3 - Take testimony from public
4 - Close public hearing
5 - Direct Staff to make any necessary
policy revisions ,
6 - Direct Staff to have Supplement to
EIR prepared and released for
public review
7 - Direct that Revised Draft General
Plan and EIR as revised by
Supplement be brought back to City
Council for adoption as soon as
possible
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: (See below)
DESCRIPTION: On July 31, 1984 , the City Council
completed its initial review of the Draft General Plan policies .
The City Council directed Staff to prepare a Revised Draft
General Plan with the preliminary policy decisions for City
Council adoption and to advise the City Council on the need for a
Supplement to the EIR.
The Staff and John Blayney, General Plan Consultant, have
prepared the Revised Draft General Plan and Revised Draft Housing
Element for City Council review, revision and adoption. The
Staff and John Blayney have also reviewed the need for a
Supplement to the EIR and recommend that a Supplement be
prepared. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines state that a Supplement to the EIR need only contain
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
the information needed to make the previous EIR adequate for the
project as revised. The CEQA Guidelines require a Supplement to
be given at least a 30 day public review period.
The Staff and John Blayney recommend that only the potential
issues of traffic, air quality, and "jobs/housing balance" be
addressed, with analysis focused on the potential traffic issues .
The firm of TJKM, General Plan Traffic Consultants and City
Traffic Engineers, has stated that they could complete the
Supplemental traffic analysis in three weeks from authorization.
The cost would be $800 . 00 .
Staff recommends that the City Council :
1) Review the Revised Draft General Plan and direct Staff to
make any necessary policy revisions
2 ) Direct Staff to have a Supplement to EIR prepared and
released for public review
3 ) Direct that the Revised Draft General Plan and EIR as
revised by the Supplement be .brought 'back to the City
Council for adoption as soon �as practical .
r t
QTY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
VOLUME 1: PLAN POLICIES
D R A F T Text revised to include
City Council changes through July 31, 1984
Prepared f or the City of Dublin by
Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners
TJKM, Transportation Consultants, �Greek�l,rs�''`�°
Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Emeryville
Charles M. Salter do Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, San Francisco
f t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. iii
LISTOF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .
1.0. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . .. . . . . .. . 1
1.2. Development History of Dublin ... . . . ... ... .... . .. . . . . 1
1.3. Nature of the General Plan. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4. Primary Planning Area and
Extended Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. .. . .. . . . 2
1.5. Public Participation. . .... . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .... .. . . . . 3
1.6. Report Organization . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . 3
1.7. Subregional Development Projections. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.8. General Plan Map.. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . ... . . . 4
2.0. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
LAND USE ELEMENT .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .... . .. . .. . . . . 6
2.1. Residential Land Use.. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. 6
2.1.1. Housing Availability . . . . . .. .. . ... .. . . .. .. . . . . 6
2.1.2. Neighborhood Diversity . .... . .. ... ... . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Residential Compatibility . ... . . . .. ... . . . . . ... 7
2.1.4. Extended Planning Area. . ... . . ... .. .. . . . .. . . . 7
2.2. Commercial and Industrial Land Use... . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . 9
2.2.1. Downtown Dublin . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .... . . .. . . . 9
2.2.2. Automobile Dealerships .. .. .. . ..... .. . ... . . . . 10
2.2.3. Neighborhood Shopping Centers ....... . .. . . . . . 10
2.3.4. Business Parks .. . . . . . . . . .. ... . ....... . ... . . . 10
3.0. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ... . . . .. . . .. . ... . ... .. . ... . . 11
3.1. Open Space For Preservation of
Natural Resources. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .... .. ..... .... . ... 11
3.2. Agricultural Open Space . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ .. . . . . 11
3.3. Open Space for Outdoor Recreation .... .... .... ... .. .. 12
4.0. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: SCHOOLS,
PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES ... .. ... . . .. ... . . . .. .. . . . . 13
4.1. Public Schools. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. ...... .. ...... .. . ... 13
4.2. Public Lands .. . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . .... .... . .. . .. . .. . 13
4.3. Sewage Treatment and Disposal. . .. ... .. ..... .. .. . . . . . 14
4.4. Water Supply.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. ... . .. . . . . . . 14
5.0. LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
CIRCULATION & SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENTS .. . . . . . .. . . 15
5.1. Trafficways. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . ... ... . .. . . . . .. 15
5.2. Transit . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . 17
i
� r
a
5.4. Bicycle Routes .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. 17
5.5. Truck Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . 18
5.6. Scenic Highways .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.0. HOUSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 19
6.1. Housing Element Requirements and Organization. . . .. . . . 19
6.2. Housing Resources and Needs. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . 19
6.3. City Housing Goals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... . . . .. . . .. . 20
7.0. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
CONSERVATION ELEMENT . . .. .. .... . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . 23
7.1. Riparian Vegetation. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. ... . . . .. . 23
7.2. Erosion and Siltation Control . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . 24
7.3. Oak Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. 24
7.4. Air Quality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ...... 25
7.5. Agricultural Lands . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... .. . . ... .. . ... . . . . 25
7.6. Archeologic and Historic Resources .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 25
8.0. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
SAFETY & SEISMIC SAFETY .. . . ... . . ... . .. . . ..... . . .. ... 26
8.1. Seismic Safety . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. ... . .. ..... . .. ... 26
8.1.1. Structural and Grading Requirements . . . . . ... . . 26
8.1.2. Required Geotechnical Analyses. . ..... . .. . .. .. 27
8.1.3. Existing Structures .. . . . . .. ... ... ... .. . .. . . .. 28
8.1.4. Data Review and Collection . . ... ... . . .. .. . . . . 28
8.1.5. Earthquake Response Plan . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . 28
8.2 Safety .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... ... .. . .. .. ... . .. .. .. . 28
8.2.1. Emergency Preparedness Guiding Policy. .. . . .. . 29
8.2.2. Fire Hazard and Fire Protection. ... .. .... .. ... 29
8.2.3. Flooding . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . ... . . . .. . . . . 29
8.2.4. Hazardous Materials. . . .. . . .. .. . ... .. . ... . .. . 30
9.0. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
NOISE ELEMENT . . . ... .. . .. . .. . . . . ... .. .. .. . .. . . . .. ... . 31
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Housing Units and Population - Primary Planning Area . . .. .. . . . . . . 7
Development Policies for Residential Sites .. . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . 8
City of Dublin Existing and Planned Housing Units
By Type, November, 1983 .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . .. . .. .. . ... . . . ... . 20
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments . . . . ... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
(Omitted from this draft. Non-reproducible maps have been revised for adoption
hearing; report maps will be revised following adoption)
Follows Page
General Plan: Primary Planning Area Inside Front Cover
General Plan: Extended Planning Area Inside Front Cover
Available Residential Sites Map . .. . . . . .. .. . ... ... ....... . .. . . . . 9
Dublin Planning Area: Development Potential .. . .... .... .. ... . . . 10
Downtown Concept Sketch . .... .. . . .... ... . .. .... .. ... .... . ... 11
Daily Projected Traffic Volumes ... . . . . . ... . . . ..... ..... . .. .... 17
Geologic Hazards and Constraints Map . . .......... ...... .. 29
1983 Noise Exposure Contours .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . ....... . . ... 33
2005 Projected Noise Exposure Contours . . . . .. . . .. .... ... .. .. . . . 33
iii
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Dublin General Plan consists of the text and plan maps in Volume I, City of Dublin
General Plan: Plan Policies. The reader who wants to determine consistency of a
proposed project with the an need consult only this volume. Volume H, Cit of
Dublin General Plan: Technical Supplement and Environmental Impact Report EIR),
contains the background information on the issues that resulted in the plan policies.
The EIR must be certified as complete before the plan is adopted, but Volume U
material other than the detailed Housing Element (required bylaw) is not suitable for
adoption as policy, though some of the information may become the basis for ordi-
nances or programs to implement the General Plan. Volume I will be referred to as
the "Plan Policies Report" and Volume H will be referred to as the "Technical
Supplem ent:'
When recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council, the
text and plan maps in the Plan Policies Report will constitute a guide for the day to
day physical development decisions that will shape the social, economic, and environ-
mental character of the city and its extended planning area. State Law requires
Dublin to adopt a General Plan within 30 months from the time it commenced opera-
tion as a city on February 1, 1982. The law (Govt. Code 65300) directs each juris-
diction to include "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's
judgment bears relation to its planning." Consequently, the Dublin Planning Area as
determined by the Planning Commission and City Council includes 19.7 square miles,
4.1 square miles of which are currently in the city.
1.2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF DUBLIN
Most of the land in Dublin and San Ramon was granted in 1835 to Jose Maria Amador,
one of the area's earliest settlers. In the 1850s, Amador sold portions of his 16,100-
acre holding to James Dougherty, Michael Murray, and Jeremiah Fallon, forming a
hamlet that grew slowly during most of the next century.
During World War H, the Navy built Camp Parks to house 10,000 servicemen. The
Tri-Valley had few tract homes or commuters until 1960 when the Volk-McLain Com-
pany began work on San Ramon Village — budding several thousand moderately priced
homes advertised as "city close; country quiet." Urban services were provided by
annexation of San Ramon Village to what is now the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD). By 1970 four-fifths of Dublin's present homes were complete.
In 1967, an effort to incorporate Dublin was denied by the Alameda County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as contrary to County policy supporting only
one city in the west valley. A subsequent r &sendum on annexation of Dublin to
Pleasanton failed in Dublin. Before the Yncorporation election was held,
consideration was given to detaching Dublin from DSRSD and making it a"full
service" city, but keeping the existing arrangement was simpler and the "full-service"
choice did not appear on the ballot. In November, 1981, 75 percent of the votes cast
were for incorporation.
-1-
1.3 NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan provides a policy framework for development decisions. It has three
f unctions:
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 eff ects lasting more than 20 years. In order to create a useful context
for development decisions, the plan must look at least 20 years ahead.
Comprehensive: It must coordinate all major components of the community's physical
development. The relationship between land use intensity and traffic is the most
obvious.
General: Because it is long-range and comprehensive, the plan must be general.
Neither time nor knowledge exist to make it detailed or specific. The plan's purpose is
to serve as a framework for detailed public and private development proposals.
The Plan Policies (maps and text) can be amended as often as three times each year
(Gov. Code, Sec. 65361) and should be revised at least every five years. The Technical
Supplement should be revised whenever new information becomes available. Except
for the Housing Element, the contents of the Technical Supplement are not part of the
adopted General Plan and do not require hearings on revisions.
1.4 PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
The General Plan includes site-specific policies for the area within the 1982 City
boundaries and for the developable land immediately to the west (the primary planning
area).
It is essential that the City of Dublin establish guiding policies for the extended
planning area because it"bear(s)relation to its planning," regardless of when or
whether portions are annexed to the City. Policies for the 15 square miles consti-
tuting the extended planning area are conceptual because the information available on
environmental constraints, means of providing services, and landowners' intentions is
not sufficient to warrant adoption of more specific policies at this time. Text policies
take precedence because mapped policies are in schematic farm. Many or most deve-
lopment proposals in the extended planning area will require a General Plan amend-
ment, but if they are consistent with the text policies, the hearing process will focus
mainly on the suitability of the specific site for the type and timing of development
proposed.
-2-
1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Since work on the General Plan began in March, 1983, the Planning Commission and
City Council each have held three separate meetings and one joint meeting to consider
the plan. A Community Workshop held in July 1983 attracted about 25 participants in
addition to most members of the Commission and Council. General Plan discussions
were thorough, usually lasting more than four hours, but the number of public
participants has been small— probably because most residents in a nearly built-out
community do not expect the plan to have major effects on their lives or property.
During the same period hearings on several controversial medium or medium-high
density residential projects drew large audiences.
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
State Planning Law calls for nine General Plan elements: Land Use, Circulation,
Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, and
Saf ety.
A problem in organizing a General Plan report is covering the state's nine mandatory
elements without confusion or duplication. For simplicity, the nine elements are
grouped in three General Plan sections:
Land Use and Circulation Section
Land Use, Circulation and Scenic Highways, Parks and Open Space, and
Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities. The Schools, Public Lands, and
Utilities Element is not mandatory.
Housing Section
Housing Element
Environmental Resources Management Section
Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Seismic Safety Elements.
1.7 SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Dublin's 1983 population, estimated at 13,700, represented about 8 percent of the
166,000 residents in the Tri-Valley area (San Ramon, Livermore, and Amador valleys).
About half of the employed residents of Dublin and the Tri-Valley commute to jobs
outside of the area. By the year 2005 or shortly after, planned business parks, several
with large employers assured, are projected to add about 130,000 jobs to the 50,000
existing in the Tri-Valley in 1980. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
has projected construction of 40,000 additional housing units. Unless that number is
substantially exceeded, there are likely to be more in-commuters than out-commuters.
Dublin's primary planning area will be built-out long before the business parks are
full. Adding the extended planning area would bring job and population totals to about
15 percent of the Tri-Valley totals in 2005. Despite its small share of population,
Dublin's site at the junction of the Tri-Valley's two dominant transportation corridors
will enable it to remain the "downtown" for the Tri-Valley.
-3-
w
1.8 GENERAL PLAN MAP
The General Plan Map for the Primary Planning Area proposes an arrangement of land
uses and a circulation system to serve those uses at full development— expected to
occur within 10 years. Because so little land remains uncommitted, boundaries
between uses are exact. However, deviations in road alignments or open space con-
figurations, and requests for approval of churches or other semi-public facilities
typically appropriate to the adjoining uses are not to be considered inconsistent with
the General Plan. Both the map and the text should be consulted to determine
consistency or inconsistency; the text shall govern.
L8.1 Land Use Classifications
The following descriptions are intended to aid interpretations of the General Plan map
legends.
Primary Planning Area
Residential
Residential: Single family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acres Detached and
zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range. Examples are recent
subdivisions in Dublin's western foothills at about 2.0 units per acre and Ponderosa
Village at 5.8 units per acre.
Residential:- Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). The range
allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for family
living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and densities
may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires mixed dwelling types, listed policies
specific to the site govern the location and distribution of dwelling types. Recently
reviewed projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8), and
Amador Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills (13.5).
ResidentiaL• Medium-High Density(14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre).
Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some under-structure
parking and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance
open space requirements. Examples of medium-high density projects include The
Springs (17.8), and Greenwood Apartments (19.8).
Comm er ci alAndustri al
Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices,
motels, service stations and sale of auto parts are included in this classification.
Residential use is excluded except in the Downtown Intensification Area.
Retail/Office and Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses and
adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not
permitted
-4-
t
w
Business Park/Industrial. Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufac-
turing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy
trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses
are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are
controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40
FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue; Sierra Court.
Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage. In addition to the Business Park/Industrial
uses described above, this classification includes retail and manufacturing activities
conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage.
Example: Scarlett Court.
Public/Semi-Public
Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that
are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses are labeled.
Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall
be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing
should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and
design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development proposal under the
Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches.
Parks/Public Recreation Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities.
Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes
greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands.
Rdended Planning Area
Residential and Open Space
See General Plan Map and Sections 2.1.4, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
Commercial/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial; Low Coverage: This classification is intended to provide a
campus-like setting for the uses described in the Business Park/Industrial classi-
fication for the Primary Planning Area and to allow retail uses to serve businesses and
residents. Maximum floor area ratio (building floor area as percent of lot area) to be
determined by zoning regulations should be between .25 and .37.
See General Plan Map and Section 2.3.4.
Business Park/Industrial: Same as in Primary Planning Area.
Public Lands
Large holdings such as Parks RFTA, Santa Rita and Tassajara Creek Regional Park.
-5-
r
2.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element contains policies for the location and intensity of residential,
commercial, and industrial land uses. Policies relating specifically to open space,
parks and schools appear under those headings.
Because. 90 percent of the primary planning area has been developed since 1960 or has
development approvals, the Land Use Element focuses on the remaining uncommitted
sites and on the potential for more intensive use of partially developed sites. Land use
changes in the extended planning area will be more dramatic, but urban development
there is likely to occur mainly after the mid-1990's.
The primary pl ning area is expected to be built-out within ten years, adding 3,500
J housing units, 8,$00 residents, and 2,400 jobs to the 1983 totals. Except for downtown
intensification, the General Plan does not envision highly visible changes in Dublin, but
it does provide for more than a 60 percent gain in population. Housing unit and popu-
lation projections for the primary and extended planning areas are presented in the
tables on the following page.
2.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
2.1.1 Housing Availability
Guiding Policy
A. Encourage housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet current and
future needs of all Dublin residents. (Same as Housing Element goal #1.)
Implementing Policy
B. Designate sites available for residential development in the primary
planning area for medium to medium-high density where site capability
and access are suitable and where the higher density would be compatible
with existing residential development nearby. (See Development Policies
table.)
2.L2 Neighborhood Diversity
Guiding Policy
A. Avoid economic segregation by city sector.
Implementing Policies
B. Allocate medium and medium-high residential densities to development
sites in all sectors of the primary planning area. Require some of the
units approved east of the Dougherty Hills to be single family detached.
(See Development Policies Table)
C. Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects. (See Development
Policies table.)
-6-
r
HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION -PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
Total Units Multi-Family Units Population a
Existing, May 1983 4,428 386 13,700
Approved, as of 1,800 1,100 4,400
November, 1983
Potential Additional 1,700 1,200 4,000
Development
TOTAL 7,900 2,700 22,00
a Assumes 3.2 persons per single-family unit; 2.0 persons per multi-family unit.
Totals rounded.
2.L3 Residential Compatibility
Guiding Policy
A. Avoid abrupt transitions between single family development and higher
density development on adjoining sites.
Implementing Policies
B. Require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of residential
development nearby.
C. Require a planned development zoning process for all development
proposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre.
2.L4 Extended Planning Area
Guiding Policy
A. Consider residential development proposals (including support facilities)
on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on
flatter land and next to business park areas.
Many potential sites are under Williamson Act contract requiring open space use for at
least 10 years.
-7-
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES FOR RESIDENTIAL SITES
Site Sites Map Number Acres Maximum Units General Plan Residential Designations
East of Dougherty Hills 1 79 1,105 Medium Density with required mixed dwelling types
including single family detached and permitting up to
25 units per acre on portions of the site J
Pleasanton Housing Authority, 2 3± 42 Medium Density ~/
southwest portion of site
South of Alcosta Boulevard, 3 2 26 Medium Density
east of I-680
South side of Betlen Drive 4 9 54 Single Family
west of Prow way
Abutting approved Nielsen 5 4 32 Medium Density (8 ±per acre to match
/tentative map multifamily Neilsen tentative map multi-family density
north of Hansen Read.®Y V_zj
C0 6 of approved 6 7 20 Single family (density within single family
Nielsen tentative map, maximum dependent on site conditions)
north of Valley Christian Center
Abutting north property 7 6 20 Single family (density within single family
line of Valley Christian Center maximum dependent on site conditions)
� - _
West of Dougherty Road, 8 - X59Q(Z) Medium-High Density
,� �
south of Amador Valley Blvd. retail/office, or mix
Fallon School Site 9 8 48 Single Family
Dolan Site, Murray 11 22 88 Single Family at 4 units/acre maximum
School District
Valley Christian Center 12 15+ na Public/Semi-Public facilities
Downtown Intensification Area 13 na (200) Estimate of units is tentative and could
increase significantly if mid-rise, mixed-use
TOTAL 157 1,685 buildings achieve market acceptance
Implementing Policies
B. The location, extent and density of residential development will be
determined when municipal services can be provided and through General
Plan refinement studies.
C. Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will
require determination that:
- Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban stan-
dards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses.
Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the
ridgelands.
Timing of development will not result in premature termination of
viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands.
2.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
Dublin's central location has made it the Tri-Valley's commercial center, with more
than 600 retail businesses and a wide variety of distributors, business service provi-
ders, builders and building subcontractors, manufacturers, and region-serving offices.
The City's ability to provide municipal services depends on the income generated by
business. er t o t e n
2.2.1 Downtown Dublin
Guiding Policy
A. Intensify Downtown Dublin.
The present collection of adjoining shopping centers can become a downtown with the
variety, convenience, and visual prominence that is rarely found in communities built
since the automobile became dominant. (See Downtown Concept Sketch.)
Implementing Policies
B. Provide a downtown BART station that will serve customers and workers
with and without cars. Add offices and apartments within walking dis-
tance — and eventually over BART parking.
C. Encourage mid-rise office/apartment buildings and parking structures
with ground floor retail space. Create store-lined pedestrian connections
between existing shopping centers.
D. Make downtown more understandable to the first-time visitor by instal-
ling standardized identification signs and directories soon.
-9-
r
2.2.2 Automobile Dealerships
Guiding Policy
A. Keep automobile dealers in Dublin.
hey ac"u tin for or fou o h s�ales
Implementing Policy
B. Allow for the creation of an auto center east of Parks RFTA.
If or when downtown land becomes too costly for car dealers they will have the oppor-
tunity to relocate in an auto center with freeway frontage.
2.2.3 Neighborhood Shopping Centers
Guiding Policy
A. Strengthen existing neighborhood shopping centers.
Competition from downtown and from north of the County line leaves no trade area
within the primary planning area for neighborhood shopping centers other than Dublin
Square, San Ramon Village Plaza, and Village Square.
Implementing Policy
B. Require a planned development proposal at the Southwest corner of
Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road to include medium-high
residential, retail/off ice, or a mix of these uses.
2.3.4 Business Parks
Guiding Policy
A. % space far new businesses and for expansion of existing Dublin
firms.
Implementing Policy
B. Designate a 600-acre business park on Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
property in accord with Alameda County's long-term plans for site use.
C. Consider sites for business parks east of Parks RFTA. Retail uses to
serve nearby businesses and residences will be determined by General
Plan refinement studies prepared in cooperation with property owners.
-10-
r
3.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
State planning law calls for an inventory and policies for preserving and managing four
categories of open space lands:
(1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources.
(2) Open space for the managed production of resources.
(3) Open space for outdoor recreation.
(4) Open space for public health and safety.
3.1 OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Guiding Policies
A. Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open
space for their natural resource value.
B. Maintain slopes over 30 percent as permanent open space for public
health and safety.
Implementing Policy
C. Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as
a condition of subdivision map approval.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE
Excluding parcels fronting on I-580, about 90 percent of the extended planning area is
under Williamson Act Agreement (Admin. Code Sec. 51200, et seq.) and Alameda
County zoning sets minimum parcel size at 100 acres. Under the Williamson Act,
property taxes are based on the agricultural value of land rather than its market
value. The contract automatically renews each year for a new 10-year period unless
the owner or the County gives notice of non-renewal.
Guiding Policy
A. Maintain lands currently in Williamson Act agricultural preserve as
rangeland, provided that specific proposals for conversion to urban use
consistent with the General Plan may be considered not sooner than two
years prior to contract expiration.
Implementing Policy
B. Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall
require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will
have adequate urban services and that conversion to urban use will not
have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under
contract.
-11-
3.3 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
Dublin currently has three main outdoor recreational sites, the Sports Grounds
(23 acres), Shannon Park and Community Center (10 acres), and Valley Community
Swim Center (3 acres). Additionally, three small neighborhood parks adjoin schools
(Mape, Cronin, and Kolb). The need for recreation facilities will increase as popula-
tion grows and if surplus school sites are sold, there will be no public play space near
the homes of many children.
Guiding Policies
A. Expand park area to serve new development.
B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities at existing schools and at DSRSD
recreation sites.
Implementing Policy
C. Acquire three five-acre neighborhood parks:
- East of Dougherty Hills as land is subdivided.
- On Fallon School site (enlarging Kolb Park) when the site is sold by
Murray School District.
- On Dolan School site when the site is sold by Murray School
District.
D. Adopt policy to work with DSRSD and Murray School District to enhance
DSRSD and School District park and recreation facilities.
Guiding Policy
E. Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major
ridgelines.
The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary planning area are
an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open
hills.
Implementing Policy
F. Use subdivision design and site design review process to preserve or
enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways or
major arterial streets.
-12-
r
4.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
SCHOOLS PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES ELEMENT
This non-mandatory element is included in the General Plan as a means of expressing
the policies of the City of Dublin concerning lands and services critical to the growth
and development of Dublin that are operated by independent units of government.
4.1 PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Enrollment in the Murray School District (grades K-8) has been declining since 1973.
Currently, three K-6 schools (Nielsen, Murray and Cronin) and two 7-8 schools (Wells
and Frederiksen) accommodate Dublin students. Frederiksen School is to be closed in
1985. The General Plan envisions that Dublin School, now leased to a private school,
will need to be re-opened as a public school as new homes west of San Ramon Road
are occupied.
Dublin High School (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District) will continue to
serve Dublin.
Guiding Policy
A. Cooperate with Murray School District to ensure preservation of surplus
sites compatible with surrounding land uses and Housing Element
objectives.
Implementing Policy
B. Initiate preparation of site plans or specific plans jointly with School
District prior to sale.
This type of cooperation will achieve harmonious relationships between new develop-
ment and existing residential areas and new park sites (See Open Space Element).
4.2 PUBLIC LANDS
The Federal and County governments and the East Bay Regional Parks District have
large holdings in the extended planning area that are vital to Dublinrs image and its
eastward expansion.
Guiding Policies
A. Maintain communication with military administrators and congressional
representatives to urge that Parks RFTA be developed and operated as a
good neighbor to Dublin.
B. Support retention and development of Tassajara Creek Regional Park, or
if it is re-acquired by the Army, replacement by East Bay Regional Park
District lands in or adjoining the extended planning area.
-13-
f
C. Request the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and County Planning
Commission to formally recognize Dublin's direct interest in uses and
development standards for portions of Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
that are to be sold or leased for private development.
Implementing Policies
D. Negotiate participation by Parks RFTA in design of Dougherty Road
improvements and establishment of a landscaped buffer strip.
E. Negotiate reservation of an alignment for Dublin Boulevard extension
across Parks RFTA and Santa Rita land. Consult with the federal
government and the county concerning appropriate uses and development
standards between Dublin Boulevard extension and I-580.
4.3 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
The existing Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)sewage treatment plant
adjoining I-680 in Pleasanton could be expanded to four times its present size, but the
Livermore Amador Valley Waste Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipeline that
carries treated effluent from Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin through Dublin Can-
yon to the Bay is nearing capacity. Growth will be curtailed within two to five years
unless valleywide voter approval for expansion is obtained. Studies leading to specific
proposals to increase wastewater disposal capacity are underway in early 1984.
Guiding Policy
A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining
development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
4.4 WATER SUPPLY
Dublin's water is distributed by DSRSD, which purchases water from Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which, in turn,
imports it from the Sierras via the South Bay Aqueduct. The supply may run short in
the 1990s if no new sources become available.
Guiding Policies
A. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be
sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported
water if necessary.
B. Consider obtaining water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility
District.
-14-
e
5.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION:
CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENTS
5.1 TRAFFICWAYS
The I-680 freeway is to be widened to eight lanes within the next five years and the
freeway to freeway interchange will be rebuilt as both freeways and the arterial
street system experience heavy new demands from development in adjoining commu-
nities.
Guiding Policy
A. Improve freeway access.
Implementing Policies
B. Add an I-680 interchange at or near Amador Valley Boulevard.
Access to downtown from the north is needed at a point closer than Alcosta Boulevard
and the entire central portion of the City needs an alternative to congested Dublin
Boulevard intersections at San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road.
C. Work with the City of San Ramon to increase the capacity of the Alcosta
Boulevard interchange by relocating southbound I-680 ramps to intersect
San Ramon Road north of Alcosta.
Guiding Policy
D. Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow
arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the
least friction.
The Daily Projected Traffic Volumes map shows existing and projected flows and lane
requirements. The General Plan does not include more detailed street improvement
proposals.
Implementing Policies
E. Develop a plan line for a six lane divided extension of Dublin Boulevard
from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary.
This route will be the only non-freeway connection between the present city and new
residential and business park development east of Parks RFTA.
F. Connect existing cul-de-sac streets near proposed BART station south of
Dublin Boulevard.
The proposed new street parallel to Dublin Boulevard is needed to serve intensive
development of a 100 acre commercial area and to distribute BART station traffic to
three Dublin Boulevard intersections.
-15-
G. Reserve right of way for Hansen Drive extension to the western hills.
If residential development in the extended planning area is to be part of Dublin, this is
the preferred connection.
H. Design Dougherty Road as a six lane divided arterial street.
Development in Contra Costa County will contribute more than half the traffic, so the
full cost should not be borne by Dublin users.
I. Prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets by through traffic.
Traffic controls will be considered to correct specific problems.
5.2 TRANSIT
BART currently operates two bus lines serving BART rail stations and providing limi-
ted local transit service. Dublin taxpayers have been paying their full share for direct
rail service as shown on the original BART plan, but other extensions competing for
funding have received stronger support from the Metropolitan Transportation Commis-
sion staff. The rail service proposal was revised in 1983 to indicate BART in the I-580
freeway median with stations in downtown Dublin and at Hacienda Drive.
The Pleasanton/Dublin Short Range Transit Plan, (December, 1983), proposes a nine-
bus fleet providing local service on routes within three blocks of 85 percent of Dublin's
residents.
Guiding Policies
A. Support a compact multi-story downtown BART station and a second
station to the east along I-580, provided the BART rail line is extended at
least to the eastern limits of the City of Pleasanton.
B. Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environ-
ment, particularly for residents who g-s�e-� o drive.
Implementing Policies
C. Urge BART cooperation in maintaining availability of station sites and
develop standards for review of public and private improvements in the
vicinity of BART stations that take account of both future traffic needs
and development opportunities.
D. Pursue formation of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement with neigh-
boring jurisdictions to enable use of Transportation Development Act
funds to begin improved local transit service late in 1984.
The proposed bus loop would start at San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd., proceeding via
Dublin Blvd., Hansen Drive, Silvergate, Peppertree, Shannon, San Ramon Road,
Alcosta, Davona, Village Parkway, Amador Valley Blvd., Dougherty Road, Dublin Blvd,
San Ramon Road, to Stoneridge and Pleasanton.
-16-
5.3 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties are considering means of preserving the Southern
Pacific right of way. Track has been removed from all but the Alameda County
portion of the San Ramon Branch line between Pleasanton and Pleasant Hill, and only
one or two rail customers remain. Recent studies have proposed future use for light
rail transit or as a busway.
Guiding Policy
A. Support preservation of the Southern Pacific right of way as a potential
transportation corridor.
B. Consider potential recreational use in conjunction with transportation
use.
Committed development will require additional transportation capacity in the San
Ramon Valley corridor, so all options should be kept open.
5.4 BICYCLE ROUTES
Guiding Policy
A. Provide safe bike routes along major arterial streets.
Implementing Policy
B. Complete the following bikeways system:
San Ramon Road: Existing separate bike path.
Village Parkway: Existing bike lane north of Amador Valley
Boulevard; designate sidewalk to south.
Dougherty Road: Incorporate separate bike/jogging path in new
design
Amador Valley Blvd.: Existing bike lane west of Village Parkway;
review need for striped lane east of Village
Parkway.
Dublin Blvd.: Designate sidewalk.
SP Right of Way Trans-
portation Corridor: Incorporate bike/jogging path in design.
-17-
5.5 TRUCK ROUTES
Guiding Policy
A. Designate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial
streets.
Implementing Policy
B. Restrict through trucks to I-580 and I-680.
5.6 SCENIC HIGHWAYS
I-580, I-680, San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by
Alameda County in 1966. These are the routes from which people travelling through
Dublin gain their impression of the city, so it is important that the quality of views be
protected.
In the extended planning area, Tassajara Road and Doolan Road are designated by
Alameda County.
Guiding Policy
A. Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General Plan and
work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travellers.
Implementing Policy
B. Exercise design review of all projects within 500 feet of a scenic route
and visible from it
-18-
r
6.0 HOUSING
6.1 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION
The Housing Element in full is included in the Technical Supplement.
State Requirements. By law (Gov. Code Sect. 65580 through 65589), the Housing
Element must contain:
1. An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and con-
straints relevant to the meeting of these needs;
2. A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies
relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing;
and
3. A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local
government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the
policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
The housing program must: identify adequate sites available for residential devel-
opment for a variety of types of housing for all income levels; assist in the develop-
ment of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households;
address governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development
of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing
stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons.
6.2 HOUSING RESOURCES AND NEEDS
Most of the City's 4,400 housing units were built by the Volk-McLain Company during
the 1960's and are single family, one story houses with three or four bedrooms. Only
386 units, (nine percent) are multi-family, although another 1,100 multi-family units
were approved by late 1983. The 1980 Census reported that 23 percent of Dublin
residents rent their homes. As all but 10 to 15 percent of multi-family units are
occupied by renters, it can be assumed that about 15 percent of Dublin's single family
homes were rented in 1980.
For many, Dublin's predominance of single-family homes on 5,000 to 8,000 square foot
lots is a desirable feature and one that helps to define a community of families with
moderate incomes, typically earning 80 to 120 percent of the Bay Area median.
Today's moderate income households, however, cannot afford today's new single-
family homes, forcing the City to choose between attempting to maintain its tradi-
tional type of housing and maintaining a community with housing available to its
traditional residents. A household earning 120 percent of median income could not
afford a home costing more than $75,000 in 1983, assuming 25 percent of income spent
for housing and a 13 percent, 30 year loan with a 10 percent down payment.
As moderate income households are faced with increasing difficulty in purchasing
homes, low income households are finding it more difficult than ever to obtain
housing. The regional housing needs determination prepared-by the Association of Bay
-19-
Area Governments (ABAG) allocates 1,956 additional units to Dublin by 1990, inc-
luding 665 units affordable by low (less than 80 percent of median) and very low in-
come (less than 50 percent of median) households. General Plan policies will enable
Dublin to exceed the ABAG total unit quota, but the target for low and very low
income units is unrealistic unless federal subsidy programs for new construction are
revived. Dublin now has 186 subsidized units.
With nearly one-quarter of Dublin's housing stock at full development yet to be
approved, and 70 percent of the remaining units anticipated to be at medium or
medium-high density, Dublin is making a strong effort to meet housing needs.
Unless the economy stagnates or sewage capacity increases are blocked, Dublin will be
built out within the next five to ten years. Only 157 acres suitable for residential
development remain in the City. (See Development Policies table and map in Land
Use Element).
City of Dublin:' Msting and Planned Housing Units By Type
November, 1983
Cumulative
Total Single- Multi- Percent
Units Family Family Multi-Family
Existing Occupied or 4,428 4,042 386 9
Previously Occupied
Approved or Under 1,800 700 1,100 _ 24
Consideration
Totals (rounded) 6,200 4,700 1,500
6.3 CITY HOUSING GOALS
Guiding Policies
The following goals direct the City's housing program. Policy objectives that imple-
ment City goals are presented with individual housing strategies in the full Housing
Element.
A. Encourage housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet current and
future housing needs of all Dublin residents.
B. Preserve Dublin's existing housing stock in sound condition.
C. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public services and will
be accessible to public facilities and employment and commercial cen-
ters.
-20-
D. Work for equal housing opportunity and access for all persons regardless
of race, religion, national origin, sex, marital/family status or other
arbitrary factors.
6.4 SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES
Implementing Policies
A. Designate sites available for residential development in the primary
planning area for medium to medium-high density where site capability
and access are suitable and where the higher density would be compatible
with existing residential development nearby. (See Development Policies
table.)
B. Treat one-bedroom and studio apartments as equivalent to 75 percent of
a housing unit when computing allowable density, provided that the
maximum number of units permitted on a site shall not be increased by
more than 25 percent including any state-mandated bonus.
Regulating density solely on the basis of units per acre provides an unintended incen-
tive to build the largest units that can be marketed. Because small units have less
impact as measured by household size, floor area, and vehicle trip generation, it is
logical to permit more of them. With no limit, the 75 percent rate could increase the
number of units on a site by one-third. The 25 percent maximum allowable increase
will encourage variety in unit sizes.
C. Allow residential development in Downtown Intensification Area.
The potential for residential development in mixed use buildings downtown is esti-
mated at 200 units, but more could be built.
D. Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable housing on
their sites.
The land use definitions consider housing on a semipublic site consistent with the
General Plan, subject to Planned Unit Development approval.
E. Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects be rented for
a specified period of time.
This appears to be the most feasible means of insuring the availability of rental
housing.
F. Encourage development of second units in existing single family homes
State law requires jurisdictions to provide for second units. The City has adopted an
ordinance establishing standards for second units and will implement a public aware-
ness program intended to achieve a goal of second units in ten percent of homes with
three or more bedrooms.
-21-
G. Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop below-market rate
urdis
This strategy has been used in several Alameda County cities to produce up to 20
percent below-market rate units on sites similar to Dublin's surplus school sites.
H. Work with Pleasanton toward establishing a joint housing authority.
Dublin's only public housing project, Arroyo Vista, is owned and operated by the Plea-
santon Housing Authority. Participation in a joint authority would give Dublin an
official voice in Housing Authority decisions affecting Dublin.
I. Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in
Dublin
Several acres of undeveloped land remaining on the Pleasanton Housing Authority
Arroyo Vista site would be appropriate f or senior or other subsidized housing.
J. Monitor availability of rental housing. If deemed necessary, consider
enactment of an ordinance regulating conversion to condominium
ownership.
K. Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assis-
tance for the purpose of including below market rate units in proposed
projects; assist developers in obtaining information on available prog-
rams.
This would ensure that available subsidy programs are being used where appropriate.
L. Grant 25 percent density bonuses for provision of 25 percent affordable
units in a project as required by state law.
Developers have rarely found this provision to provide adequate incentive for volun-
tary action.
M. Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others
seeking housing in Dublin
Existing governmental and private agencies assist victims of housing discrimination;
the City will refer complaints to those agencies.
N. Continue code enforcement program. Aid low income households in
obtaining financial assistance for housing rehabilitation.
The City's building inspection program will be continued and will be expanded to
include provision of information on rehabilitation assistance for low income house-
holds.
-22-
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult conser-
vation issues affecting urban growth, even with construction of the Livermore Amador
Valley Wastewater Management Association (LAVWMA) pipeline, and significantly
improved air quality. The extent of anticipated development now draws greater
attention to other conservation issues — conversion of agricultural land to urban uses;
loss of open space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide-prone areas;
increased runoff; and erosion and stream siltation. Additionally, the prospect of
renewed or intensified air quality and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans
approved or under consideration that would result in up to 200,000 jobs in the Tri-
Valley.
Open space resources are discussed in the open space element; the seismic safety and
safety elements consider natural hazards. This section and its counterpart in the
Technical Supplement consider hydrology, habitats, agricultural open space, air, soil
resources, and archaeologic and historic resources.
The planning area includes three zones that are distinct in terms of topography, vege
tation, and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area
just north of I-580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land
east of Parks RFTA and Santa Rita and south of the county line consists of grassy
rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning
area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands
on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These zones are referred to below as the
valley, eastern hills, and western hills portions of the planning area, respectively.)
The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa
Clara counties, established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National
Parks Service study. The ridgelands have been the subject of preservation efforts over
the years, and also have been protected by the difficulty of development on the steep
slopes and ridges. The ridgelands of the western hills are characterized by good
quality grazing land and woodland and forest habitats with high natural resource
values. Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings
the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread.
The eastern hills are not as valuable as the western hills in terms of habitat, but do
include grazing and hay-growing land of unusually high quality. Throughout the ex-
tended planning area most of the land is under Williamson Act contracts that prohibit
development for a minimum of ten years while providing tax advantages to landowners.
7.1 RIPARIAN VEGETATION
Guiding Policies
A. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and
for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
-23-
B. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to
allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respec-
ting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors.
Implementing Policies
C. Enforce watercourse ordinance in developed areas of the city.
D. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian
vegetation, improve access and prevent flooding caused by blockage of
streams.
E. Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local
riparian vegetation, where construction requires creek bank alteration.
7.2 EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL
Guiding Policies
A. Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
B. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
Implementing Policies
C. Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing
performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and
protection of stream courses.
D. Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control
E. Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil
erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
F. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
7.3 OAK WOODLANDS
Guiding Policy
A. Protect oak woodlands.
Implementing Policy
B. Prohibit removal of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that
otherwise could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be
transferred to another part of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree
may be considered through the project review process.
C. Develop a heritage tree ordinance.
-24-
• 1
7.4 AIR QUALITY
Implementing Policy
A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to establish an
air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
Information on localized carbon monoxide problems will not be available unless
monitoring is conducted within the city.
7.5 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Guiding Policy
A. Prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands. (See Open Space policies.)
Implementing Policy
B. Approval of urban development shall require findings that the land is suitable for
the proposed use and will have adequate urban services; and that conversion to
urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining
under Williamson Act contract.
7.6 ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
Guiding Policies
A. Preserve Dublin's historic structures.
Seven sites in Dublin are listed in the California Historic Resources Inventory, inclu-
ding the church and school on the grounds of the heritage park.
B. Follow state regulations regarding discovery of archaeological sites.
-25-
8.0. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION:
SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENTS
8.L SEISMIC SAFETY
The planning area offers examples of most of the geologic hazards commonly found in
California, but only two — downslope movement (mainly landslides) and earthquake
fault surface rupture — are significant constraints on the location of urban develop-
ment. Downslope movement includes landslides, rockfalls, debris flows, and soil
creep. Factors affecting downslope movement are groundwater, rock and soil type,
slope angle, propensity to erosion, seismic activity, vegetation, and grading or other
human alterations.
The Calaveras'Fault is the major active fault in the planning area with rupture poten-
tial, and runs parallel to and just west of San Ramon Road. The Pleasanton Fault,
near the west edge of Camp Parks, is difficult to locate precisely. The State has
established Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones along both faults, requiring detailed
studies of rupture hazards prior to construction.
Few potential building sites within the City of Dublin or the extended planning area
are without geologic impact or hazard. The hazard may be actual, such as an active
landslide or proximity to an active fault, or potential, such as a proposed cut that
might activate a landslide. Mitigation of hazards may increase construction cost, but
will reduce long-term costs to both owners and the city
Guiding Policy
A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away
from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and
reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public
agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facili-
ti es.
Implementation Policies
8.L1 Structural and Grading Requirements
A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Uni-
form Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A design earthquake
shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for
which ground shaking is a signif icant design f actor.
B. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from
any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may
be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on
adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace.
C. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones,
although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities
-26-
that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas and water lines, should be
designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset from fault
rupture. Site specific evaluations should determine the maximum
credible offset.
8.L2 Required Geotechnical Analyses
A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivi-
sions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a
road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each
of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety elements must
be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered
engineering geologist.
B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision
map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on
the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed pro-
jects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic
hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The
detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary
must consider:
- cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed
slide;
- eff ects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered
drainage patterns;
- impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
- where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under
landslide deposits; and
- debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of
Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of
potential debris flows.
- Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary
slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be
analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's
stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering
analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall
be required for all structures planned for human occupancy.
D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils
reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is
present. These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets
and utilities, in order to reduce future public repair costs.
-27-
E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for
Special Study Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all
development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the
Geologic Hazards and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation
should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites
situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen,
1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multi-family dwellings or for
public or recreational facilities.
F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly
affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would signifi-
cantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-
analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during
excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously des-
cribed geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
8.L3 Existing Structures
A. Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be
permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
8.L4 Data Review and Collection
A. A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be established
with the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist
shall be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the
review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the
project.
B. A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be main-
tained as reference material for future planning and design on each site
as well as on adjacent sites.
C. City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and
future occupants and property owners.
8.L5 Earthquake Response Plan
A. In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response Directive to be
incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan updated March
1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight
contract cities. Dublin will adopt the County directive or will formulate
its own plan.
8.2 SAFETY
Policies relating to land slides, a significant geologic hazard, are included in the
seismic safety element although not all slides are likely to be induced by earth-
-28-
quakes. Fire, flood, and hazardous materials are the remaining safety concerns
addressed in the General Plan.
8.2.1 Emergency Preparedness Guiding Policy
A. Develop an emergency preparedness plan in coordination with other public
agencies.
8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection
The Dublin San Ramon Services District provides urban fire protection with a sworn
staff of 38 responding to 1,250 calls per year from two stations. The 113" insurance
rating given to the District is the best reasonably achievable.
Steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills
Major personnel and equipment additions would be needed to protect development in
the extended planning area. 'DSRSD does not provide protection to Parks RFTA or to
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and is not able to serve these areas at present.
Guiding Policy
A. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development
approval in the western hills outside the primary planning area.
Implementing Policies
B. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying:
- Fire retardant roof materials, spark arrestors, water storage, and
vegetation clearance around structures.
- Sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response
time from a station.
Guiding Policy
C. Prepare and implement a plan for facilities and personnel at one or more
fire stations east of Tassajara Road as a condition of development
approval in the eastern extended planning area.
8.2.3 Flooding
Heavy storms in early 1983 carried debris down from the western hills, blocking drains
and causing flooding of backyards and several homes in the Silvergate area.
Guiding Policy
A. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving
woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample
r right of way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow.
-29-
Implementing Policies (See also Conservation Element policies)
B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision
approval.
C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands. Removal
of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review
process.
D. Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that
appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to
approval of development in the extended planning area.
8.24 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are transported on the freeways and some are used by Dublin
industries. The DSRSD Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department form the
City's hazardous materials team.
Guiding Policy
A. Maintain and enhance ability to regulate use, transport and storage of
hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take
appropriate action during emergencies.
Implementing Policy
B. Consider formation of a hazardous materials team consisting of specially
trained personnel from all Tri-Valley public safety agencies.
C. Adopt an ordinance to regulate handling, transport, and storage of
hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
a
:i
-30-
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SECTION: NOISE ELEMENT
Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin. Noise exposure contours
have been plotted for 1983 (based on noise measurements and current traffic data) and
projected to 2005 based on traffic volume increases (see figures). The Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) describes 24-hour average noise levels measured in
decibels (dB) taking account of the increased sensitivity to noise of people during
evening and nighttime hours. Sound levels between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. are penalized
5dB and those between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are penalized 10 dB. The dB scale is
logarithmic; a 3 dB difference normally is discernable and a 10 dB increase is
subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness.
The Land Use Compatibility Table provides the basis for decisions on location of land
uses in relation to noise sources, and f or determining noise mitigation needs.
Guiding Policy
A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by the table:
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Implementing Policies
B. Request Caltrans to provide noise walls at least seven f eet high along
both sides of I-680 between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Alcosta
interchange when additional freeway lanes are constructed.
Future noise, if not mitigated, will subject about 2,700 residents to levels exceeding
65 CNEL. The noise wall would reduce noise by 10 dB, making this the most cost
effective noise reduction project in Dublin. Actual wall height would be determined
during project design.
C. Encourage homeowners west of San Ramon Road who are affected by I-
580 noise to construct noise barriers on their properties where these
would be effective and require such barriers for new development. This
policy also applies to sites adjoining the west side of San Ramon Road at
higher elevations.
+ Where the noise source is below the receptors, only barriers near the receptor will be
effective. About 5 dB noise reduction could be achieved
3
D. Support unif ied action by residential owners on the east side of San
Ramon Road and along Village Parkway to install, repair, or extend noise
barriers.
Much of this frontage was developed before effective noise barriers were required as a
condition of subdivision approval. Because construction for a single lot is costly, rela-
tively ineffective, and potentially unattractive, the City should assist in the formation
of assessment districts or otherwise promote group action where there is consensus
that a problem exists.
E. Design Dougherty road improvements and adjoining residential develop-
ment for compliance with noise standards.
-31-
• ° J
M
LAND USE COMPATIBILYTY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB)
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally (Noise Insulation Normally Clearly
Land Use Category Acceptable Features Required) Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80
Schools, churches, 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80
nursing homes
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70
Offices: retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 Over 80
commercial
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building
design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply
systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Source: California Office of Noise Control, 1976, as modified by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc.
This corridor offers the opportunity to do it right the first time without continuous
walls. Berms, open space, garages near the road, and noise-conscious site planning can
be used.
F. Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to approval of
light rail or bus service in the Southern Pacific Right of Way Transporta-
tion Corridor.
A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a good
neighbor.
G. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60
CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habi-
table room) as required by State law.
Because the General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60 or
greater CNEL for multi-family development, this standard will be effective in Dub-
lin. Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation
measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for
example,) noise barriers, or construction modifications.
-32-
BLAYNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS
PROJECT STAFF
John Blayney, Project Manager
Ellen Greenberg, Planning Analyst
Nicklaus Von Rotz, Environmental Designer; Graphics Designer
Nicholas Gravina, Graphics
Scott Kingsley, Graphics
Pamela Minet, Word Processing
Daryl Hewitt, Word Processing
SECTION 3
HOUSING ELEMENT
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.1 Profile Of Dublin—The Primary Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
3.1.2 Extended-Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 3-2
3.1.3 Subregional Development Trends . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.2 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION .. . . . . . 3-5
3.2.1 State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3-5
3.2.2 Organization of Housing Element . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3-5
3.2.3 Public Participation . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.2.4 Consistency With Other Elements of The General Plan . . . . . .. . 3-7
3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.4 EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.4.1 Existing Housing Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-11
3.4.2 Subsidized Housing in Dublin and the Tri-Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.4.3 Housing Services Available to Dublin Residents . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 3-17
3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3-18
3.5.1 Overview of Housing Affordability and Need Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
3.5.2 Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG)
HousingNeeds Determination . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Definitions of Income Categories for Dublin . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Determination of Moderate Income Unit Price . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.5.3 Immediate Housing Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-22
Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing . . . . . ... . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . 3-23
Level of Payment as a Function of Ability to Pay. . . .. .. .. .. .. . 3-23
VacancyRates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . 3-26
Overcrowding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 3-26
3.5.4 Special*Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-27
Housing for the Elderly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . 3-27
Housing Accessible to Disabled Persons . . ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-27
Needs of Female Headed Households. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 3-29
Other Groups with Special Housing Needs. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-29
3.5.5 Jobs/Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... .. .. .. . . . .. . 3-29
3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AVAILABLE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 3-31
3'.6.1 Sites Currently Zoned for Residential Use. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 3-31
3.6.2 Sites Not Currently Designated For Residential Use . . . .. . . . . . 3-31
3.6.3 Sites for the Development of Mobile Homes
andManufactured Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
i
Y t
3.7 CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.7.1 Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
Lack of Programs for Subsidized Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
ExistingZoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
DevelopmentFees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
3.7.2 Non-Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
Possible Lack of Infrastructural Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
Limited Land Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-37
CompetitionAmong Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Interest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 3-37
Community Opposition to Medium and
HighDensity Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . 3-39
3.8 HOUSING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3-40
3.8.1 Summary of Housing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
3.8.2 City Housing Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3-40
3.8.3 Housing Program Strategies Requiring Adoption of
General Plan and Consistent Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. 3-42
3.8.4 Housing Program Strategies Requiring Additional City
Action for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . 3-47
3.8.5 Strategies Requiring Ongoing City Effort Using
ExistingPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . 3-51
3.8.6. Opportunities for Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3-53
ii
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
3-1 Projected Tri-Valley Employment
Additions at Full Development in 2005 .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 3-3
3-2 Existing and Projected Tri-Valley Housing and Jobs . . . . .. . . .. . . 3-4
3-3 Index to Required Housing Element Components. . . . .. . . . . . . ... 3-6
3-4 City of Dublin - Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-9
3-5 City of Dublin - Household Characteristics . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . 3-10
3-6 Housing Units By Tenure and Year Structure Built, 1980 . . . . . . . . 3-12
3-7 Tri-Valley Single-Family Homes: Average and Median
Resale Prices, 1st Quarter 1983 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3-8 1980 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Occupancy
Status, and Tenure . . . . . 3-14
3-9 Subsidized Housing in the•Livermore/Amador•Valley, 1983 . . . ... 3-16
3-10 Tri-Valley Housing Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 3-17
3-11 Dublin Households: Distribution by Income Category,
and ABAG Projected Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . 3-20
3-12 City of Dublin: Ability to Meet ABAG
Projected Need . . . 3-20
3-13 Waiting Lists For Subsidized Housing. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . 3-24
3-14 Monthly Ownership Cost as a Percentage of Income . . .... . . . . . . 3-25
3-15 Monthly Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. 3-25
3-16 Dublin Households Spending 25 Percent or More . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 3-26
3-17 Persons With Major Disabling Conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... 3-28
3-18 Sites Available for Development of Housing
Currently Zoned for Residential Use . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. ... . . .. 3-32
3-19 Sites Available for Development of Housing
Not Currently Designated for Residential Use. . . . . . .. ... .. . .. . 3-33
3-20 Single Family Mortgage Payments, $ 100,000 Mortgage. . .. . . . .. 3-38
3-21 Summary of Housing Program Strategies Related To
City Goals and Housing Program Requirements.. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. 3-41
A
111
3.1 OVERVIEW
3.L1 PROFILE OF DUBLIN THE PRIMARY PLANNING AREA
The City of Dublin, incorporated in 1982, is 4.1 square miles in area, with an
estimated 1983 population of 13,700. The primary planning area for the City's first
Housing Element and other elements of the General Plan consists of the incorporated
area plus .3 square miles to the west, consisting largely of a portion of an approved
subdivision which is partly within the City's boundaries.
Most of the City's approximately 4,400 housing units were built by the Volk-McLain
Company during the 1960's and are single family, single story houses with three or
four bedrooms. Only 386 units, nine percent of the City's stock, are multi-family.
The 1980 Census reported that 23 percent of Dublin residents rent their homes. As
85 to 90 percent of multi-family units are occupied by renters, it can be assumed
that about 15 percent of Dublin's single family homes were rented in 1980.
For many, Dublin's predominance of single-family homes on 5,000 to 8,000 square
foot lots is a desirable feature and one that helps to define a community of families
with moderate incomes, typically earning 80 to 120 percent of the Bay Area
median. Today's moderate income households, however, cannot afford today's new
single-family homes, forcing the City to choose between attempting to maintain its
traditional type of housing and maintaining a community with housing available to its
traditional residents.
As moderate income households are faced with increasing difficulty in purchasing
homes, low income households, those with less than 80 percent of area median
income, are finding it more difficult than ever to obtain housing. The regional
housing needs determination prepared by ABAG for Dublin projects total housinj
need as 1,956 units, including 665 units for low and very low income households.
Under General Plan policies, total units in excess of the figure prepared by ABAG
will be produced.
The target for units available to low and very low income households, however, will
prove unrealistic unless federal subsidy programs for new construction are revived
and sites for construction of affordable housing made available. Regardless of
Dublin's interest.in meeting this need, households having 80 percent or less of median
income must have substantial subsidies to be able to afford to live in an area where
nearly all housing is less than 25 years old and there are no older multi family units.
Unless the economy stagnates or sewage capacity increases are blocked, Dublin will
be built-out within the next five to ten years. Only 157 acres of non-commercial
land remain undeveloped in the City, including several surplus school sites. As
housing demands and City population increase so will other needs, such as those for
recreation and public facilities. These needs must be balanced in assigning land use
designations to Dublin's remaining undeveloped land.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Housing Needs Determination, San Francisco-
Bay Region, July 1983, p.44.
3-1
Dublin is a compact city—construction on the sites identified as available for housing
development would not result in non-contiguous urbanization; all are infill sites.
Under Alameda County zoning (adopted by the City), most of the city is classified R-
1-13-E, a single-family residential combining district allowing lot sizes from 5,000 to
10,000 square feet. Some of the City's larger sites appropriate for residential
development are zoned P-D (Planned Development). All residential structures are
one or two stories and building heights in commercial districts have not exceeded
three stories.
3.L2 EXTENDED PLANNINR AREA
Dublin has designated a -square-mile extended planning area that "bears relation
to its planning" (Govt. Code 65300). The extended planning area is largely
undeveloped and is characterized by steep slopes with oak woodlands west of the
City and rolling grasslands east of the City. The area also includes the public lands
comprising Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA), Santa Rita Prison, and
Tassajara Regional Park. (See map in Plan Policies Report).
General Plan designations for the extended planning area are schematic in nature.
Policy 2.1.4 calls for consideration of residential development on moderate slopes
with multi-family densities on flatter land and next to business park areas. The
potential number of units cannot be determined until plans for extension of urban
services are prepared and General Plan refinement studies are completed.
While land values are likely to preclude development of mobilehome parks on avail-
able level sites in the primary planning area, portions of the extended planning area
could accommodate them. An area that provides the exception to the rule of steep
slopes and inaccessibility in the extended planning area is the land adjoining the .
proposed business park area north of I-580 on either side of Tassajara Road. When
the General Plan is reviewed and refined for this area, consideration will be given to
designating some portion f or mobile home parks.
The details of developing infrastructure and providing services to the extended
planning area have not begun to be worked out. It is therefore assumed that resi-
dential development in the extended planning area, with the exception of individual
rural residences, will not occur within the time frame of the housing program
included in the Housing Element. State law requires Housing Element revision every
five years so the document's first or second revision and program update will
appropriately include detailed policies and plans for the extended planning area.
3.L3 SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Dublin, like other cities in the Tri-Valley area (the San Ramon, Livermore, and
Amador valleys), was developed as a bedroom community oriented toward the major
urban centers of Oakland and San Francisco. Now the area is facing a dramatic
change as, for the first time, employment growth is expected to outpace housing
development, resulting in a net in-commute of workers.
3-2
In 1980 the area had 160,000 residents, 51,300 housing units, and 35,000 local jobs.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected a 43 percent population
gain to 228,300 by the year 2000. The Tri-Valley was expected to remain a bedroom
area, with the 1980 ratio of local jobs to employed residents about 0.73, sliding to
about 0.44 as housing for commuters continued to be built during the 20-year projec-
tion period (Las Positas DEIR, Tables 5.5 and 5.17). Total job additions by the year
2000 were projected by ABAG at 16,600—far short of the current build-out projec-
tion of 129,615 based on announced projects (see Table 3-1). Although this high
figure may reflect developer ambitions that will not be fully attained, the Tri-Valley
has demonstrated its appeal to employers. Among the attractive features are the
relatively low cost of land in comparison to the Bay plain, freeway accessibility to
the region, proximity to desirable residential areas, and absence of the political
uncertainty characteristic of larger cities. Projections of jobs and housing units for
the Tri-Valley are in Table 3-2.
TABLE 3-1
PROJECTED TRI VALLEY EMPLOYMENT
ADDITIONS AT FULL DEVELOPMENT IN 2005+a
City Jobs Added
Dublin 22400
Pleasanton 48,945
Livermore 17,800
San Ramon 21,375
Subtotal 90,520
Spillover secondary employment
@ 20 percentb 18,100
Las Positas 22 195
TOTAL 1309817
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
Development. November, 1982, p. 42. Spill-over impacts are projected
at 21 to 28 percent of employment in industrial/business park projects.)
3-3
. 1 `
TABLE 3-2
EXISTING AND PROJECTED
TRI VALLEY HOUSING AND JOBS
Ratio of
Tri- Jobs to
Housing Valley Employed Employed
Populationa Units a Jobs a Residentsb Residents
1980 160,000 51,302 509373 75,900 0.66
2000; ABAG
'83 with
Las Positas 253,000 90,000 132,200a 133,200 0.99
aABAG Series 183: Preliminary Population, Household, and Employment Projections:
1980-2000, Working Draft, March 1983.
bAssumes 1.48 per housing unit valley-wide 1980 census.
3-4
3.2 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION
3.2.1 STATE REQUIREMENTS
Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589 set forth requirements relating to the
preparation and content of Housing Elements. By law, the Housing Element must
contain:
1) an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and
constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs;
2) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies
relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; and
3) a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local
government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
The housing program must: identify adequate sites available for residential
development for a variety of types of housing for all income levels; assist in the
development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income
households; address governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing; conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons.
This Housing Element is intended to comply with state law.
3.2.2 ORGANIZATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is organized into nine main sections. Table 3-3 provides an index
to State required Housing Element Components. Section 3 presents the basic
population and household data used to develop needs assessments and projections.
Existing market-rate and below market-rate housing resources and services are
surveyed in Section 4. Section 5 evaluates housing need, and includes discussion of
Dublin's "fair share" allocation as well as city and valley-wide jobs/housing balance.
The five required components of the housing program are described in the remaining
sections. Sites available for the development of housing are inventoried in Section 6;
constraints are addressed in Section 7, and housing program goals are at the beginning
of Section 8. Section 8 also includes all of the strategies for the housing program,
separated into three groups on the basis of actions necessary for implementation. All
housing program strategies are presented with their associated policy objective, quan-
tified objectives as appropriate, and financing and implementation responsibilities.
Housing strategies are related to Dublin's housing goals and State Housing Element
requirements in Table 3-21.
3-5
TABLE 3-3
INDEX TO REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS
Statutory Requirement Section(s) Page Number(s)
Analysis of population and
employment trends 3.113.3 3,4,9,10
Quantification of existing and
projected housing needs for all
income levels - share of the
regional housing need 3.5 18-23
Analysis of household character-
istics 3.3 10
Analysis of characteristics of the
housing stock 3.4 11-17
Inventory of land suitable for
residential development 3.6 31-34
Analysis of governmental constraints 3.7 35136
Analysis of non-governmental
constraints 3.7 36-39
Analysis of special housing needs 3.5 28-30
Analysis of opportunities for
energy conservation 3.8 53
Statement of community housing goals,
quantified objectives and policies 3.8 40
Five year housing program to achieve
3
community housing goals and objectives 3.8 41-53
3.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The General Plan preparation process in Dublin has included a citizen's workshop-on
the General Pldn and a series of Planning Commission and City Council meetings to
consider three working papers and alternative sketch plans. Copies of working papers
have been available to members of the community; sketch plans and, earlier, maps of
the planning area were displayed in the City offices.
Throughout the planning process, and at all Planning Commission and City Council
meetings, housing has been a primary concern. The major area of community
3-6
controversy relative to project approval was the density of proposed multi-family
residential projects. Through the General Plan the major density questions were
resolved, thereby easing community concern, stabilizing developer and citizen
expectations, and speeding the approval process of future development proposals.
Another issue raised by Dublin residents was a potential economic gap between sectors
of the City created by differences in housing cost. The policies of the Housing and
Land Use elements are intended to counter any such trend.
3.2.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Housing Element is intended to be consistent with all elements of the General
Plan. All elements of the Plan have been prepared concurrently. This planning
process, in which housing, land use, circulation, and environmental issues are
considered as a set of interrelated concerns, facilitates the development of a General
Plan that is internally consistent and supportive of community goals.
3-7
3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Dublin's population is relatively homogeneous in terms of age and ethnic character-
istics. The short span of time during which most of the City's single family homes
were constructed, and low original housing prices resulted in a predominance of young
families in the 1960's and then a slowing down of growth and overall aging of the
population.
Development in accord with the General Plan will result in about 7,900 dwelling units
and 22, '00 residents at full development—a 61 percent population addition to the 1983
total.
Even with this population increase, Dublin will probably never again have a school-age
population that will fill its built public elementary school capacity. The high cost of
new housing and declining family size are among the causes. Current population data
for Dublin is included in Table 3-4. Household characteristics, including mobility and
household size, are presented in Table 3-5.
Except where otherwise noted, data is from the 1980 U.S. Census, Summary Tape Files
(STF) 1 and 3. This data is already four years old, but is in many cases the only
available information on Dublin population and households.
3-8
TABLE 3-4
CITY OF DUBLIN -POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Total Percentb
Population, 1983 13,700c
Households, 1983 4,428d
Persons in Group Quarters 0
Age characteristics, 1980
persons under 18 5,262 38.9
persons 18-61 7,805 57.8
persons 62 and over 429 3.2
Ethnic Characteristics, 1980
White Population 129470 92.4
Black Population 350 2.6
Chinese Population 110 0.8
Native American Population 82 0.6
Japanese Population 71 0.5
Persons of Spanish Origin, 1980 1,159 8.4
a1980 U.S. Census.
bMay not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
cDerived from 1983 household count assuming 3.2 persons per single family unit and 2
persons per multi-family unit
dOrville McDonald, U.S. Post Master, Pleasanton, CA, personal communication,
5/23/83.
3-9
TABLE 3-5
CITY OF DUBLIN -HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Percent of
Total Dublin Households
Total Households, 1983 4,428 100
Residence in 1975 (persons over 5 years old), 1980
same house 5,332 39.5
different house, same county 3,697 27.4
different house, different county 2,299 17.0
different state 803 5.9
abroad 262 1.9
Median Household Income,a 1983 $33,180
Households by size, 1980
1 person households 311 7.9
2 person households 899 23.0
3 person households 859 22.1
4 person households 1,035 26.5
5 person households 566 14.5
6 or more person households 213 5.5
Average Household Size, 1980 3.41
Single-parent households, 1980
Female-headed Households 222 5.3
Male-headed Households 57 1.4
Female-headed households below povertyb
(with children), 1979 135 3.0
aFigure derived from HUD 1983 Bay Area median income.
bFamilies and unrelated individuals in the census were classified as being below or
above the poverty level, based on income in 1979 using an index which provides
"poverty thresholds.". These thresholds vary by size of family, number of children,
and age of the family householder or unrelated individual. The threshold used for a
four person family, for example, was $7,412.
Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett.
3-10
3.4 EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES
3.4.1 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Dublin's housing stock is characterized by single-family detached homes built within
the last 25 years (See Table 3-6). In terms of price, size and type, the City's supply of
housing units is relatively homogenous. However, with the completion of approved
projects, the overall nature of the housing stock will begin to change, as is indicated
by the anticipated increase in the percentage of multi-family units in the City.
City of Dublin
Existing and Planned Housing Units By Type
Cumulative
Total Single- Multi- Percent
Units Family Family Multi-Family
Existing Occupied or 4,428 4,042 386 9
Previously Occupieda
Approved or Ugder 1,800 700 1,100 24
Consideration
aOrville McDonald, U.S. Post Master, Pleasanton, CA, personal communication,
5/23/83.
bCity of Dublin Planning Department, updated 11/15/83.
A May, 1983 Postal Service count shows 4,428 housing units in the City currently or
previously occupied (the only units omitted are new units as yet unoccupied). Of
these, 4,042, or 91 percent, were single-family homes. There were 386 multi-family
units. Approximately 15 percent of Dublin's single-family homes were rented in 1980.
3-11
TABLE 3-6
HOUSING UNM BY TENURE AND YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT, 1980
Units Percent of Owner Renter
Built Existing Units Occupied Occupied
1979 to March 1980 35 .8 18 5
1975 to 1978 123 2.9 107 7
1970 to 1974 304 7.3 182 109
1960 to 1969 3,314 80.2 27605 656
1950 to 1959 156 3.8 91 65
1940 to 1949 186 4.5 0 94
1939 or earlier 15 3.6 0 15
Source: 1980 U.S. Census.
While the single-family house has remained dominant, the composition of Dublin
households has been changing. The 1980 Census reported an average household size of
3.41, as compared with 4.0 in 1970. We estimate a 1983 average household size of
3.2. This sharp decline is typical of similar communities in the state and nation. At
what point household size will "bottom out" is unclear; factors influencing household
size and structure include marriage and divorce trends, birth and death rates, general
economic conditions, patterns of young adult behavior, and regional housing
availability.
Not all change is toward small household size. There is evidence that "doubling up,"
i.e. more than one family living in a single-family house, is becoming increasingly
common. While data are not available to gauge this phenomenon precisely, it was
mentioned several times in the course of interviews conducted for this report.
Doubling up is a typical consequence of hard economic times, when young people
cannot afford their first homes, elderly family members move in with children, and
many people are reluctant or unable to make major financial commitments.
Difficulty in affording housing may not be the only reason for doubling up in Dublin;
small families may choose to share a home for convenience, companionship, or reluc-
tance to assume responsibility for an unneccesarily large unit. This trend indicates
both a change in the nature of the community's households and a mismatch between
available housing and those in the housing market, in terms of both price and type of
units available. Some amount of doubling represents efficient use of single-family
stock as family size declines.
The next five to ten years will bring the second major burst of growth in Dublin's
housing stock, with over 1,600 units approved but not built or occupied by the end of
1983. These units will result in a major &,ange in the type of unit in Dublin—with
multi-family units approved, the City will see an increase in the percentage of multi-
family units even if all units yet to be approved were single family.
3-12
The predominance of buildings constructed within the past twenty years means that
few units in the City are obsolete. Maintenance varies from poor to excellent, but
instances of poor maintenance are few and are scattered. Dublin's building inspector
reports few code violations as of early 1984. Most violations reported stem from
landlord/tenant conflicts.
Dublin offers a somewhat narrower range of housing prices than other Tri-Valley
communities. Because it is a new community, there are no modest cottages remaining
from a "pre-commuter" era available now to low income households. Because Dublin's
initial subdivisions were moderately priced, developers have been slow to add luxury
homes. However, Dublin's western hills offer an environment attractive to higher-
priced homes and some are beginning to appear, as are less costly multi-family units
elsewhere in the City.
Developments now being completed in Dublin consist mainly of single-family homes
that are considerably more expensive than resale units in the city. New homes in
three subdivisions surveyed range from $115,000 to $209,000 in May, 1983, while city-
wide average resale price in the first quarter of 1983 as reported by the Southern
Alameda County Board of Realtors was close to $111,000 (see Table 3-7). As reported
by sales representatives, buyers of these new homes seem to be divided evenly among
those moving from within the Tri-Valley, from the nine-county Bay Area, and from
outside of the Bay Area, with many of those in this last group coming from out of
state as corporate transferees. Sales representatives, apartment managers, and public
housing officials have all noted a significant increase in the number of transferees
beginning in 1982, reflecting new major commercial/industrial development in the Tri-
Valley.
TABLE 3-7
TRI VALLEY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES:
AVERAGE AND MEDIAN RESALE PRICES,
1ST QUARTER 1983
Dublin San Ramon Pleasanton Livermore
Average Sales Price,
1st Quarter 1983 $110,831 $154,709 $145,291 $109,538
Median Price,
January 1983 $109,225 $154,225 $135,500 $1029225
Median Price,
February 1983 $107,060 $142,250 $137,500 $102,896
Median Price,
March 1983 $99,900 $138,000 $135,000 103,225
Average Home Value,
1980 U.S. Census $92,397 na na na
Source: Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors
3-13
It can be seen that while home prices have risen over the past 4 years, homes in Dublin
remain available to a wider range of households than units in other Tri-Valley cities.
The median home price for Dublin, when compared with that of San Ramon, and
Pleasanton, suggests that there are a greater percentage of resale units available in
the $100,000 range, and thus relatively more opportunities for homeownership by
moderate income households in Dublin than elsewhere in the area.
Home ownership is out of reach for many area residents, and this fact increases the
demand for rental housing. The number of single-family homes offered as rentals
boosts Dublin's rental stock significantly. While Dublin's housing stock includes only
356 multi-family units, at least 950 additional units, all single-family, were rented out
in 1979. Counting multi and single family units, Dublin's rental housing stock included
988, or 23 percent, of the City's housing units, as compared with 44 percent for the
nine-county Bay Area, according to the 1980 Census.
The 1980 Census reported slightly over 85 percent of Dublin's housing units as having 3
or 4 bedrooms, with the breakdown by occupancy and tenure as follows:
TABLE 3-8
1980 HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS,
OCCUPANCY STATUS, AND TENURE
Total Total Occupied Renter Occupied
None 5 5 5
1 118 118 97
2 269 239 196
3 21045 1,926 428
4 1,495 1,469 218
5 or more 201 197 1
i
TOTAL 4,133 3,954 945
a
Source: 1980 U.S. Census.
3-14
3.4.2 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN DUBLIN AND THE TRI VALLEY
In addition to the market rate housing units in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, some
form of subsidized housing exists in each of the three cities (See Table 3-9).
In Dublin, the Pleasanton Housing Authority owns and manages Arroyo Vista, a
150-unit housing complex for low income families on the site of the former Koman-
dorski Village. The Arroyo Vista project was approved by a two-thirds majority in a
vote in the unincorporated area of Alameda County under Article 34 of the California
Constitution as required for publicly owned subsidized housing.
Applicants for Arroyo Vista are selected on the basis of housing authority policies that
make income the primary criterion. Local applicants are given preference. Local is
defined by the Housing Authority as currently living or working in Dublin or
Pleasanton. Numerous applications have been received from families being
transferred to the area.
Most Arroyo Vista tenants and applicants are young families from Dublin and
Pleasanton with preschool-age children. The majority of requests received by the
housing authority are for two-bedroom units, suggesting that the average household
size at Arroyo Vista is close to that in Dublin as a whole. Racially, the population of
Arroyo Vista is more diverse than that of the City, with 60 percent Caucasian tenants,
22 percent Hispanic, 11 percent Asian, 6 percent Black, and 1 percent American
Indian.
Other subsidized housing in Dublin is available through two Section 8 programs.
Section 8 new construction funds were used in the construction of The Springs
apartments, a 176-unit complex including 36 subsidized units. There is a short-term
waiting list continuously maintained for the Section 8 units at The Springs, and
turnover is very low. The Section 8 certificate program for Dublin is administered by
the Alameda County Housing Authority. Currently, the Housing Authority contracts
for 19 Section 8 units in Dublin. According to a representative of the County Housing
Authority, applications for certificates by Dublin residents are few, and Dublin is the
Alameda County city with the least participation in the Section 8 certificate program.
3-15
TABLE 3-9
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY, 1983
Unit Size Type
Total (# of Age Group Rent
City Complex (# of Units) Bedrooms) of Tenants Subsidy
Dublin Arroyo Vista 150 16 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
(Pleasanton (85 complete 78 - 2's Family
Housing as of 6/83) 32 - 3's Handicapped
Authority) 24 - 4's
8 - Hdcp.
Dublin The Springs 176 7 - 1's Elderly Q.1.
(36 subsidized) 29 - 2's Family
3 - Hdcp. Handicapped
Livermore Hillcrest Gardens 54 28 - Studio Elderly Q.I.
26 - 1's Handicapped S.S.
Livermore Leahy Square 125 12 - 1's Family Q.I.
(Livermore 48 - 2's Elderly
Housing 45 - 3's Handicapped
Authority) 18 - 4's
2 - 5's
Livermore Livermore Gardens 96 56 - 2's Family Q.11.
32 - 3's
8 - 4's
Livermore Meadowbrook 47 20 - 1's Elderly Q.I.
22 - 2's Family
3 - 3's Handicapped
2 - Hdcp.
} Livermore Vineyard Village 74 74 - 1's Elderly Q•1•
8 - Hdcp. Handicapped
Pleasanton Kottinger Place 50 32 - Studio Elderly Q.I.
16 - 1's Handicapped
2 - 2's
Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens 39 19 - Studio Elderly S.S.
20 - 1's Handicapped
Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens 131 31 - 1's Elderly S.S.
66 - 2's Family
34 - 3's Handicapped
Q.I. = 25 percent of income
S.S. = Sliding Scale
Source: Blayney-Dyett survey, May, 1983
3-16
3.4.3 HOUSING SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DUBLIN RESIDENTS
For those in need of housing counseling or emergency shelter, a variety of services
exist (see Table 3-10). Providers of housing services interviewed for the Housing
Element feel that their programs would be more effective if area residents were
better informed about available housing services and resources.
TABLE 3-10
TRI VALLEY HOUSING SERVICES
For Seniors Alameda County Department of Aging - housing
services for seniors, Hayward.
General Advisory and
Counseling Service, Shared
Housing Placement ECHO Housing Assistance - Housing advisory
Services, discrimination investigation, shared
housing placement, mediation services. Free to
Southern Alameda County Residents, Livermore.
Emergency Shelter Emergency Fund Center - Emergency shelter
and health services, free to all, Livermore.
Good Samaritan Family Crisis Center -
Emergency shelter for low income area
residents, Livermore.
Emergency Shelter Program, Inc. -Temporary
shelter for women and children, with meals
provided. Also education, and mental health and
counseling services, Hayward.
Tri-Valley Haven for Women -Housing for
victims of domestic violence and rape.
Information and referral service, counseling,
advocacy, Livermore.
Buenas Vidas Ranch - Emergency Housing for
youth ages 10 to 19 years, Livermore
Source: Valley Human Services Directory, City of Pleasanton
3-17
3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED
3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND NEED ISSUES
Given the limited amount of undeveloped land remaining in Dublin and the extent of
planned commercial and industrial growth in the Tri-Valley area, it can be reasonably
assumed that there will be demand for as many units as can be produced in the city.
At issue, then, are the types of units to be produced, primarily in relation to density,
tenure, and cost.
General Plan policies will result in the production of more housing units at higher
densities than could be expected if zoning based on the Alameda County General Plan
at the time of incorporation were to continue. Housing construction in Dublin will
exceed "projected need" as included in Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Determina-
tion by over 80 percent. However, needs by income category as determined by ABAG
and accepted by the City will likely not be met. The major constraint on production
of below-market rate units is the lack of public funds devoted to that purpose.
While Dublin has had and will continue to have relatively affordable homes for the Tri-
Valley area, current market conditions make production of units affordable to even
moderate income households a challenge. Using a method developed by the Bay Area
Council, assuming the traditional 25 percent of income spent for housing, the
maximum affordable home price for a moderate income Dublin household is $75,000.
Few if any units are currently being built at or below that price. For example, while a
recent proposal for a "mini-condominium" project initially proposed units priced at
$60,000 - $70,000, approval has been made contingent on density reductions and
provision of some townhouse units, raising expected unit prices to the $65,000 -
$130,000 range.
New higher cost units in Dublin are selling, indicating that households with higher
incomes are moving into the City. Some households are able to purchase homes which,
according to the formula on page 22, they cannot afford because they purchased
homes when home prices and interest rates were low and they now have assets that
enable them to "move up" into houses which they would not be able to afford on their
incomes alone. Renters, who have no equity from a current home, have much more
difficulty purchasing a first unit. The relatively low cost of renting and absence of a
requirement of a large down payment makes rentals an important source of affordable
market rate housing.
3.5.2 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' (ABAG) HOUSING NEEDS
DETERMINATION
Dublin's regional fair share allocation is presented in Housing Needs Determinations -
San Francisco Bay Region (July 1983). Needs determinations have been prepared for
the nine Bay Area counties, their incorporated cities, and the total unincorporated
area for each county.
Existing Need represents the number of additional units a jurisdiction would have
provided in 1980 in order to have a housing market in "better" supply-demand balance
based on the "optimum vacancy rate." According to ABAG, Dublin's "existing need" in
1980 was 296 units. The "existing need" figure is, in effect, an analysis of the city's
housing situation, reflecting the extent of unmet housing demand. "Existing need" is
included in "projected need."
3-18
Projected Need is the total number of units needed to accommodate anticipated
growth in the city and provide for a desirable vacancy rate. The "projected need"
figure is the number of additional units that would ideally be developed in the City by
1990, based on the household projections developed by ABAG and presented in its
Projections 183. Household projections reflect the distribution of employment
opportunities, availability of suitable sites, and commuting patterns, although no
detailed information is presented by ABAG to show how the figures were derived.
ABAG's determination of Dublin's "projected need" is 1,956 housing units.
Projected Housing Need by Type and Tenure is one of the factors that must be taken
into account in the determination of the regional need for housing as required by state
law. ABAG presents "housing need by type and by tenure" in two separate sets of
tables. Distribution by type and tenure rests on the assumption that "the relative
distribution of housing would be approximately that of the 1980 Census" (ABAG,
p.17). Using this assumption, ABAG has projected a need for 1,794 single family units
(92%), 162 multi family units (8%), and no mobile homes. ABAG projects a need for
1,485 owner-occupied units (76%) and 471 rental units.
Projected Need by Income Category is not a continuation of current patterns but
rather a figure that includes a redistribution of households by income category
throughout the region. The objective of the redistribution is to "avoid further
impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households"
(Government Code Section 65584). To generate the figures, ABAG averaged existing
city percentages in each income category with the existing county and regional
percentages. For example, to derive Dublin's projected need for very low income
households, ABAG averaged Dublin's existing percentage of very low income house-
holds (9 percent) with Alameda County's percentage of very low income households (28
percent) and the regional percentage (23 percent), to come up with a projected need
for 20% of units for very low income households (9+28+23=60; 60/3=20).
Median household income as reported by the Census and definitions of income grouping
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development form the basis
of ABAG's calculations. Existing distribution of households by income category is
presented in addition to "projected housing need by income category."
Planned and projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types than has
previously been available in Dublin, which means greater opportunity for production of
affordable units. The number of rental units that will be developed cannot be pro-
jected, since the division of multi family units between condominiums and rental units
is not known. However, with 2,600 multi-family units anticipated, the City will meet
the projected need for 471 additional rental units if only 18 percent are rental.
ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an absolute number of
units and a percentage of units in each income grouping. It is very unlikely that 34
percent of the units produced in Dublin over the next ten years could be made
affordable to low and very low income households. This percentage seems particularly
unrealistic in light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for housing,
which would be necessary for production of affordable units at such a large scale.
3-19
TABLE 3-11
DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS:
DISTRIBUTION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1980
AND ABAG PROJECTED NEED
Income Categories
Above
Very Low Low Moderate Moderate
Household income by percent
distribution, 1980 Census 9% 11% 26% 54%
Projected need for housing
units by income category (ABAG),1983 391 274 450 841
Desired distribution of
households by income
category (ABAG),1983 20% 14% 23% 43%
ABAG's regional redistribution of households by income category would result in more
than double the percentage of very low income households in Dublin with relatively
slight changes in the percentages of low and moderate income households.
The total "projected need" for Dublin represents slightly more than the number of
units currently approved or under consideration by the City. Comparing ABAG's total
"projected need" figure of 1,956 to the 3,500 total additional units expected under
General Plan policies, it can be seen that the demand for housing units in Dublin as
determined by ABAG will be more than satisfied by anticipated construction. (See
Table 3-12).
TABLE 3-12
CITY OF DUBLIN: ABILITY TO
MEET ABAG PROJECTED NEEDS, 1980-1990
Buildout Under
General Plan Policies
Existing Units, May, 1983 4,428
Units Approved or Under Consideraton, November, 1983 1,800
Anticipated Units on Currently Unsubdivided Land 1,700
Total Additional Units 3,500
Units in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 1,544
Percent in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 79%
3-20
Planned and projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types than has
previously been available in Dublin, which means greater opportunity for production of
affordable units. The number of rental units that will be developed cannot be
projected, since the division of multi family units beteen condominiums and rental
units is not known. However, with 2,300 multi-family units anticipated, the city will
meet the projected need for 471 additional rental units if only 20 percent are rental.
ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an absolute number of
units and a percentage of units in each income grouping. It is very unlikely that 34
percent of the units produced in Dublin over the next ten years could be made
affordable to low and very low income households. This percentage seems particularly
unrealistic in light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for housing,
which would be necessary for production of affordable units at such a large scale.
The City of Dublin accepted the Housing Needs Determination after the legal com-
ment period following issuance of the ABAG document in July, 1983. The action by
the City does not indicate adoption of the ABAG figures as the City's housing goals,
but rather acceptance of the figures as accurately reflecting the City's housing needs.
Definitions of Income Categories for Dublin. Discussion of housing needs refer to
households of "low," "moderate," or "above moderate" income. These terms are
precisely defined in state law, and establish the categories used in determining
eligibility of housing consumers to a variety of housing programs, as well as
availability of public funds and assistance to housing providers. State statute bases
the definitions on a household of four, and does not relate income definitions to
different household sizes for most purposes.
In 1979, the most recent year for which income data for Dublin households is
available, median household income in the City was 105 percent of the Five County
San Francisco Area Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) median as reported
by U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To update these figures, the Housing
Element assumes that the same relationship prevailed in 1983, and uses available data
to derive a 1983 median Dublin household income of $33,180.
Income categories for Dublin are defined as follows based on derived Dublin income of
$33,180. Explanations of each income grouping is as per Chapter 6.5 (commencing
with Section 6910) of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code.
Very low income- $16,590 and below.
Less than 50% of the area or county median income.
Other lower income- $16,590 - $26,544
Between 51% and 80% of the area or county median income.
Lower income- $26,544 and below
Less than or equal to 80% of the area or county median income (i.e.,
combination of very low income and other low income).
Moderate income- $26,544 - $39,816
Between 81% and 120% of the area or county median income.
Above moderate income- $39,816 and above
Above 120% of the area or county median income.
Determination of Moderate Income Unit Price. While State law establishes definitions
for different income categories, it does not define affordability for the purposes of
housing programs. Determination of a unit price affordable to moderate income
households is important, as the State requires jurisdictions give developers density
bonuses if 25 percent of the units in a project are affordable to low and moderate
income households.
3-21
The following method for determining housing cost affordable by a moderate income
household was developed by the Bay Area CounciLS This approach takes into account
likely interest rates and loan periods, but does not consider assets of the household. It
should be recognized that many moderate income households live in homes which they
"should not" be able to afford, as they were purchased with large down payments or
when home prices and mortgage rates were lower. The advantage such households
have in moving to a new home is clear. The flip side of the coin reveals the diffi-
culties faced by first time home-buyers of moderate income, without similar assets.
DETERMINATION OF THE MODERATE-INCOME UNIT PRICE
a. Moderate-income definition (120% of median) _ $39,816
b. $39,816 x .9 = $35,834 income to be used in determining price. In order to
establish a practical range of incomes able to afford a specific price for a unit,
it must be affordable to those having 90 percent of the calculated income.
Without this "window" only those whose income was $39,816 or more would
qualif y.
C. $359834/12 = $746, maximum monthly mortgage payment, or maximum rent
4 payment at 25 % of gross income. (Utilities and insurance
not included).
d. $746 payment at 13% fixed rate, 30-year term = $67,438 mortgage
e. $67:438 = $74,931 moderate income affordable purchase price assuming
.9 downpayment 10% downpayment
adjustment)
3.5.3 IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEED
State law requires that the Housing Element include an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs (Government Code 65583). Indicators of need
include level of payment compared to ability to pay, analysis of special housing needs,
vacancy and overcrowding. While data regarding overcrowding and"overpayment" can
be readily assembled and presented, such figures need to be qualified before they are
"translated" into existing need.
By long standing rule of thumb, overpayment occurs when a household pays more than
25 percent of monthly income for housing, although some of the recent literature uses
30 percent. Clearly, higher income households are more able to spend a greater
portion of income on housing without sacrificing basic needs than are low income
households. However, households that are technically"overpaying" are not necessarily
in immediate need of affordable units. Put another way, there is no evidence to
suggest that all (or even a majority)of overpaying households in Dublin or the region
would relocate were affordable housing available in the City. The fact that those
households identified by the Census as overpaying are living in Dublin indicates the
ability to pay.
5 Bay Area Council, Proposal for a San Mateo County Affordable Housing Incentive
Program, June 1983, prepared by the Bay Area Council and submitted to the San
Mateo Uounty Board of Supervisors.
3-22
The impossibility of pairing households and housing units raises a basic difficulty in
solving overcrowding and overpayment problems. For example, while production of
additional large units would surely provide the opportunity for large households to be
adequately housed, it does not guarantee it. If it can be supposed that households
living in overcrowded conditions are those with the least housing choice because of
limited ability to pay, it becomes even less likely that the production of market rate
large units would alleviate overcrowding in Dublin.
The policies and programs of the Housing Element are not likely to reduce the number
of overpaying households in the City. If successful the housing program will limit the
increases in the incidences of overpayment and overcrowding in Dublin.
Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing. One index of immediate need is the length of
waiting lists for subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley. Households on waiting lists are
in need of affordable housing and actively seeking to relocate. Table 3-13 reports on
waiting lists for subsidized housing. There is probably some overlap, with a number of
households on lists for more than one housing complex.
Level of Payment as a Function of Ability to Pay. Tables 3-14 and 15 compare level
of payment for housing to ability to pay. As discussed above, overpayment has
traditionally been defined as expenditure of over 25 percent of income on housing. As
can be seen from Table 3-16, over 1,300 Dublin households, occupants of 33 percent of
the City's housing units, spend more than 25 percent of their income on housing. This
figure suggests one of two possible interpretations—that there is a major overpayment
problem in Dublin, or that the accepted standard used to define overpayment does not
hold true in today's housing market.
The latter interpretation seems to have validity, as an increasing number of
households make the choice to spend a relatively large portion of household income on
housing. Such choices are available to some households and not to others; clearly the
fact that no households that reported 1979 earnings of less than $5,000 pay less than
33 percent of income for housing indicates a group of households that are overpaying
f or housing; f or those households, housing expenditures "take away" from expenditures
for other basic needs.
3-23
TABLE 3-13
WAITING LISTS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING a
On Waiting List (June 1983)
From From From
City Complex Dublin Pleasanton Livermore
Dublin Arroyo Vista 4 Elderly 9 Elderly N/A
(Pleasanton 86 Family 88 Family
Housing
Authority)
Dublin The Springs Long term waiting list not maintained
Pleasanton Kottinger Place N/A 29 Elderly N/A
(Pleasanton
Housing
Authority)
Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens N/A 27 Elderly N/A
Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens N/A 57 Elderly N/A
Livermore Hillcrest Gardens Estimated at 110, almost all from
Livermore; no breakdown available
Livermore Leahy Square Estimated at 150; no breakdown available
(Livermore
Housing Authority)
Livermore Livermore Gardens Estmated at 50; no breakdown available
Livermore Meadowbrook 70 on waiting list; no breakdown
available
Livermore Vineyard Village Estimated at 85 elderly, 1 disabled; no
breakdown available
aDescriptions of housing complexes are in Table 3-9.
Source: Blayney-Dyett telephone survey, Spring, 1983
3-24
TABLE 3-14
MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
(Selected Noncondominium Units - City of Dublin)
income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more
Households 50 116 131 337 2,185
Surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 13 11.2 35 26.7 88 26.0 1,248 57.0
20%-24% 5 4.3 32 24.4 68 20.2 327 14.9
wx
0
25%-34% 24 20.7 25 19.1 84 25.0 437 20.0
p �
a
35% or more 50 100 74 63.8 39 29.8 97 28.8 173 8.1
Source: 1980 U.S. Census
TABLE 3-15
N MONTHLY GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
(Selected Units- City of Dublin)
Income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more
Households 50 116 131 337 2,185
Surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 5 5.8 35 24.0 29 16.6 238 52.0
20%-24% 14 16.3 7 4.7 21 12.0 124 27.0
o 25%-34% 15 17.4 18 12.3 74 42.3 82 17.9
�
I
a 35% or more 57 76 52 60.5 86 60.0 51 29.1 8 1.7
Not
Completed 18 24
Source: 1980 U.S. Census
TABLE 3-14
MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME -
(Selected Noncondominium Units- City of Dublin)
Income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $9,898 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $18,999 $20,000 or more
Honeholds 50 118 131 337 2,185
surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 13 11.2 35 26.7 88 26.0 1,248 57.0
e .
20%-24% 5 4.3 32 24.4 68 20.2 327 14.9
0
25%-34% 24 20.7 25 18.1 84 25.0 437 20.0
a
35% or more 50 100 74 63.8 38 28.8 97 28.8 173 8.1
Source: 1980 U.S.Census
TABLE 3-15
MONTHLY GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
Ln (Selected Units- City of Dublin)
Income Level Less Than $5,000 $5,000 to $8,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 or more
Households 50 116 131 337 2,185
surveyed
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Households Distribution Households Distribution households Distribution Households Distribution Households Distribution
Less Than
20% 5 5.8 35 24.0 29 16.6 238 52,0
g 20%-24% 14 16.3 7 4.7 21 12.0 124 27.0
o �
25%-34%' 15 17.4 18 12.3 74 42.3 82 17.9
A~
35% or more 57 76 52 60.5 86 60.0 51 29.1 8 1.7
a Not
Completed 18 24 - - - - - - -
Source: 1980 U.S.Census
TABLE 3-16
DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 25 PERCENT OR MORE
OF INCOME ON HOUSING, 1980
Percent of Income
Spent on Housing
25%-35% 35%+
Renting Households
Total 190 100
Percent of All Renting
Households 20% 10%
Home-Owning Households
Total 604 459
Percent of All Home-Owning
Households 20% 15%
Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett.
Vacancy rates. Vacancy rates, a commonly used indicator of the adequacy of the
existing housing stock in meeting market area needs, are particularly difficult to
obtain for Dublin because several of the customary providers of vacancy data have not
conducted surveys in the city. The 1980 census reported vacancy rates as follows:
VACANCIES - DUBLIN HOUSING UNITS, 1980
Vacant Units Percent of Total Units
Vacant for Sale 28 •9
Vacant for Rent 17 1.8
x
The California Department of Housing and Community Development reports that in
{ California a rental vacancy rate of six percent and a for sale vacancy rate of two
percent are desirable to provide for the number of moves generally made by
households in a period of a year. The for sale and for rent vacancy rates as reported
by the 1980 Census are considerably lower than these standards. A sample survey of
Dublin apartments conducted in mid-1983 by Blayney-Dyett found virtually no
vacancies in Dublin apartments, with waiting lists typical.
Overcrowding. An overcrowded housing unit is defined as one in which there are more
than 1.01 persons per room. The 1980 Census reported 109 overcrowded units in
Dublin, 2.6 percent of the City's housing units. While overcrowding has been declining
statewide since the 19601s, the 7.4 percent overcrowding in California reported in 1980
represents a substantially higher incidence of overcrowding statewide than in the City.
3-26
3.5.4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Housing for the Elderly. The 1980 Census reported 429 Dublin residents over age 62,
representing 3.2,percent of the City's population, considerably below the nine-county
Bay Area total of 12.6 percent. Unfortunately, data is not available which indicates
what portion of Dublin's elderly households are overpaying. The generally low inci-
dence of overcrowded and unsafe housing units city-wide suggests that these are not
problems for the elderly or other groups with special housing needs. There is evidence
for a need for small units in Dublin, desirable for both their lower cost and
convenience to small households, many of which are elderly. While the Census
reported 29 percent (1,210) of Dublin's households having only 1 or 2 persons, only 392
1980 housing units, or 9.5 percent of the City's housing stock, were studio or one or
two bedroom units.
Cost is not the only housing concern of the elderly. Access to services and facilities is
another. The shopping opportunities in Dublin's relatively compact downtown are
attractive to those with mobility problems, but may be offset by the minimal public
transit within the City.
Below market rate elderly households have greater opportunities to find subsidized
housing in the Tri-Valley area then do families, attributable to the relative ease of
gaining acceptance for affordable housing when it is provided for seniors instead of
families with children. Five of the area's subsidized housing complexes are for elderly
and disabled households only. One type of housing for the elderly which is not avail-
able in the Tri-Valley is congregate housing, which provides a level of independence
and privacy between individual units or senior complexes and nursing homes or other
institutions.
Housing Accessible to Disabled Persons. Table 3-17 reports on the number of persons
in Dublin and the Valley corridor with major disabling conditions. Some unavoidable
double-counting may have resulted in slightly inflated totals.
While those conditions surveyed are not correlated with special housing needs, it may
be assumed that none of the categories of mental disorders and only some of the
categories of physical disorders represent populations in need of accessible housing.
Taken together, the two categories likely to include the greatest portion of people
with special housing needs "Amputees and Others" and "Other Physical Disorders"
total 803, or 5.9 percent of Dublin's population. This figure can be compared with the
1980 Census counts of those with workplace and public transportation disabilities,
totalling 722, or 5.3 percent of the City's residents. The figure double counts an
unknown number of people who have both workplace and public transportation
disabilities, and includes an unknown number of disabled persons who do not have
special housing needs. In sum, 5 percent represents the high end of an estimated
portion of Dublin's households with special housing needs relating to disabling
conditions.
3-27
TABLE 3-17
PERSONS WITH MAJOR DISABLING CONDITIONS:
VALLEYS CORRIDOR AND DUBLIN, 1982
Valleys Corridora Dublinb
Percent of
Number Number City Pop.
Total Disabling Conditions 25,199 2,219 16.4
Total Sensory Disorders 2,418 212 1.5
Blind 176 15 .1
Visually Impaired 453 39 .3
Deaf 554 49 .4
Hearing Impaired 11235 109 .8
Total Physical Disorders 121373 1,088 8.1
Amput. and Othersc 4,713 415 3.1
Epilepsy 252 22 .2
Heart Disease 1,638 144 1.1
Speech Impaired 327 29 .2
Digestion Disorder 1,033 90 .7
Other Physical Disordersc 4,410 388 2.9
Total Mental Disorders 10,408 916 6.8
Mental Illness 907 80 .6
Mentally Retarded 1,588 140 1.0
Drug and Alcohol 6,779 596 4.4
Other Character Disorders 1,134 100 .7
a"Valleys Corridor" includes the cities and Census designated places of Alamo,
Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, total 1980 population
154,312.
bAssumes even distribution of disabled population throughout Valleys Corridor.
cPopulations most likely to have special housing needs, totaling 803, 5.9 percent of
Dublin's population.
Source: Valleys Corridor Project, United Way of the Bay Area: extrapolation by
Blayney- yett.
3-28
Unfortunately, no data is available on the ability of disabled households to pay for
housing. Like low income elderly households, below-market rate disabled households
have a relatively great opportunity to obtain subsidized housing somewhere in the Tri-
Valley.
For market-rate households, finding accessible housing is the challenge. Information
on the number of accessible units currently in the City is not available. The bulk of
Dublin's housing units, those constructed by Volk-McLain in the 19601s, are single story
structures. These are, and will probably continue to be, the units most easily adapted
for accessibility. Expenses incurred due to remodeling in order to permit access by
elderly or disabled persons are tax deductible.
Needs of Female Headed Households. The 1980 Census reported 222 female headed
households with children present, 5.3 percent of the City's population, as compared
with almost 10 percent reported for the nine-county Bay Area. The number of female
headed households with children living below poverty is 22, 0.6 percent of all Dublin
households. The corresponding'figure for the nine-county Bay Area is 44,061, or 2.2
percent of all households.
Other Groups with Special Housing Needs. Two groups often identified as having
special housing needs are large families and farmworker households. There is no
evidence that either of these groups represent a significant number of households with
housing problems in Dublin.
Though data is not available that relates family size to ability to pay, the frequency of
large families living in unsuitable housing units would presumably be evident by a high
incidence of overcrowding. As overcrowding is reported to occur in less than 3
percent of Dublin's housing units, it appears that large families are not facing severe
housing problems in the City.
The ABAG housing needs determination does not present figures relating to farm-
workers' housing needs. The report does note that there will be a decline in the
number of farmworker households in the Bay Area, and that the need for additional
housing for farmworkers in the region is not demonstrable. Given this general projec-
tion, along with the limited extent of agricultural activities other than grazing in the
Dublin area, farmworker household needs are not considered in this Housing Element.
3.5.5 JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
State law requires that the Housing Element include an assessment of population and
employment trends. In Government Code Section 65913.1, State Statute mandates
that:
A city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone
sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate
standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in
relation to growth projections of the General Plan to meet
housing needs as identified in the General Plan.
3-29
The jobs/housing balance, reflecting the relationship between persons employed and
employed persons residing in a given area, is included in the Housing Element to
satisfy the State requirement. A 1:1 ratio would equalize the number of in-commuters
and out-commuters.
In 1979, 5,992 Dublin residents, 1.45 persons per household, a slightly lower average
than that reported Valley-wide, were employed. Using 1980 Alameda County data on
commercial and industrial floor area, we estimate that there are about 6,000 jobs in
Dublin, roughly the same number as employed residents. At build-out the Primary
Planning Area is expected to have 8,400 jobs and 7,900 housing units. If the number of
workers per household continues at 1.45, 11,455 employed persons would be housed in
the city, indicating a net out-commute.
When anticipated development of the extended planning area is included in a
job/housing balance calculation for Dublin a different picture emerges. While the
General Plan designations for the extended planning area are only schematic, the
proposals suggest that as many as 38,000 jobs and an unknown number of housing units
could exist there. Adding these figures to the total anticipated jobs and housing units
for the primary planning area results in a projection of 46,400 total jobs, requiring
24,100 housing units in the extended planning area if housing balance is to be achieved.
ABAG's preliminary 1983 projections anticipate 253,000 Tri-Valley residents by the
year 2000 with Las Positas new town included. This would result in 90,000 housing
units and 130,500 employed residents (at 1.45 per unit). ABAG projects 132,200 jobs in
the Tri-Valley, so the ratio of jobs to employed residents would be 1:1. If, however,
all of the 129,615 "planned jobs" listed in Table 3-1.materialize and are added to the
50,400 jobs existing in 1980, the job total will be 180,000 instead of 132,000 and the
jobs to employed residents ratio will rise to 1.4:1 unless housing construction also
exceeds ABAG's projection. The ABAG projections do not include development in the
Dublin extended planning area. With 218,000 jobs (including 38,000 in the Dublin
Extended Planning Area) and the 90,000 housing units projected by ABAG the
jobs/employed residents ratio would be 1.67:1 assuming there are 1.45 employed
persons per household. With 218,000 jobs, 150,000 housing units would be needed to
achieve balance — three times the number existing.
Valley-wide "fair shares" are essential if jobs-housing balance is to be attained
because each jurisdiction tends to act in its perceived fiscal self-interest. Dublin,
with lower per household income than Pleasanton, cannot be expected to accept more
market minimum housing so that Pleasanton can devote similarly situated land to
employment if both cities believe jobs to be more beneficial.
3-30
3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AVAILABLE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
Only one large undeveloped site zoned for residential development remains in the
Dublin primary planning area. Fortunately, several sites previously reserved for other
purposes are expected to become available for development within the housing pro-
gram time frame of five years. These are school sites, two of which are currently
developed as schools with parks on the grounds and one, the Dolan site, which has
never been developed for school use.
All of the sites except for the largest, an approximately 80 acre area west of
Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard, are inf ill sites. The Dough-
erty Road site is adjacent to.another large site for which townhouse-type development
has been approved. Services will be provided to new development by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and the Dublin police and (DSRSD) fire departments.
3.6.1 SITES CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
The sites listed in Table 3-18 and identified in Figure 3-1 are currently zoned for
residential development. As the table shows, none (with the possible exception of the
two small sites located in planned development (PD) districts are in zoning districts
that permit lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. Table 3-18 includes three sites that
are outside the incorporated area.
3.6.2 SITES NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Table 3-19 lists sites not currently designated for residential use, but with potential
for the development of housing. These range from school sites surrounded by
residential development to the downtown intensification area, where mixed
commercial/residential buildings might include apartments or condominiums.
Murray School District intends to sell the entire Dolan site and all or a portion of the
Fallon site.
3-31
TABLE 3-18
SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Site Number Appro.amate Current
Location On Map Acreage Zoning
East of Dougherty Hills,
north of Amador Valley
Boulevard to County line 1 79a R-1-13-Eb
Pleasanton Housing Auth-
ority property, southwest
portion of site 2 3 PD
South of Alcosta Boule-
vard, east of I-680 3 2
South side of Betlen
Drive north of Prow Way 4 9 R-1-13-E
Abutting approved Neilsen
tentative map multi-family
north of Hansen Road 5 4 —
Southwest of approved
Neilsen tentative
map, north of Valley
Christian Center 6 7 —
Abutting north
property line of Valley
Christian Center 7 6 —
aThe almost 100 acres of the total site includes a designated park and Alamo Creek.
Estimated area available for residential development is 79 acres.
bR-1-B-E allows for sites from 5,000-7,500 square feet.
3-32
TABLE 3-19
SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Site Number Approximate Current
Location On Map Acreage Zoning
West of Dougherty Road, C-N
south of Amador Valley Neighborhood
Boulevard 8 -2-- ' Business
Fallon School 9 8 R-1-13-E
Dolan School Site 11 27 R-1-13-E
Valley Christian
Center property—
southeast portion 12 1-12 Agricultural
Downtown Intensifi-
cation Area 13 —a :Mostly C-1, some
M-1, C-2, and PD
aThe extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the
area of future intensification is not known at this time.
3.6.3 SITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED
HOUSING
Opposition to mobile homes and manufactured housing sometimes arises when a
landowner proposes mobile home or manufactured housing on an undeveloped
parcel in a developed neighborhood of traditional single family detached homes. Such
conflict is unlikely in Dublin, where very few subdivided parcels are available for
development.
Development of mobile home parks is also unlikely in Dublin. The few large sites
available are designated medium density residential (6.0 to 14.0 units per acre) by the
General Plan, allowing more intensive use than can be achieved under most mobile
home park standards6. The strategies of the housing element presented in Section 8
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Guidelines for Improving the Mobile Home Living Environment, August
1977, p. 7. National average densities are 6 to 7 units per acre.
3-33
I;
.. ... M,
.a g
"Al VI
..........
i '? ti v1
3 �
Approxim_ate Location
X. . ..
.ti..w.,
5 (, 13 , 2;N.
i ory
.':
.:'::'..•: N Try,
:'::::
S. 3
,5 :; 7
�F
qq
e\
b 3:.
1
.,
x�.�>...
r '
Approximate Locato t• i
Figure 3-1: Sites for Housing Development
TABLE 3-19
SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Site Number Approximate Current
Location On Map Acreage Zoning
West of Dougherty Road, C-N
south of Amador Valley Neighborhood
Boulevard 8 2 Business
Fallon School 9 8 R-1-B-E
Frederiksen School 10 7 R-la
Dolan School Site 11 27 R-1-13-E
Valley Christian
Center property—
southeast portion 12 1-12 Agricultural
Downtown Intensifi-
cation Area 13 —b Mostly C-1, some
M-1, C-2, and PD
aMinimum lot size in an R-1 district is 5,000 square feet.
bThe extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the
area of future intensification is not known at this time.
3.6.3 SITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED
HOUSING
Opposition to mobile homes and manufactured housing sometimes arises when a
landowner proposes mobile home or manufactured housing on an undeveloped
parcel in a developed neighborhood of traditional single family detached homes. Such
conflict is unlikely in Dublin, where very few subdivided parcels are available for
development.
Development of mobile home parks is also unlikely in Dublin. The few large sites
available are designated medium density residential (6.0 to 14.0 units per acre) by the
General Plan, allowing more intensive use than can be achieved under most mobile
home park standards 6. The strategies of the housing element presented in Section 8
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Guidelines for Improving the Mobile Home Living Environment, August
1977, p. 7. National average densities are 6 to 7 units per acre.
3-33
focus on providing opportunities for multi-family units at medium densities. Such
designations remove developer incentive for mobile home parks on undeveloped sites
in the primary planning area and will result in production of more units than would
mobile home park development. As mentioned in Section 1, opportunities for mobile
home park development in the extended planning area should be considered when the
Housing Element is updated and when development proposals are reviewed.
3-34
3.7 CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING
3.7.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
State law requires that the Housing Element "address" and, where appropriate and
legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing. With 1,619 units approved or under consideration in
Dublin, increasing the city's housing stock by 36 percent, it becomes clear that,
overall, governmental constraints are not impeding development. However, the level
of activity does not indicate whether governmental constraints are increasing housing
costs.
Lack of Programs for Subsidized Housing. The major housing problem area is the
failure to produce units affordable to low and moderate income households. While
several of the strategies outlined in Section 8 of the Housing Element will bring more
market-rate housing within the reach of moderate income households, below market-
rate households will not be assisted by most of the steps the City is capable of taking.
The primary governmental constraint relative to the production of housing for low
income households is the drastic cut-back in federal funds and programs previously
available to subsidize housing. For example, Section 8 funds, formerly the main
federal housing subsidy program, decreased from $30 billion in fiscal year 1981 to less
than $9 billion in fiscal year 1983. The president's proposed budget for fiscal year
1984 included only $514 million in new budget authority for assisted housing under
Section 8, to be used for the construction of 10,000 units nationwide for the elderly
and handicapped. Dublin's arithmetical share would be half of one unit.
The current federal strategy is to provide assistance to the states through the Block
Grant Program, shifting the burden of allocation of a dwindling "pie." As part of
Alameda County's "urban county," Dublin is eligible for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Though Block Grant funds may not be allocated for hous-
ing construction, they may be used for site development and other related costs.
Competition for Block Grants is intense, both among jurisdictions and between
activities.
Currently, Alameda County nonentitlement cities that are part of the urban county
receive a maximum of $250,000 per year. Dublin used its 1982 allocation to assist the
Kaleidoscope Center for the developmentally disabled and for Dougherty Road
improvements. These allocations indicate the range of deserving uses to which CDBG
funds can be put, and suggest that they will not be a major source of housing subsidies.
Existing Zoning. Alameda County zoning, adopted by Dublin after incorporation,
designated most of the City for single family residential development. Existing zoning
constrains both the total number of units which can be produced and the number of
multi-family units constructed, thereby limiting opportunities for the development of
affordable housing in Dublin.
Processing and Permit Procedures. None of the land owners, realtors, or developers
contacted in the course of the General Planning process cited building code
requirements, site improvements, permitting procedures, or other governmental
actions as obstacles to the,approval and construction of residential developments.
3-35
Limited planning staff may have slowed down some permit processing by the City in
its first year of operation, but the staff has recently been expanded and should now be
able to handle applications and requests without delay.
Development Fees. One often cited constraint is the high cost of development fees
and permits. These include fees for sewer and water hookup and park dedication.
Fees for a recently approved Dublin townhouse development totalled almost $5,000
per unit. Development fees raise housing cost, diminishing the pool of possible buyers
for any given project.
Though high fees act to reduce the rate of residential development, they are essential
as means of funding necessary services for new development. Given the choice made
by Californians in 1978 when Proposition 13 passed, Dublin (like other jurisdictions)
has no practical alternative resources with which to fund basic improvements to serve
new residences.
3.7.2 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The inventory of non-governmental constraints can be separated into two groups:
those factors that reduce or slow down housing development, and those that increase
housing cost to the consumer. In the first category are possible lack of infrastructural
capacity; limited land availability; and competition of different uses for undeveloped
land. In the second category fall high and unpredictable interest rates; high land
prices; and community opposition to high density housing. There is overlap between
categories, as, for example, community opposition to medium and high density housing
results in extended delay in development, and eventual resolution of the problem of
sewage capacity will doubtless result in increased sewer hookup fees.
Possible Lack of Infrastructural Capacity. The most prominent public facilities issue
faced by Dublin and other Tri-Valley cities is limited sewer capacity. Sewage collec-
tion and treatment and effluent disposal are provided to Dublin residents and busi-
nesses by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), a member of the Liver-
more Amador Valley Waste Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns and
operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipeline
used by member jurisdictions, DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
DSRSD's treatment plant can be expanded to four times its present size, but the
LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated effluent through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is
nearing capacity. Development of additional LAVWMA capacity in the form of
another pipeline in the Valley would require Valley-wide voter approval.
Sewage capacity is allocated by DSRSD through issuance of connection permits. As of
Summer 1983, there were approximately 580 outstanding residential permits in Dublin;
i.e., permits that have been issued for dwelling units not yet hooked up to the
system. At that time an additional 1,700 residential permits remained to be issued to
users throughout the District on a first come, first served basis.
With remaining residential development capacity in Dublin alone allowing approxi-
mately 3,100 additional units that do not hold permits, it seems probable that pipeline
capacity will be reached before Dublin is built out, and that growth will be curtailed,
at least temporarily, within 2 to 5 years if additional effluent disposal capacity is not
3-36
available. Although a major new system would take 5 to 7 years to construct, minor
capacity increases could be implemented soon after authorization, possibly alleviating
development constraints during pipeline expansion.
Limited Land Availability. As noted in Section 1, only 157 acres of undeveloped land
remain in Dublin outside of commercially zoned sites. Given the strength of the
housing market in Dublin, it is likely that more land would be developed were it
available in an area served by public facilities and services. With small lots, very few
units over twenty years old, and a small number of units needing repair, it is unlikely
that redevelopment resulting in more intensive use of presently developed land will
occur within the five year time frame of the housing program.
Residential designations have been considered for several commercially zoned sites
and rejected. Planning Commission and City Council members chose to retain com-
mercial designations because of concerns regarding traffic and land use compatibility
and in recognition of anticipated demand for commercial sites. Mixed commercial/
residential uses are allowed in the Downtown Intensification Area.
Competition Among Uses. Closely related to the limited availability of land in Dublin
is the tension between competing uses for what limited undeveloped land does exist.
For example, in deciding on General Plan designations for the Fallon school site, the
need for housing was weighed against growing need for recreation facilities as the
city's population grows. The resulting plan continues devoting a portion of the site to
park while designating the remaining acreage for residential development.
In the Extended Planning Area, landowners have already stated their desire for
business park development north of I-580 in the vicinity of Tasajara Road. This
relatively flat accessible area is unique in the extended planning area for a lack of the
topographic constraints that will likely make housing units constructed elsewhere
affordable only to households of above-moderate income. Though the Tassajara road
area does have the potential for development of affordable housing, especially on
County surplus land, the adverse effects of proximity to the new County jail and the
freeway combined with the greater profitability of business park development weaken
support for residential development.
Interest Rates. Rising interest rates in the 1970's and early 1980's have been a major
contributor to high costs for both housing providers and consumers. The dramatic rise
in monthly mortgage payments attributable to high interest rates is illustrated in
Table 3-20, which compares payments on a $100,000 mortgage at different interest
rates and varying terms. In Section 5, $67,400 was established as the maximum mort-
gage assumable by a moderate income Dublin household, based on a 13% 30 year
loan. The $ 100,000 mortgage, however, is necessary for a large number of buyers of
Dublin homes. Increasing acceptance of adjustable rate mortgages that fluctuate
within a predetermined range depending on changes in the prime rate have helped
maintain housing demand by reducing initial interest to about three points below the
fixed interest rate.
Lower interest rates increase the number and income range of households that can
qualify for mortgages. High monthly payments associated with current interest rates
explain why many who purchased homes before the interest rate rise of the 1970's are
able to pay for homes that renting households of the same income cannot now afford
to purchase. High interest rates are a major factor that makes it much easier to
remain a homeowner than to become one for the first time.
3-37
TABLE 3-20
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
$ 100,000 MORTGAGE
Interest Term Monthly Payment
Rate Years Principal do Interest
0% 25 333.33
30 277.78
35 238.10
40 208.33
8% 25 771.82
30 733.77
35 710.27
40 695.32
12% 25 1,053.23
30 1,028.62
35 1,015.55
40 1,008.50
16% 25 1,358.89
30 1,344.76
35 1,338.47
40 1,335.65
20% 25 1,678.46
30 1,671.02
35 1,668.28
40 1,667.27
Source: The California Housing Plan 1982, Volume 2, California Department of
Housing and Community Development, p.c-26.
3-38
. , Community Opposition to Medium and High Density Housing. Two multi-family
residential projects recently proposed in Dublin were delayed and finally were
approved at reduced density as a consequence of opposition of nearby residents to
multi-family dwellings at high densities. Community concerns that have been raised
center on noise and traffic impacts, aesthetics and neighborhood character.
Opposition of some Dublin residents to higher density housing has impeded
development of a wider variety of housing types than the city has had in the past.
Approvals contingent on redesign have meant projects with fewer and larger, more
costly units than initially proposed by the developers. Despite density reductions
resulting from community sentiment, medium-high density development has been
approved in Dublin in 1983.
The General Plan process is intended to set densities that are consistent with accepted
design standards and community policies and will not be subject to negotiations when
future project designs are submitted.
High Construction Costs. The calculation on page 3-22 establishes $74,931 as the af-
fordable purchase price for moderate-income households. Table 3-21 provides infor-
mation on housing construction costs which show the cost (without profit to the devel-
oper) of a single-family home is considerably higher than would be affordable to
moderate-income households.
Condominiums, however, are produced at an affordable cost, anaa smaller developer
profit or somewhat higher proportion of household income spent on housing, could
make such units available to moderate-income households. The higher density (in the
example, 15 units/acre) is clearly necessary for the production of these lower-priced
units.
TABLE 3-21
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Single-Family Construction
1570 Sq.Ft. Living Area $65,500
Construction Loan Interest 5,240
Land ($2.50 Sq. Ft.) 28,000
Site Improvements and Fees 18,000
Land and Improvements Financing 31680
$1207420
15 Percent Developer's Profit 18,060
138, 80
Condominium Construction
900 Sq. Ft. Living Area $45,000
Construction Loan 3,600
Land ($4.30 Sq. Ft.) 15 units/acre 12,500
Site Improvements and Fees 7,500
Land and Improvements Financing 1,600
$70,200
15 Percent Developer's Profit 10,530
80,7
Source: Bank of America, Blayney-Dyett
3-39
TABLE 3-22
SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES
RELATED TO CITY GOALS AND HOUSING PROGRAM REQURIEMENTS
Housing program strategies requiring adoption of General Plan and consistent Zoning Ordinance amendments for
implementation:
Increase residential densities (C, 1)
Designate additional land for residential use(A,C, 1)
Treat one-bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75 percent of a housing unit when computing allowable
density(B, 1)
Allow residential development in Downtown Intensification Area(A,C, 1)
Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable housing on their sites(B, 1)
Require a percentage of units in large multifamily projects be rented for a specified period of time(B, 1)
Housing program strategies requiring additional City action for implementation:
Encourage development of second units in existing single-family homes(B, 1)
Cooperate with nonprofit housing provider to develop below-market rate units (B,1)
Work with Pleasanton toward establishng a joint housing authority(B, 1, 4)
Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in Dublin(B, 1)
Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assistance for the purpose of including below-
market rate units in proposed projects; assist developers in obtaining information on available programs(B, 1)
Housing program strategies requiring ongoing City effort using eristing programs:
Grant 25 percent density bonuses for provision of 25 percent affordable units as required by State law(B, 1)
Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others seeking housing in Dublin(E, 4)
Continue City code enforcement program; aid low-income households in obtaining financial assistance for
housing rehabilitation (D, 2) i
Statutory Housing Program Requirements City Housing Goals:
The program must: 1. -S= using of varied types, sizes and prices
i
in Dublin in order to satisfy current and future
A. identify adequate sites for the development of a housing needs of all Dublin residents.
variety of types of housing for all income levels
2. Preserve Dublin's eidsting housing stock in sound
B. Assist in the development of adequate housing to condition.
meet the needs of low- and moderate-income
households 3. Erasure that housing in Dublin will have adequate
public services and will be fully served by public
C. Address and, where possible, remove facilities and accessible to public facilities and
governmental constraints to the maintenance, employment and commercial centers.
improvement, and development of housing
4. Work for equal housing opportunity and access for
D. Conserve and improve the condition of the all persons regardless of any arbitrary factors.
existing affordable housing stock
E. Promote housing opportunities for all persons
regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, or color
3-41
3.8 HOUSING PROGRAM
3.8.1 SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM
The housing strategies that together compose Dublin's housing program will result in
production of more units and greater variety in unit types than would be acheived if
current policies were continued. This increased production is clearly warranted given
the significant growth in planned employment in the Tri-Valley within the five-year
time frame of the housing program.
Several of the strategies in process of implementation will be accomplished through
adoption of the General Plan and a Zoning Ordinance consistent with General Plan
policies and designations as required by law. Implementation of other strategies will
require City actions in addition to Plan adoption. Still others assume ongoing City
efforts based on existing programs. The Housing Element text presents housing strat-
egies in three groups consistent with these,distinctions relating to implementation.
Table 3-21 summarizes the housing program strategies and relates them to required
program components and City goals. Taken together the strategies increase residen-
tially zoned land in the city and raise permitted residential densities. Higher densities
are expected to result in smaller units and lower land cost per unit, so the new desig-
nations should expand the housing stock to better fit Dublin's population, recognizing
both decreasing household size and increased difficulty in affording single family
detached homes.
Quantification of the objectives of the housing program is difficult in some areas and
simple in others. Build-out of the City is expected to occur within ten years - perhaps
considerably sooner. Approvals have been granted for 1,600 units and a conservative
estimate projects construction of half of the City's remaining dwelling units, 950
units, during the next five years. Over 70% of these will be multi-family units.
Given the extremely limited availability of public funds for housing subsidies, the
housing program consists of actions feasible for the City (generally without financial
obligation) or for private interests. Should public monies become available for housing
assistance the City will re-evaluate opportunities for production of affordable units.
The City's housing goals are presented in the next section, followed by housing
strategies. Each of the housing strategies is associated with a particular policy
objective. Quantified objectives for the individual strategies are included as
appropriate.
3.8.2 CITY HOUSING GOALS
The following goals direct the City's housing program. Policy objectives which
implement City goals are presented with individual housing strategies.
P o
1. - housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet current and future
housing needs of all Dublin residents.
2. Preserve Dublin's existing housing stock in sound condition.
3-40
3. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public services and will be
accessible to public facilities and employment and commercial centers.
4. Work for equal housing opportunity and access for all persons regardless of race,
religion, national origin, sex, marital/family status or other arbitrary factors.
3.8.3 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AND CONSISTENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Increase Residential Densities. Under Alameda County policies, most of Dublin's
residential land was zoned for single family detached houses. There are no circulation
system or public service constraints that dictate low density for remaining un-
developed land. Higher densities will increase the variety in type and price of units
available in the City. The General Plan increases the density from single family on
Site #1, the 79 acres east of the Dougherty Hills and north of Amador Valley
Boulevard, to medium density with required mixed dwelling types.
The Land Use Element defines General Plan residential designations as follow:
Residential: Single Family (0.9 to 6.0 units per acre). This category includes single
amily detached and zero lot line development.
Residential: Medium Density/Required Mixed Dwelling Types (6.1 to 14.0 units per
acre). Except where required mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and
densities may be similar or varied at the developer's discretion. Where mixed dwelling
types are required, site-specific policies would designate the location, number, and
maximum density of lower density development and densities up to 20 units per acre
could be combined to reach the 14.0 average.
Residential: Medium-High Density. (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre.) Examples of
medium-high density developments include the Springs (17.8) and Greenwood
Apartments (19.8).
Policy Objective: Allow construction at higher densities to increase number of
units constructed and lower land price per unit
Quantified Objective: Additional 250 units within five years; at buildout 500 units
above number that would be produced under previous
policies
Action Undertaken: Sites designated medium density residential or medium
density residential/required mixed dwelling type on General
Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendment(s) consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
3-42
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Designate Additional Land for Residential Use. The inventory of sites available for
residential use (Section 6)shows several sites appropriate for housing where
residential uses are not currently permitted. These include two school sites, and the
small commercially-zoned parcel at the corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Policy Objective: Increase total number of units produced in Dublin by
providing additional sites for residential development
Quantified Objective: 186 units total; 93 over next five years
Action Undertaken: Residential designation on General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations.
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Treat One-bedroom and Studio Units as Equivalent to 75 Percent of a Housing Unit
When Computing Allowable Density, Provided that the Maidmum Number of Units
Permitted on a Site Shall mt be Increased by More Than 25 Percent. Attached and
multi-family housing units may vary in size from studios to three bedroom units as
large as many single family detached houses. If density policies treat all sizes identi-
cally, regulating density solely on the basis of units per acre, all units on a given site
carry the same land cost, regardless of size. As a result, developers tend to build the
largest units they can sell or rent to allow the greatest profit margin.
Small units, defined as having one or no bedroom, are on average equivalent to no
more than 75 percent of a large unit, defined as having two or more bedrooms, as
measured by household size, vehicle trip generation, and floor area. To incorporate
this concept in the General Plan definitions, base densities are set assuming all units
will be large units. Substitution of small units would allow the total number of units
to increase up to one-third. To avoid encouraging projects with only small units, the
General Plan limits the increase above base density to 25 percent.
Policy Objective: Avoid unintentional incentive to build large units; increase
profitability of small, lower cost units
3-43
Action Undertaken: Flexible definition included in General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility. Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Allow Residential Development in Downtown Intensification Area The Land Use
element establishes a "Downtown Intensification Area," where mid-rise buildings will
be permitted along with a range of land uses. Mixed commercial/residential use will
be allowed in the area, and is most likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed
BART station between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. While it is difficult to project the
number of dwelling units that will be built downtown, 200 is a reasonable assumption-
whether or not this potential will be realized depends on market factors affecting the
profitability of residential vs. commercial development, other intensification plans for
the area, and an increased acceptance of mixed use projects in general.
Mixed-use, mid-rise housing would cost more than the current market will pay, and is
unlikely in a five year housing program. However, second and third floor residential
space over ground floor commercial recently has been successful elsewhere in the Bay
Area. Such space is virtually "free" of land cost except for parking if the developers'
alternative is a one-story retail store .
Policy Objective: Increase units produced in Dublin; increase sites appropriate
for affordable housing and accessible to downtown
Action Undertaken: General Plan designation of Downtown Intensification Area
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations.
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable Housing on Their Sites.
With public funding for the development of affordable housing extremely limited, the
City will support efforts by semi-public institutions to provide housing. The Valley
Christian Center, for example, is considering construction of senior housing on a por-
3-44
tion of its property at the west end of Dublin Boulevard. To facilitate the center or
any other land-owning institution in developing affordable housing on an appropriate
site, the definition of the General Plan's"semi-public" designation makes provision for
residential uses. The definition reads: "Development of housing on a site designated
on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General
Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-
public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned
Unit Development under the Zoning Ordinance."
Policy Objective: Encourage development of affordable housing by private
organizations not primarily engaged in housing construction
or management
Action Undertaken: Inclusion of "Semi-public use" definition that allows
approval of housing as an accessory use in General Plan
Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months
of General Plan adoption
Require a Percentage of Units in Large Multi-family Projects be Rented for a
Specified Period of Time. The difficulties of first-time homebuying make rental units
the only affordable housing for many moderate income households that do not have the
assets to make a down-payment on a home. Other households may choose to rent for
other than financial reasons. While the General Plan designates sites for multi-family
housing there is no assurance of production of additional rental units in the city.
Some developers choose initial rental followed by sale in expectations of tax
advantage and price appreciation. If rentals are scarce, and the choice is no rental
unit additions or short-term rental additions, the City will enforce a type of "advance
condominium conversion" limitation by requiring that a percentage of the units in
large multi-family projects be offered as rental for a specified period of time. If
average household income is expected to increase, allowing renters to buy their units,
or if rental units are expected to be added continually to the market, this approach
meets needs well in the long term.
Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units in the city.
Action Undertaken: Inclusion of strategy in Housing Element
3-45
• Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan
Financing: No Cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City
Council
Time Frame: 1984
3.8.4 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CITY ACTION
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Encourage Development of Second Units in Existing Single Family Homes. A 1982
survey conducted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
found that a?Froximately 15 percent of the state's single-family homes are
underutilized . Given decreasing household size and the increasing cost of housing,
second units added to or converted from single-family homes may be a way to use this
housing resource to provide needed new housing at minimal financial and
environmental costs.
Objections to second units have centered around a few major concerns—character of
single-family neighborhoods, adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal, traffic
and parking problems—all related to population density. It is important to realize that
second units represent a way for homes and services to be used to the capacity they
were designed for by accommodating more households in a given number of housing
units as household size decreases. Overall density and trip generation would be lower
than previous peak levels.
Recent legislation requires local jurisdictions to provide for second units. Section
65852.2 of the Government Code gives cities two options with regard to second units:
they may adopt ordinances to establish zones in which second units are allowed,
establishing criteria and standards relating to parking, service, and unit design. If no
ordinance is adopted the jurisdiction must grant conditional use permits for all second
units complying with criteria established bylaw. A locality can adopt an ordinance
that totally precludes second units only if specified findings are made.
In 1984, Dublin adopted an ordinance setting forth design criteria and parking
standards for second units. While it is difficult to anticipate how many second units
will be built in Dublin, a target goal if the City actively promotes the development of
second units would be 350 units, representing one-tenth of all units in the City with
three or more bedrooms.
For such an ambitious goal to be achieved the City would need to develop a public
awareness plan about second units, publicizing relevant regulations, benefits to the
Underutilized means one or two people occupying a three or more bedroom home;
three people occupying a four or more bedroom home; or four people occupying a
five or more bedroom home.
3-46
homeowner, and information on how to create a second unit - from getting necessary
permits to hiring a reputable contractor to deciding how much rent to charge when the
unit is complete.
Predictions of the effect of second unit conversions on the City's housing stock are by
necessity speculative. Results of the second unit program will be monitored to
determine whether or not additions of second units are resulting in a depletion of the
City's supply of single family units which has an overall negative effect on the housing
mar ket.
Policy Objective: Encourage efficient use of existing housing stock; promote
development of small units at low cost.
Quantified Objective: Development of 350 second units in Dublin
Action Undertaken: Draf ting of ordinance relating to second units.
Actions Needed: Implementation of program to promote second unit
development
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council, City Staff
Time Frame: Five years for meeting quantitative objective
Cooperate with Non-Profit Housing Provider to Develop Below-Market Rate Units.
Private non-profit housing organizations often have advantages in securing funds for
development of housing as well as in reducing housing cost to the consumer. In the
Tri-Valley area and the Bay Plain, Eden Housing have been active in developing
affordable housing , and has worked with the cities of Livermore, Hayward, Union City
and Pleasanton and Alameda County. Other non-profit developers have also been
active in the area, and might be interested in working in Dublin.
Eden Housing has experience in joint ventures, in use of surplus school sites, and in
acting in a consulting capacity as well as in developing housing. For example, a recent
250 unit project on a surplus school site in Union City involved cooperation with a
private developer. Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds financed the project, which
will be maintained as rental for 20 years, with 20 percent of the units affordable to
low income renters.
Section 39363.5 of the Education Code requires public agencies to offer surplus lands
to potential recreation agencies and charitable corporations before offering to the
general public. Eden Housing has indicated to the Murray School District Board of
Trustees its interest in purchasing or leasing a portion of the Fallon school site. In a
letter to the mayor and City Council of Dublin, Eden's Executive Director offered to
work with the City to purchase a portion of the site in order to develop affordable
housing. While it is unclear what the precise nature of the development would be, it is
virtually certain that only a portion of the units developed would be below-market
rate units. The City intends to cooperate with Eden, though the nature of such
cooperation is undetermined at this time.
3-47
If development of affordable housing on Fallon (or another surplus school site) does not
occur, the City will consider contracting with Eden or another organization to assist in
investigating possibilities for the production of affordable housing on a consulting
basis.
Policy Objective: Promote development of affordable housing in Dublin
Actions to be
Undertaken: Cooperate with Eden Housing in developing surplus school
site or contract with Eden or another agency for assistance
in investigating ways to provide affordable housing.
Financing: No financing necessary. Assistance to the development of
affordable housing might include providing a short-term low
interest loan to the housing developer.
Implementation
Responsibility: City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: Plan for Fallon Site by mid-1985.
Work With Pleasanton Toward Establishing a Joint Housing Authority. Dublin's only
public housing project, Arroyo Vista, is owned and operated by the Pleasanton Housing
Authority. Though Arroyo Vista is physically in Dublin, the City is represented on the
decision-making body which manages the complex only by chance - one of the tenant
commissioners appointed by the Pleasanton City Council lives at Arroyo Vista.
Participation with Pleasanton in the Housing Authority would demonstrate Dublin's
commitment to working for housing opportunities for all income groups and to provid-
ing a range of housing services, and will give Dublin a voice in future decisions
regarding use of Housing Authority land.
Both Dublin and Pleasanton would need to take legislative action in order to expand
the Housing Authority. This obviously ambitious task would have to begin with a
positive dialogue initiated by Dublin regarding broadening the Housing Authority's
domain to include both cities. Another possibility is a Livermore-Amador Valley
Authority governed jointly by Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin and serving an area
that clearly is part of a single housing market.
Policy Objective: Share control of Housing Authority activities in Dublin;
support housing information and referral services.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Dialogue with Pleasanton City staff and City Council;
passage of resolution.
Financing: No Cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: City Council
3-48
Time Frame: Initiate discussions with Pleasanton in 1984
Encourage Development of Additional Units on Housing Authority Land in Dublin. The
Arroyo Vista site includes three to four acres of undeveloped land suitable for
additional development. Pleasanton Housing Authority staff has indicated interest in
possible future development of senior housing on the site.
Policy Objective: Promote development of below market-rate units affordable
to low income households
Actions to
be Undertaken: Work towards forming joint housing authority, provide
assistance as requested by Housing Authority staff
Financing: None required
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin City Council, Housing Authority Board
Time Frame: Five years
Monitor Availability of Rental Housing. If Deemed Necessary, Consider Enactment of
Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Though condominium conversions have not yet
occurred in Dublin, there are indications that they may be a concern in the not-too
distant future. Several apartment buildings in San Ramon have converted to condos,
probably resulting in increased demand for rental units in Dublin. One Dublin
apartment received permission for conversion from Alameda County prior to
incorporation but has remained as rental.
A program which monitors the availability of rental housing would insure that a
condominium conversion ordinance would only be passed if necessary to satisfy rental
demand in the City. Conversion regulations typically limit the number or percentage
of rental units to be converted annually or use a minimum rental vacancy rate as a
trigger for conversion permission. Near zero rental vacancies are likely to continue,
so a vacancy requirement might prevent conversions.
Policy Objective: Assist in maintaining rental stock as housing affordable to
? moderate income Dublin households
Actions to be
Undertaken: Establishment of monitoring program; passage of
condominium conversion ordinance if necessary
Financing: Minor administrative cost
Implementation
Responsibility: City staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
Time Frame: Monitoring program in place in 1984, ordinance as needed
3-49
Require Evidence of Developer Effort to Receive Public Financial Assistance for the
Purpose of Including Below Market Rate Units in Proposed Projects; Assist Developers
in Obtaining Information on Available Programs. The range of available state and
federal programs designed to increase housing affordability varies constantly. To
insure that developers are participating in appropriate programs when possible, the
City will require evidence that developers of multi-family housing have investigated
program availability and are using available funding assistance whenever possible.
To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City should
prepare and regularly update a packet of information on available programs, including
a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This
information should be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval
process.
This requirement shall apply only to developers of project that will contain 75 or more
multi-family units.
Policy Objective: Promote use of available funds and funding mechanisms in
private sector housing development
Actions to be
Undertaken: Assign staff time, print standard information for
developers, develop review process for implementation
Financing: Cost of staff time equivalent to five percent of the time of
a full time staff person; from planning budget or through
use of Block Grant funds
Implementation
Responsibility: City planning staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City
Council
Time Frame: Program in place by 1985
3.8.5 STRATEGIES REQUIRING ONGOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING
PROGRAMS
Grant 25 Percent Density Bonuses for Provision of 25 Percent Affordable Units as
Required by State Law. The State's first density bonus law was enacted in 1979 and
clarified in 1982. Together, the two laws (Government Code section 65 915) require
that developers of housing that agree to construct at least 25 percent of the total
units of a development for low or moderate income households, or ten percent for low
income households, must be granted a density bonus of at least 25 percent or other
incentives of equivalent financial value. The law contains additional clarifying
language regarding the procedures and definitions relevant to granting density
bonuses.
Little use of the required density bonus provision is anticipated. For the bonus
incentive to result in construction of a significant number of affordable units the
incentives would have to be increased._ Some jurisdictions offer additional density
incentives. Rather than develop a complex density bonus system, this housing program
3-50
incorporates the concept of higher-than-base densities through adopting a flexible,
density definition. This approach provides incentives for the production of more small
units priced at full market value, rather than providing incentives for the development
of lesser numbers of below market rate units.
Policy Objective: Provision of incentives for providing affordable units;
compliance with State law
Actions to be
Undertaken: Granting of density bonuses as mandated in Government
Code 65915
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Staff
Time Frame: Immediate
Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Dublin Residents and Others Seeking
Housing in Dublin. Federal and state programs guarantee equal housing opportunity.
The Rumford Fair Housing Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination on any basis,
including race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, in the
rental, lease, sale or financing of any residential dwelling other than an individual
room in an owner's house.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person's race,
color, sex, national origin, religion, or ancestry in the provision of goods and services
by all business entities. A business entity includes landlords, real estate brokers
acting as agents in the sale of real property and financial institutions.
The State Fair Employment and Housing Commission receives complaints of housing
discrimination and takes necessary actions to relieve discrimination. In the Tri-
Valley, Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) provides services to victims of
housing discrimination. While the City of Dublin does not contribute to ECHO,
services are provided to City residents through the organization's Livermore office.
City staff will refer cases to ECHO, other housing organizations and to the State as
appropriate, and make available to all persons information regarding anti-
discrimination laws and enforcement agencies.
Policy Objective: Support services and programs which fight housing
discrimination; direct persons towards agencies which
provide assistance to victims of discrimination as needed.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Development of information on housing discrimination for
public distribution.
Financing: Minor administrative cost
3-51
�
Implementation
Responsibility: City Staff
Time Frame: 1984 for information development, ongoing implementation
Continue City Code Enforcement Program; Aid Low Income Households in Obtaining
Financial Assistance for Housing Rehabilitation. For a year following its
incorporation, Dublin contracted with Alameda County for building inspection
services. Now Dublin has its own inspection program conducted by two part-time
staff members responsible for plan checking and zoning and building code
enforcement. Code enforcement is conducted only in response to complaints.
Both County and City staff responsible for building inspection have reported only
minor code violations in the City, attributed to the newness of the housing stock.
Additionally, where market conditions result in steadily increasing property values,
homeowners have a strong incentive to maintain their property. Even so, as buildings
age the incidence of deterioration and code violations will almost certainly increase.
When the Housing Element is revised the City should consider implementing an active
rehabilitation program suiting the age of most of the City's units.
Currently, low income households may obtain low interest loans for required
rehabilitation through a program operated by Alameda County Department of Housing
and Community Development. To qualify, units must have at least one code violation;
funds may be used for general property improvements as long as violations are
corrected as well. City inspectors will inform households living in units found to have
code violations of possible eligibility for the loan program.
Policy Objective: Enforce building and zoning codes in Dublin.
Action Undertaken: Expansion of City staff to include budding inspector(s)
Actions to be
Undertaken: Continue enforcement program; provide information on
appropriate loan programs
Financing: City Funds
Implementation
Responsibility: City staff
Time Frame: Ongoing
3.8.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
The State of California sets energy conservation standards for new residential
construction. The City can promote energy conservation in project design through a
variety of measures. It should be recognized that since all parcels in Dublin available
for residential development are inf ill sites they are inherently energy conserving,
locating new residents near employment and commercial centers. Designating sites
3-52
for multi-family densities, a major change resulting from the City's first Housing
Element and General Plan, will result in the construction of units which are energy
efficient due to minimal exterior walls.
It is in approving site plans that the City can assure new developments will have
energy efficient design. Prior to project approval, the City should require developers
(or their designers) to demonstrate that solar orientation has been a consideration in
site design.
Several state and federal programs are available to assist homeowners in improving
the energy-efficiency of their units. These include Federal Residential Conservation
Tax Credits, which provide for a 15 percent tax reduction for qualified energy source
expenditures up to $300, and a credit of 40 percent of the first $10,000 invested in
solar, wind or geothermal systems. In California, investor-owned utilities are required
to offer financing for energy.conservation measures that are found to be cost-
effective through a zero interest program (ZIP). The State also requires all major
utilities to offer residential customers free energy audits.
3-53