HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.2 W Dublin Land Use Options AGENDA STATEMENT
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
WEST DUBLIN STUDY SESSION 2
MEETING DATE:FEBRUARY 28 , 1991
SUBJECT: West Dublin Report on Land Use Options
and Policy Considerations
REPORT PREPARED BY: Brenda A. Gillarde , Project Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS: -13r, None . Phase II report entitled "Land
Use Options and Policy Considerations"
under separate cover .
RECOMMENDATION: (' Review staff report and discuss issues .
Through non-binding consensus , select
,/1;;',01>°' the conceptual land use plan for
purposes of CEQA analysis and study.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: This work is covered under the existing
contract with WPM Planning Team.
DESCRIPTION:
I . BACKGROUND
A general plan amendment/specific plan/EIR is being prepared for
the West Dublin study area. This study is now nearing the end of
Phase II : Develop Preferred Alternative. During Phase I
constraints and opportunities for development on the site were
examined and documented in a report entitled "Study Report 1 :
Environmental Setting/Planning Considerations . " This report is
available for review at the City Planning Department .
The purpose of Phase II was to evaluate the applicants ' proposals
for development in West Dublin, identify key concerns and propose
alternative development schemes . The end product of Phase II
will be the selection of a conceptual land use plan for West
Dublin. This concept will be further studied and refined during
the specific plan/EIR phases of the West Dublin project .
Ultimately formal public hearings will be conducted by the
Planning Commission and City Council on these documents and the
land use plan. No final decision will be made on the land use
concept until the formal public hearings have been held.
II . DISCUSSION
The main issue before the Planning Commission and City Council at
this juncture in the West Dublin project is what level of
development should be used for environmental analysis of the
GPA/SP for the site . To assist the Commission and Council in
1
that determination, a report has been prepared by WPM Planning
Team which analyzes the applicant ' s project proposals and various
alternatives to those proposals . This staff report briefly
outlines the report and summarizes - the options for development
in West Dublin.
The report divides the study area into two parts : Eden
Development Group/Schaefer Heights Properties and the Cronin
Property. The staff report also will address each - separately
although together they represent the development potential for
West Dublin.
A. Eden Development Group/Schaefer Heights Properties
1 . Project Description
The applicants are proposing a golf-course oriented residential
community. The key element of this community would be an 18 hole
championship golf course . A small commercial village is
contemplated in the vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road to provide
for some of the daily shopping needs of the residents . A range
of housing types would be provided - from custom executive homes
to townhomes and apartments .
2 . Issues and Options
The critical issues affecting development of the Eden/Schaefer
Heights properties are slope steepness and protection of biotic
habitats .
a) Slope Steepness
About 55% of the property is covered by slopes in excess of 30%.
Current City general plan policies are oriented to protecting
such areas from development . If the City wishes to proceed with
the applicants ' development proposal , the following general plan
policies would have to be modified :*
1 ) Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure
the ridgelands . (Policy 2 . 14 C-2 , pg. 11 of GP)
2 ) Maintain slopes predominately over 30% (disregarding minor
surface humps or hollows ) as permanent open space for public
health and safety. (Policy 3 . 1 B, pg. 15 of GP)
3 ) Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as
open space as a condition of subdivision map approval .
(Policy 3 . 1 C, pg. 15 of GP)
4) Regulate grading and development on steep slopes .
(Policy 7 . 2 B, pg. 29 of GP)
2
Note : There are other policy inconsistencies , as noted in
Table 4-1 of the attached report , but those listed here are
the most crucial at this juncture in the discussion of
development in West Dublin.
At this stage the precise wording of how these policies might be
altered is less important than deciding whether or not these
policies should be modified to accommodate the property owners '
proposals for development in West Dublin. -
In considering the modification of general plan policies , it may
be useful to discuss the underlying purpose of the policy and
whether it should be made more flexible while keeping the
original spirit of the policy.
The policies that raise the most crucial questions are the first
two listed on page 2.
Policy 1 : Proposed site grading and means of access will not
disfigure the ridgelands .
The underlying purpose of this policy seems to be to protect the
scenic resource of ridgeland areas , based on the premise that
development in ridgeland areas has a negative visual impact .
In changing this policy, the City could consider permitting
development if the majority of the ridgelands within the project
area are maintained and not disfigured. The policy should also
define "ridgelands" so it is clear what areas are covered by the
policy. '-
Policy 2 : Maintain slopes predominately over 30% (disregarding
minor surface humps or hollows ) as permanent open space for
public health and safety.
It appears this policy was based on the premise that development
on steep slopes can be hazardous . Hazards would include
landslides , slope instability, erosion and sedimentation of
streams . It also alludes to the perception that development on
steep slopes damages scenic values .
In modifying this policy, the City could add language that
permits development if 1 ) the development would not substantially
increase hazards or environmental problems ; and 2 ) there is a
public purpose for allowing development in steeply sloping areas .
Demonstrating a public purpose is probably the best way to make
the City' s policy more flexible. This was done for the Hansen
Hills project where an exception was made for access streets
which needed to cross steep terrain. Other public purposes could
include recreation facilities , schools ; other public facilities ,
promotion of more cohesive urban form and needed housing. It
should also be noted that there is nothing magic about 30% slopes
3
except that it defines a level above which extra precautions
should be taken. Adjacent cities use different standards ; for
e .g. , San Ramon uses 10% and Pleasanton uses 25% as the cutoff
for development in steep areas .
b) Biotic Habitats
As presently proposed, the applicants ' project would eliminate
several areas on the site of key biological resource value. The
most important is Elderberry Canyon which would be mostly filled
to accommodate a portion of the proposed golf course. The canyon
is notable for its relatively undisturbed condition, native oak
woodland vegetation and its function as a wildlife corridor .
The City ' s general plan has a key policy which specifically
addresses preservation of native habitats :
Preserve oak woodlands , riparian vegetation, and natural
creeks as open space for their natural resource value.
(Policy 8. 23 C, pg. 35 of the GP)
This policy focuses on retention of the natural resource value of
native habitats . To create more flexibility in this policy,
language could be added to permit removal of onsite natural
vegetation and creeks if 1) other areas on the site were restored
to their natural condition, thus creating new habitats ; and/or 2 )
replacement with the same species and equivalent value.
c. Development Options
There are development options that would avoid the policy
inconsistencies with the general plan policies discussed in the
previous section. Two options are discussed.. in detail in the
Phase II report : 1 ) a very low density development consisting of
some 200 ranchettes , 3 to 5 acres in size ; and 2 ) a high density
project clustered on the gently-sloping portions of the site
resulting in about 4 , 000 townhouse and apartment units .
These options raise such questions as :
- Would 200 units be economically feasible to build?
- Is a predominately high density project appropriate for the
site?
The first question can only be answered by further economic
analysis , which would be conducted if the City chose that option.
Relative to the second question, clustering high density
development on the gently sloping portions of the site would
alleviate most of the environmental concerns raised by the
applicants ' proposal .
Another option is mentioned in the report . This involves
landbanking the West Dublin site until the Williamson Act
4
contracts expire in 1998 . At that time , the City could
reconsider land use options for the site in the context of
current developer interest and market demand. Language could be
added to the general plan to reflect the City' s intention to
consider possible development of the West Dublin site at this
latter date.
d. Discussion Questions
Staff and the Consultant request direction from the Commission
and Council on which one of three land use options , or variations
thereof , should be studied further , for CEQA purposes , in the
general plan/specific plan/EIR for West Dublin. The option
selected will serve as the land use concept for environmental
analysis for the site , although other alternatives will be
evaluated in the EIR, per CEQA requirements .
The following questions have been posed to facilitate the
discussion of a preferred land use concept for the Eden/Schaefer
Heights portion of West Dublin. When discussing general plan
policy changes it should be remembered that any changes would not
only affect development in West Dublin but also existing Dublin
and East Dublin.
1 . Should the City ' s general plan policies pertaining to
development in slope and ridgeland areas be left as is ,
modified to create more flexibility or deleted?
2 . Are there other options that should be considered for the
site?
3 . Of the options discussed, which should be selected for
further study for CEQA purposes and for the specific
plan?
B. Cronin Property
1 . Project Description
The applicant is proposing 125 single family lots which would be
sold by the applicant . Custom or production homes would be built
on the lots . The site is separated from the rest of West Dublin
by a major ridgeline, identified in the report as Skyline Ridge .
Since this is a significant visual and recreational resource ,
there are no plans to connect the Cronin property with the rest
of the study area. Thus it would gain access either from
existing streets or through the proposed Hansen Hills
development .
5
2 . Issues and Options
The major issues affecting development on the Cronin property are
similar to those for the Eden/Schaefer properties but are more
severe , due to the percentage of the site affected. Thus on a
proportional scale , the impacts of developing the Cronin property
could be more severe.
-
a. Slope Steepness and Landslides
The Cronin property is severely constrained by steep slopes and
landslides . Only about eight acres of the 179 acre site are free
of major development constraints . The applicant proposes
development in areas of steep slopes and landslides . This raises
the same policy questions about slopes as the Eden/Schaefer
development . (Refer to page 3 of the staff report . )
b. Biotic Habitats
The applicant ' s proposal would result in the elimination of
extensive native woodland and destruction of the lower reaches of
Martin Creek. The following general plan policies would have to
be modified if the City wishes to proceed with the applicant ' s
proposal :*
1 ) Preserve oak woodlands , riparian vegetation, and natural
creeks as open space for their natural resource value .
(Policy 8 .23 C, pg. 35 of the GP)
2 ) Maintain natural hydrologic systems .
(Policy 7 . 2 A, pg. 29 of the GP)
3 ) Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect
all riparian vegetation, improve access , and prevent
flooding caused by blockage of streams .
(Policy 7 . 1 D, pg. 29 of the GP)
* Note : There are other policy inconsistencies , as noted in
Table 4-1 of the attached report , but those listed here are
the most crucial at this juncture in the discussion of
development in West Dublin.
Similar options exist to modify these policies as previously
discussed on page 4 of this staff report . With careful wording
they could probably be modified to maintain the spirit of the
original policy while permitting more flexibility.
c. Development Options
The Phase II report outlines two options in detail that would
avoid most of the major environmental concerns and policy
inconsistencies associated with the applicant ' s project proposal .
6
The first is a substantially reduced residential development
consisting of 20 homesites located in the relatively constraint
free portions of the site. However , based on a preliminary
economic feasibility analysis , this option would probably not be
supportable in the marketplace , due to the high cost per unit for
infrastructure.
The second option proposes keeping most of the site in open space
and allowing two luxury homesites that would not require urban
services . This option would probably require no modifications to
existing general plan policies and would have minimal
environmental impact .
The report mentions a third option which would involve
acquisition of the Cronin parcel for a regional park. However ,
the report lists several reasons why this option would probably
not be feasible : lack of money, steep terrain, difficult access ,
lack of unique features and slope instability.
d. Discussion Questions
The questions for the Cronin property are very similar to the
issues raised by development of the Eden/Schaefer Heights
properties . However , the Cronin property is additionally
constrained by the fact that 1 ) some of the areas proposed for
development would be visible to the outside community; 2 ) most of
the areas proposed for development are almost entirely covered by
either slopes over 30%, deep seated landslides and/or sensitive
vegetation ; and 3 ) access to the site may be through existing
neighborhoods .
In determining the appropriate land use concept for the Cronin
property, the following questions should be considered :
1 . Should the City ' s general plan policies pertaining to
development in slope and ridgeland areas be left as is ,
modified to create more flexibility or deleted?
2. Are there other options that should be considered for the
site?
3 . Of the options discussed, which should be selected for
further study for CEQA purposes and for the specific plan?
III . CONCLUSION
Development of the West Dublin site poses some major policy
choices for the City. The purpose of the Study Session is to
consider the pros and cons of the various proposals and options
and direct Staff and the Consultant to proceed with one
development option for purposes of environmental analyses .
Although an option needs to be selected at this time , it can be
7
changed and modified throughout the specific plan and EIR process
and may not necessarily be the option ultimately approved.
The Planning Commission and City Council should review the Phase
II report and the staff report and then address the discussion
questions posed on pages 5 and 7 . Through this discussion a non-
binding consensus can be achieved on the desired development
concept for environmental analysis for West Dublin.
Again, it is noted that the Commission and Council will be
selecting a conceptual plan only at this stage in the West Dublin
Study for purposes of CEQA analysis and study. The selected
concept will be subject to further environmental analysis
throughout the specific plan and EIR phase of the West Dublin
Study. In addition, alternatives to the concept will also be
evaluated in the EIR. The development concept , plus the specific
plan and EIR, will be subject to formal public hearings . After
these hearings , the Council will ultimately make the final
decision regarding the general plan amendment and specific plan
for West Dublin.
The selection of a conceptual plan and the end of this study
session will complete Phase II of the West Dublin Study and
initiate Phase III : Preparation of the Preliminary General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan document .
sr/wdss2
8
s —r
s ° STUDY REPORT 2:
I LAND USE OPTIONS AND
L.! POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
WEST DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/
SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY/EIR
�r
February 8, 1991
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
I Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact: Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
' Brenda Gillarde
Project Coordinator
(415) 833-6610
Prepared By:
WPM Planning Team,Inc.
1200 "G" Street, Suite 1B
Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 522-4465
ri
U
ti _
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1-1
I i 1.2 Development Opportunities and Constraints 1-3
2. LAND USE OPTIONS - EDEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP/
SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROPERTIES
2.1 The Design Refinement Process 2-1
2.2 Option 1: Eden Canyon Country Club 2-2
2.3 Option 2: The Open Space Option 2-4
2.4 Option 3: Cluster Development Option 2-5
1 2.5 Other Possible Options 2-5
3. LAND USE OPTIONS - CRONIN PROPERTY
3.1 Site Description and Constraints 3-1
3.2 Background: The Planning Process for the Cronin Property 3-3
•
3.3 Cronin Option A: Applicant's Plan 3-4
3.4 Cronin Option B: Reduced Development Option 3-4
3.5 Cronin Option C: Open Space Alternative 3-5
3.6 Other Possible Options for the Property 3-7
4.GENERAL PLAN POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR WEST DUBLIN
4.1 Land Use Options - Consistency with General Plan Policies 4-2
4.2 Key Policy Issues for the West Dublin Study Area 4-2
Li APPENDICES
1i A. Report Preparers
LI B. Traffic Analysis: Eden Canyon Country Club
C. Traffic Analysis: Cronin Property
D. Detailed Evaluation of Land Use Options -Eden/Schaefer Heights Properties
E. Detailed Evaluation of Land Use Options - Cronin Property
F. Fiscal Analysis
G. Text of Selected General Plan Policies
B:\8914-3\8914-TOC
_J
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
Tables -
r
2-1: Project Description- Eden Canyon Country Club 2-8
2-2: Evaluation of Land Use Options -Eden/Schaefer Heights Properties . . . . 2-10
3-1: Evaluation of Land Use Options - Cronin Property 3-8
4-1: Eden/Schaefer Heights Land Use Options -
Consistency with Selected General Plan Policies 4-5
4-2: Cronin Property Land Use Options-
Consistency with Selected General Plan Policies 4-7 r
.r,
ii
B:\8914-3\8914-TOC
if
I 'r
y_.
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
r-1
Figures
1-1: Study Area Location 1-8
1-2: Site Features 1-9
L, 1-3: Combined Development Constraints ' 1-10
1-4: Steep Slopes in Study Area 1-11
1-5: Preliminary Landslide Map 1-12
1-6: Vegetative Cover Map 1-13
1-7: Visual Sensitivity 1-14
2-1: Original Plan- Eden Canyon Country Club 2-11
I ! 2-2: Pedestrian-Oriented Community Concept 2-12
2-3: Intermediate Plan-Eden Canyon Country Club 2-13
2-4: Eden Canyon Country Club 2-14
2-5: Key Features -Eden Canyon Country Club 2-15
2-6: Option 2: Open Space Option 2-16
2-7: Option 3: Cluster Development Option 2-17
3-1: Cronin Property Setting 3-9
Property Cronin a nY-
Site Features 3-10
I � P
3-3: Geotechnical Constraints -Cronin Property 3-11
3-4: Other Constraints -Cronin Property 3-12
3-5: Initial Plan- Cronin Ranch 3-13
1 3-6: Option A: Cronin Ranch Development Plan 3-14
3-7: Option B: Reduced Development Concept- Cronin Property 3-15
it
B:\8914-3\8914-TOC •
r•�
..r
SUMMARY
•
is
7e.
it
f
SUMMARY
'
,, Chapter 1 Introduction
A golf course oriented.residential community and a residential subdivision have been proposed
ui the West Dublin Study Area.This report looks at the basic design concepts of these proposals,
i other land use options for West Dublin,the general environmental implications of the proposed
ro ects and alternatives, and the relationship of General Plan policies to the projects and
P ,J
alternatives
i � T ,
The Study Area: The West Dublin Study Area is located just north of I-580, between the city
of Dubl n an d Castro Valley:The Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights,Inc.,control
most of the lan d,m the Study Area. The Milestone Development Corporation owns the Cronin
Ranch m the eastern part of the Study Area.
J
� S
' �: The planning process for West Dublin.Study Report 11 dentified existing conditions,constraints,
an d`o ortunities"for.develo ment. This document Stud Re Tort 2 looks at the a licant's
PP � P � Y P � PP
r propos .3-d development plans, alternatives to these plans,.and policy considerations for West
P!,7"--l n After a preferred land use concept is identified by the City for further study, a specific
pl ,general`plan,amendment,and EIR will be prepared for West Dublin.
Key,development constraints include:
• Current General Plan policies,regarding steep slopes an d other environmental issues
• Street and intersection capacity in the area
! ; Steep slopes and numerous landslides over most of the Study Area
Existing trees and wildlife corridors
• Midges which are highly visible from I-580,Dublin and the surrounding area
` Key development opportunities include:
• Most of theStudy Area has direct access to 1-580
,, • There is a strong demand for housing in the area
,,:',.-.3'-',':`,..7:,'-:,-;',.',,=`� t r:
• Ridges can screen development from view, and also provide a barrier for freeway noise.
The site provides opportunities for providing additional recreation facilities.
• S4
s-1
A\8914-3\8914-S
Summary
Chapter 2: Land Use Options - Eden Development Group/Schaefer
Heights Properties
Over the past year, the applicants, the City's consultant team, and City staff have looked at.
various alternatives for the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties.The applicants have revised their
Original plan to reduce grading,tree loss,and other concerns. Out of a wide range of alternatives,
the following land use options have been chosen for review in this report.
Option 1: Eden Canyon Country Club
This current plan by the applicants would include about 3,000 dwelling units, a golf course,
commercial center, and public facilities.The primary goals of this option would be to provide
housing and recreational opportunities, while preserving over 60% of the site in open space. "`
Although this plan has been refined to respect key natural site conditions,this alternative would
still have major inconsistencies with the Dublin General Plan. Environmental concerns include
development on steep slopes, tree removal, destruction of creeks, disruption of wildlife cor-
ridors,and other issues.This option would have a beneficial fiscal impact for the City of Dublin.
Option 2: Open Space Option
This plan would include about 200 "ranchette" homes on lots of 3 to 5 acres, with most of the
site retained in natural open space.The primary goal of this alternative would be to protect and
enhance environmental quality.This option would be designed to be generally in conformance
with current environmental policies of the Dublin General Plan.This low-intensity development
approach would mean that no major interchange improvements or other major infrastructure
costs would be needed. This option would generally have the least environmental impact.
Option 3: Cluster Development Option
With this option,fairly intensive urban development would be clustered on the 600 acres of the
site which are relatively free of constraints. This approach would generally conform with the
current policies of the Dublin General Plan. With this option, densities would be somewhat
higher than the applicant's proposed Eden Canyon Country Club plan. There would be an
emphasis on townhouses and apartments rather than single-family homes.An estimated 3,500
units plus public and commercial/office facilities could be accommodated on the site,using this
development approach. l..
This option.would have various environmental benefits, including less grading, landform
alteration,and tree removal than Option 1.However,this option would have the highest demand
for most public services. There is a possibility of a negative fiscal-impact on the City, since
property values might be.too low to pay for these increased services; further fiscal analysis
would be required.
•
S-2
AN8914-3\8914-S
l_.
-.•.,,,..---..,,,...,.,,,,,u.,„:„„.,,;.-....,...,,., .
' Summary
r'''' '''''""'''''..'"P;' '''-f.'-'..-•:-.. '..:. -. .. .
Cii.6'-'0 ‘ -'-.,,:, :..i.,:,.•0d Use Options - Cronin Property
iia.'::'CiOiiiii•-PioP.ert.,v Is-the only major landholding not integrated into the Eden/Schaefer Heights
l'•••41'::,:::'-':'.,;.;'',.•,':.:E':',:l';',....::.,-Y.•.....!.:.,.i',.'",,:..'-i.,.."-;: .-09y .:9OTikie,.nt-pripc.isal for , Dublin.This 179-acre parcel is located northwest of the Hansen .
ifilli.•-`iite.::,.:1■/.1iWstOne...DeirelOpiti. ent Corporation has submitted plans for development of the
‘ ..;,iiliCli have been revised in response to comments by the City's staff and consultants.
I P'c'•-7:3":".1:,':"i'l. .,,';`:::.:...,i.',::,,.:•:,,:::;;',':,,FAC):611i;'-'ili,.i4pH has.125....lots,with minor recreation facilities.
.-,:t=":•-•'-•,=:..'-f-',A,0:-..'',"--.',':-..:,...':;:i':-..,-,,J.!,;.•:,-..,:;:',..-...,- ..:.:f'k,--.-.7:-....7.:if..;!'.:,.:•• , :- .- --
-Ci ; i.4eity has severe development constrain' ts. Unlike the Eden/Schaefer
Tlie"..:' 9P411)..''.' -- site is in a-remote location,some i- HeiiiitS-ii-000,..fte ;,.th, e site is. . distance from existing streets.Traffic .
'...-:,;:.:1,-'7.:..!:':::,;.:':.:::•.:::...::;..":::::j,.ii.6ifiiii 6:pip.f:0, k.:■•,:y 0.11.1d be directed onto local streets.All potential access routes to the site must
i-,....,,,....,...:,:=1,,;_g;.,,,.:,_:,':•.,,..:.'„,:.:.:_:_::
traverse,,.....1..4.1..I: i,,:.landslide i , deposits. .Parts of the site are highly visible from Dublin.and the
1 44_-•_,lv; ai)eilg,..:ef'..a.-•:;',.Th e._Ei!stp .y.,Relgioone:lanPdarink aDjois.rtrict has plans for a regional trail in this area.
. ' .,...:iSe'sit,,, ,...7i....steep slopes . landslides.
'""':'6.;''''''''':::'''''''"'141'g9'; 5' ' --.and riparian The Dublin Fault borders the site
coastal
1. ' : ' iii .:. .-.,,-.'.-e-i,:':Ctieks..an as . . .
1 04,-.. •.. .F *-,;‘,:.., high value vegetation, as well as oak woodland and
Ii' ''theSite :have,hig ue as wildlife habitat. . .on'',,.::::::':', .:.:-'!,1.'::0..',..:;q:,,. .1:::,•:- ::.,.,.: I:.".-::: .:-'i,.i.;.".44',`. ..' ,-:.:,-.::' -...,'..Y.. - . ... .
".„_:...,.:;:;..•;..,:,:i'.. .. .,7,V.1.1';',:',°::' '''''''''''''iiii,,00tiOiii:. :::AppliCant's Plan .
. .
Thip'-'faii'-' -'wiiiilhiii)..-46.1.25 residential.lots and minor recreation facilities.Access streets would
b.:.‘:,.. t,, ,,, d.fi.,•.0 ,,, . ,Brittany Drive and t:';.,',',.;..,..':Y..,:?; :q:=.-..-•,..'..--...:....; :• ;-':-.';: ;..,:.-t:::::-,:=:':?:::',:,..•.. .,:...,...,.. -•. ....•.. :. -• . - d th Hansen Hills project.
...
' ' Uld be inconsistent,,,,,.i..,,ofition.,..yvo General Plan policies. Environmental
I ('''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''.:•;''''''' ' 4I ' .possible traffic effects on existing neighborhoods,homes located in visually-
sensitive .Pi6ii :s:'4in''2 areas,7CrPeleks s.destruction,tree removal, geotechnical al concerns, and hydrologic issues.
.iii ,,-.'&cheli*''0U Id have a net fiscal benefit for the City,although the economic viability of the .
i iT:-•----,.:.--- ;:-..•-•,::::::,:',..--;•:::,:•1:1"R1S....,...-.,...,,,:,...,;,..::......,-.:,
tfi.S.•iiiieStio-nable.becatise of high infrastructure costs.
' --''''''''-'-'-‘-:.:."Yi.-7.'1:::''.:-•::'..::r:.•-•.:::.:,-:::•,::-:::;:7,j.,--:::-.:.-...7:,-,..::,.;:,•,.,...:••• • . - .
•.... .• .-........ .......„.......„•.....,........,...,.:;;..,....:• . •, •
14iniii:-0PtiOnl}3;•Reduced Developm ent Option.
!,'-'• ‘ ....-:,, ..-,,..;....,i,:-!:,. .-..,...!..••::',-f:':%•;-?•:,-::;:-)...1.'-4-:-'-''' atures.
-''''''''''''''1'.'1"'"-:l'i:::':':'''''''':::::::'';':i".:: :::'':':i.:"'ill':::•:::.:';1iis al e
...: rn;iveie '..' ..',.., .a small number of homes clustered in sections of the site which are
.i'q'L'i•-'.'::/,:t:V.'..-',.1,:,
suited for development.
,....The site plan is designed to minimize environmental disruption.Major .
•I( ';i•-•'-,::,.,....=';',...'!;;51:.,".i.:;.,:.,: :;.::::.,,,.,.::.,;.:......'-..,--1,..0-'"- oili*--,...:±-.:6p*.,.,..,:.....""...W,... O..Uld b e needed to bring an access street to the site.Sixteen homesites would
be ,.'.' ..,• . . .
1 l'''''''''''';"•'-''''''' '''''''--:••. ',-:..Thi:i....oPtiOn generally . to the policies of the Dublin General Plan.Environmental
''' '''':
impacts "-ii0..03i•.would be minor. Grading,.tree removal,visual disruption,and other environ-
'' -• 'generally would be much less than for Option A. Based on a preliminary
) :•:".1::.:."-:::..:''. 'dlideotot,.c°,7.acnc?d7..y;however,the infrastructure costs of this option are so high that this option may .
•• _•:=.--.:',...i'.,....,::,....:fv'..,,...4--..-.''',:..,.. ...;-:;.:economically viable.
...,,,, ,'.'4''''''''not be'economi,., .
''...:'•1-•.K.,:.:.:','`,,...,,,‘..:"--,g',i.-..:.:i•:.-.,:::..,,,....c.......iiiti.00tion .c
-: ••Open Space Alternative.
primary''. al. of this alternative would be to reduce most environmental impacts to a
1 ' ''' iiTh egi.''igie.-1 eV.67., Two rural 11. omesites would be allowed on the property, along with possible•• -:!''''''''''''''''''''' ..; low-intensity.:-•1- • :conclitional uses such as horse-boarding.Rather than providing full street improve-
.
§-3
A.\8914-3■2914-S • ,
...... ..,. .. :.... . ...... . . •
..., .. .,......... .:• .•
Summary (�
ments,as with the other options,the existing jeep trail would simply be paved to provide access.
Wells and septic tanks would be used.
Because of the minimal development under this alternative, impacts would be much less in
I i±y
comparison with the other land use options.There would be little or no fiscal impact on the City
of Dublin. I
Chapter 4: General Plan Policy Implications for West Dublin
The Dublin General Plan includes a number of policies which emphasize protection of natural
and visual resources.Both the Eden/Schaefer and Cronin Ranch proposals would be inconsistent
with various General Plan policies.It is likely that these projects would not be feasible unless
certain General Plan policies would be changed.The City needs to choose one of the following
options: `..,;,
• Delete these policies from the General Plan. This could affect planning elsewhere in the
lam:
City.
• Keep these policies intact. The current development proposals would be rejected, and
another land use option would be selected.
• Modify the policies to allow development under certain conditions:
For the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties,either Options 2 and 3 would generally be consistent
with current General Plan policies.For the Cronin property,Options B and C would generally
or fully consistent with the current General Plan.
Key Policy Issues for the West Dublin Study Area
• Ridgelands. The City's policy for the western hills needs better definition.
• Steep Slopes. Since most of the Study Area has slopes over 30%, this policy as currently.-
iJ.
written would preclude development similar to the applicants'proposals.
• . Woodland and Creek Corridors. Both development proposals would require substantial
removal of creeks,riparian vegetation,and woodland,which would be inconsistent with the
City''s General Plan.
- 1
(_.
S-4
A:"8914-3\8914.S !
i
i
b.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .
,,t
„:.
•
1.i .
Yf .
r x . .
3:.
Pil
•
1.4
�9i
1. INTRODUCTION
Il
1
1.1 Background
The City of Dublin is facing an important decision on the future of three thousand acres of land
in the West Dublin Study Area.The Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights,Inc.have
proposed a golf course-oriented residential community on this site,and Milestone Development
has also proposed a residential subdivision in this area.At this stage in the review process,before
proceeding into more detailed planning,it is important for the City's decisionmakers to have an
understanding of the basic design concepts of these proposed developments, alternative land
use approaches for treatment of the West Dublin study area, the general environmental
implications of these land use options, and the relationship of General Plan policies to these
alternatives. The purpose of this report is to promote an understanding of these issues.
The West Dublin Study Area
i Figure 1-1 shows the location of the West Dublin study area.The site is located along the north
side of I-580, in the hilly terrain between Castro Valley and Dublin. As shown.in Figure 1-1,
the Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights,Inc.control most of the land in the Study
Area; these two landowners are working together on plans for the Eden Canyon Country Club
residential development. The Milestone Development Corporation owns the Cronin Ranch in
the eastern part of the Study Area,and is proposing a separate plan for this property.The Morris
property is a small inholding in the southwest part of the Study Area; there are currently no
plans for development of this parcel.
i Figure 1-2 indicates place names for prominent site features in the West Dublin Study Area.
I
1-1
B N8914-3\8914-1
Introduction
I
The Planning Process for the West Dublin Study Area
The West Dublin Study Area planning process is organized into several stages.
• Existing Conditions.Study Report 1 has been previously prepared and presented to the City.
Report 1 identified the various environmental, physical, and planning constraints and
opportunities for development of the West Dublin site.
• Alternatives and Policy Considerations.1 This document, Study Report 2, discusses alter-
native land use approaches for West Dublin,and the implications of existing General Plan
policies. This report is organized as follows:
- Chapter 1:Introduction. This chapter describes the planning process for West Dublin,
and provides a summary of environmental constraints and opportunities.
zY
- Chapter 2:Eden Development Group/SchaeferHeights Properties.This chapter focuses
on the primary development plan for the West Dublin site,as well as other options for
this area.
- Chapter 3:Alternatives for the Cronin Property. Since a separate land plan has been
proposed for the Cronin site, this chapter includes a review of the proposed plan and
alternative approaches for this parcel.
- Chapter 4: General Plan Policy Considerations. This chapter notes the applicable
General Plan policies for the West Dublin Study Area, and the implications of these
policies for proposed development.
- Appendices. Technical information on traffic,economic and fiscal concerns,and other
issues is included in this part of the report. `f
• Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment.A preferred alternative for the Eden Development
and Cronin properties will be selected by the City for further study. These plans will then
serve as the basis for the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan document.
• Environmental Impact Report. An EIR will be prepared in conjunction with the Specific
Plan / GPA for West Dublin. After public review and comment, the Final EIR will be
completed. Once the EIR is certified, the draft General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
document will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council after public ,
hearings.
1 Text in italics refers to the current phase of work.
1-2
B:\13914-3\8914-1
1
•
IIntroduction
1.2 Development Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities and constraints for development were identified in Report 1. Constraints are
summarized in Figure 1-3,Combined Constraints.In the following summary of these constraints
and opportunities,the most important factors are noted in italics.
Constraints
Land use and planning
• Williamson Act Contracts. Most of the land in the Study Area is currently in agricultural
preserves, although cancellation notices have been filed.
a
Y' • Sphere of Influence.A small part of the Study Area is outside the City's sphere of influence,
and LAFCO approval would be needed to change this boundary.
• Annexation of the Study Area to the City of Dublin would require LAFCO approval.
• Power lines running across the site would constrain development planning.
• General Plan Policies. Current General Plan policies regarding development on steep
slopes and other environmental issues would place major constraints for development on
the West Dublin site.This topic is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.
Traffic and Circulation
• Eden Canyon Road.This narrow,winding route is bordered by steep hillsides,which would
14 be a constraint for street improvements.
• Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange.Terrain and existing land uses in this location could pose
possible constraints for land acquisition and construction.
• Street and Intersection Capacity. There is limited excess capacity for major local arterials
and intersections near the site. In particular, there is current congestion at the Dublin
Boulevard intersection with San Ramon Road in central Dublin. Cumulative development
in the area could add to this problem.
• On-Site Conditions.Steep terrain and ridges in the Study Area create limitations for efficient
on-site circulation.
Public Facilities
• Water. Additional storage and distribution facilities will be needed for new development.
Service boundary adjustments would be needed.
1-3
B:\8914-3\8914-1
Introduction
• Drainage. Areas downstream from the site are subject to flooding, and new development
could exacerbate these flooding problems.
tia
• Wastewater. There is a lack of wastewater collection facilities, treatment,capacity, and
conveyance capacity to serve new development in the Study Area.Service boundaries would
need adjustment.
• Other Public Services And Facilities.Boundary adjustments,new facilities and personnel,
and new parks and recreation facilities would be needed. I ,1
Geology and Soils
• Steep Slopes.As shown in Figure 1-4,a large part of the Study Area has steep slopes(over
30%),which pose physical limitations for development.
• Landslides. A large number of landslides have been identified within the Study Area, as
shown in Figure 1-5.In some areas, the concentration of landslides is particularly dense
and landslides are deep-seated.
•
• Seismic Concerns.The Dublin Fault crosses the eastern part of the Study Area.Major faults
in the region can be expected to cause strong ground shaking in the area.
• Liquefaction and Lurching. There may be potential for local ground failure due to seismi-
cally-induced liquefaction of loose, saturated alluvium or lurching of weak soils along j
stream channels. ■
• Expansive Soils and Bedrock.Site improvements can be damaged by shrinking and swelling
of expansive soils and bedrock.
• Excavation of Rock.In some locations,rock may be difficult to excavate with conventional
grading equipment.
• Settlement. Area subsidence and differential settlement are geotechnical concerns if mass r,
grading would be used in hilly terrain.
• Erosion. Site development could lead to increased soil erosion.
• Cut Slope Stability. Because of the nature of on-site materials, it may be necessary to 1,
maintain relatively gentle cut slopes.
Economic and Fiscal Constraints
• Property Tax Limits. Growth in assessed value of property is limited by Proposition 13 and
Proposition 4.Unless careful attention is paid to providing a proper mix of housing,property
tax revenue may eventually lag behind growth in City costs for services.
1-4
B:\8914-3\8914-1 -�
1 Introduction
Biological Resources
• Existing Vegetation. The existing woodland, coastal scrub ,and riparian vegetation on the
site have high natural resource values which could be degraded by development. These
areas are illustrated in Figure 1-6.
4 i
• Grassland Biome. Segments of the grassland biome next to woodland and coastal scrub
biomes have value as habitat,which could be damaged by development.
• Wildlife corridors in the Study Area need to be protected in order to allow free movement
of wildlife species.
• Aquatic habitats in the Study Area could be damaged by construction.
Cultural Resources.
• Mock Walls and Structures. The rock walls on the site are a cultural resource. Additional
research should be conducted if alteration is planned in the area of the existing bams or other
j structural remains.
Visual Resources
• Skyline Ridge.Divide Ridge.and Clark Ridge are highly visible from existing urban areas
1 in the region. These areas of high visual sensitivity are illustrated in Figure 1-7.
• Other ridges are key areas of concern from a visual standpoint.
• The 1-580 corridor, including land along the south edge of the site, is an important visual
resource(see Figure 1-7).
• • Woodland on the site has high scenic as well as biological value.
Noise
• Construction noise may impact a number of residents in the area.
• Power lines on the site have noise concerns.
Air Quality
• Ozone. Growth in the area could result in measurable increases in ozone concentrations,
which may conflict with air quality goals.
• Carbon Monoxide. Increases in traffic could result in carbon monoxide buildup along
°j
heavily-traveled streets.
• Construction dust could temporarily increase soiling and respiratory problems in the area.
1-5
B\8914-3\8914-1
Introduction
Opportunities
Land Use and Planning fl
• Planning Structure. The City of Dublin has anticipated development in the West Dublin
Study Area and has provided flexible policies in the General Plan for this purpose. The ,
GPA/Specific Plan process will provide a forum for community input and discussion.
• Coordinated planning in the West Dublin area provides better information for the City than .1
a series of piecemeal development applications.
• Regulations developed in the Specific Plan will be custom-made for the site.
Traffic and Circulation
• Eden Canyon Interchange.The existing Eden Canyon Road/I-580 interchange is underused;
additional traffic can be accommodated at this intersection.
• Freeway Access.Most of the Study Area has direct access to 1-580,thus minimizing problems
of additional traffic on existing streets.
Public Services and Facilities
• Water.Proposed development would not require the development of a new source of water
supply.Development is consistent with master planning of water facilities,and provides the ='
opportunity to construct new water facilities.Storage capacity and networking opportunities
will be increased.
• Drainage. There are no identified flood prone areas in the Study Area. With high develop-
ment standards, erosion would be controlled. Development could include water retention c:
facilities,thus providing an opportunity for managing peak runoff.
• .Wastewater.If properly designed,an on-site package treatment plant could provide innova- l f
tive recycling of wastewater.
• Other Public Services and Facilities. Development of the Study area would give the City.
the opportunity to build new recreation facilities. A regional trail link could be provided.
Economic and Fiscal Analysis r•_
• Housing Demand. There is a very strong demand for housing in the Tri-Valley Area. y`
Y
• Golf Course Orientation.The proposed golf course would provide an opportunity to create
homesites with a high premium value.
{
1-6
B:\8914-3\8914-1
Introduction
• Fiscal OppQ;tunities. There is ample opportunity to create a development which does not
impose any unnecessary burden on the fiscal resources of Dublin.
Biological Resources
• Habitat Restoration.Ponds,streams,and sections of the degraded grassland on the site could
be re-established and enhanced.
• Human Habitat. A human community could be skillfully designed to coexist with native
vegetation and wildlife.
Visual Resources (see Figure 1-2)
• Blackbird Pond on the site could be retained or enlarged to serve as a key scenic feature.
• The Los Novios rock formation could serve as a scenic landmark or backdrop for future
development.
• Donlan Point could serve as a recreational viewpoint, as part of a regional or local trail
system.
• Ridges on the site provide opportunities to screen parts of the site from major off-site
viewpoints,as well as to serve as a scenic backdrop for development on the site.
Noise
• Freeway Noise Shielding. Because of the effective shielding provided by ridges along the
freeway,1-580 noise is not a major problem for most of the Study Area.
1-7
B:\8914-3\8914-1
Figure 1-1
STUDY AREA LOCATION ; S eA it o, >v
Q
Ik O1{R 1St'.' G I
•
1.
� U
1\; { Hsr
rl , , t 0', - ,\ .l
\
■
d f
rw I j •l OEVQLO' AENT " .
p ,
d.
/,
s-I I t R %* SCfA @FER HEIGHTS P-. 3
r =,y,,,0 •' a ,,, ;8 i,r A u., art°■•t7 / ./ 10 i9 4 .� '
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY A it A
R{ rw..•2 j �
' , . + I e , Aaw'� F (AM A R• ,
1 1- , , .e. - . •w<z `1n Ramon _I
I. . . ,.'. ., ,.� '..'f.-�• r. ?,(+f /�r.--�'i � S' i 1/1,---\._ �, ' \�-- `� _. •r,. village °I'
I
• i � m 1
■
O
. t, j ..(.,'.!! ot•Y . :! i�{r .�� ' - '9° ! •.34 I. ,,.rte • :i
• y J ,. r ,t (, - l' , "rra>�' KoilanJwnF
r✓ . 1 �jtj �..�i.,.-�! 1 ! ..` aa. l - 1 l°fllaM
m,
i ' C '. \ -/1: f°jkft_a '� .,.r, • ' .. '••uar' .' • ?q.�\ ,1 .:.•l, w•' /n} `' ` i\ '',•�. .I :;••,1 C1 '...{ �"�. .. f �I..\, /`: , r .•..' I(' • '� ... _ ,, 161 !1�' I ,�
L ` �
I
°= / • w
"� - i�-r;, ��-'" T► i•�'L_ •��t1° ..�. l�r..`` �_......_a \I� C•'O�.I.()• �1 t r� � 'i t '�•ter• ,: �I•_ a _ f }'•
f rr 1 a 1 I I q•
Ira\
, 6 J�lir. J , .. `ZJ C, •3}:\ . - r _ 'A�'y a
•
>
1 i
1
r•
•
.., t . : .
0
•
o ,, { "1,,I,:"1,,I, ( ti '; t �`
. t • "w • I\, I,- �A. .Z' ,.....:s.„.. \
' ti R YJ A 'I' ' A
t
. \
Bas.Map Source:United States Geological Survey Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP •
EIR _
___
0
E.N,
1000 2000 3000 5000
4 an
-
1 1 , 1 I
Figure 1-2
SITE FEATURES
1=z- -,-_--3 r-\--,--,----.--,1,..--,-,,.------,
...., (7.1)..'..,'.
.—fti. 7(I, -/ -1 \- 1.//;
itr.
-4e.?IrkX •Jill,LT,
Ifrill\:11,47,,,L01-Vsial ?11j.7:11:7: t‘x:-:,.,:::, -.....,14'i)..j.":1,‘I.::-/2-114:\it us'i 41/1131(ifiti. /.4 S-t I/I/I/i i I/ '
• -----'7-11 :-. .7
;Is...:,-,-- IVI i
' - th'i l.?•‘`--:::,*d it - .'1‘,- ,
1/ i
- - ; P,' R-•\ ) — r4'('''I ' ■• ,' Nit
iiiiiii
, . — lks.• /6'./ ''.
/..
z f A,.4-\ 0 'Z.:. : I ■ 'CFI Z...." '•C'
. , 41 IV' dt •' 0 •-= ' - '- \- 4944) \ .
, ,,1-.1tIr , :,'• . —
-..
,0 •
-1:- IN, , . . , . .... , ,
." - ` ' ---\ , a., •
-,,s--, ,N4, ,, Lo4Novios .."' : , . .
" ''' \A1v , Rodt Formation .,'• ' -2' ...• ' - ,
10 ho •-- --,
•CRONIN PROPERTY
: ' •
-,.. •
i1,01/1 PbilI). /
,- ....
-...
•• - \
'Cr• ' . / ''
. .
- •
'
to;414, ' ' 'i 4/4,,_ - -.---•-•
\\, ,
'CP% -.N•ib,,‘ _ , . ----
, .
4,' ANYp- Vr.-----
1,
,....act,./, -----------\;_n„."7-- ; 400.' -4N . ' • • s ooltty -woe i
.., 144.441,-
I ...--;:.„-----. - -- • ---- - - I 1 f' l,-- ...1..._.k.:‘..- '
- , ,4A -'t`- -
4. t ' ' IN'
' ■. * 1 ' Bas0 'T)
----7. s" Y '‘`% ( ' ' ' ' Donks1 z ',
k
---■ ' ■ 7. 1314, kk, A 1'1.1*._'. / '
• 7*---
•Scum*:WPM Planning Teem,Inc. - 4- ■ ---..0°1- , -
Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
'
17.E1
WEST DUBLIN GpA • SP • EIR
0 1000 2000 4000 Z
Figure 1-3
vitt,* SLOPES OVER 30%
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS LEGEND
DEEP-SEATED
• ' \\ c.).-`' ‘\r1.—•
,•_, ',. ' r..,-;,---:-.4.-..:-&--2,:=.,...
LANDSLIDES
1.- (_-,-.4/-7\-..r0A- L"...' ,
;u.,--A, • —
7 \ >-..// '‘,, -: ,...„
FRESHWATER
-,;.--,:-P--'
::•:•:•:::::.:.:.:
MARSH
),./.,...--r.--, ,`,:-:- _..,, // - 1 ,-•,
(..i._.-----;;.re',?\\ ----.57-{ 4.,`-',F:. ). '' .. ..
POWERLINES
X-*'-,', . ' i'` . r fit ) . •::•.^::::::::.;•:..:„
''---- i
' ,1(, ' I ...*.:::Z*::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::....::::::::::::::::::::::........... _... .,
'''\A .. .. ' •-j lit .'''''•".....',....::::•:•:•:•::::::.:AV!,?:.:.:.::.:,..........::::,........, .......
.:•:•:•70:::::::•::::
' f,
::::: :::::::::::::" ,,,0
..'Ll'*.'`.... :+:13.4.; ...:::::::::::::.:;:iii::: ¢* 2
/ - ' •KY .f"' , ,..:' 1''' ' 4: ', '>A::"A", ,,.:(•:::i.:•.../.,, :1:1:1:1:•:1:.:•::::•:.::. VISUALLY SENSITIVE
. SENSITIVE
..
VEGETATION
, .
•"...3:›.^K; .6.:C. `a'A.,...,,
.N. Is. ;; 1 • li ,4'. •::•:;A:
/ " 4,...N ...,€A.4 I . ,...,:.:..,,,
. , ...,
. .
,, . ',<!' .-g ,Y., , • „: '4. . ::. ....if:..-:.::::::::::::;*;:. :. • -„ •
'''.V
r(•'. . q.,
,--
,,, ... ).41f,_ ”,
\ -
`.:M::k : e 40 "•'". -, • ':::::::::::::::::::•:::::::;::.... •••••.*::::-::::;:::::::.*.*.* ' ,
•$•,,, '...... ' , t".1. i <: ,' ..:::• .- -- t* •::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::... 5. . ::, '.::::. ' ' ,*
. .
.::::::'..x.:....:-Z.f.. ..
1.7
,e• k.,:. . .,-.... 1,, ...p.-.:,.z. iw::::::::::1 , ,
...).... ,, lift%
t .
.., ' ',•-•v:,... ,. `,,,,,,,,)- . -`).. %::::::.*:
.,.,...z. ' .0 . „ . .- ,....:•::::::::••••? '..:::;:;:::;;:::::.:::::::::fc:...-.....:.,:.......... "b4k.,„, ' ': ,,
\ 4' ;11■10,1 .4';''''''''' • '''%://:; •v - ::::;:..:;:ii:R:i-::::::::::.::::iiii:: :.......:....... ''''Aco..4
416;
‘,, ,,,,,,- -,''.. ....e. — ..::::::::::::** -:::.*:.::%.::::.:::.:•AL 4\ ' ......7•74:::::: -,,.. . ' '‘
:-• ''•••............:•:.::::::..*::7,.......„
••••::::.:•:.:•:•::.:.:•:•::•::•:•:.:•:•:•.;••••••:•:-.;.;.:.••• ,
'.., *.::::*:::::;.*:,::::.::::::;iii;.:':1::. ::::::::::::::::.:;::::::::::;.;:;::::::::**::::,...::.::::::•.• ' 1., .2,
' ' . % ..... %.•••••••••••-:**::::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•...e ir.4e.. e ,
Pre by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
:WPM Planning Ta %w Inc-
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
•
0 1000 2000 4000 A7"N
I I
Figure 1-4
STEEP SLOPES IN STUDY AREA
- r 1\. ``' �, LEGEND
' DENOTES SLOPE
' .\if!`^ , ,y GREATER THAN
. r,i
30%
• --....... CRONIN PROPERTY
'` /.
1
s. I . t
, ails , ailigill41
, „_ _ I ,
Alit , . • ..
../ -‘ .. , , .14*.0 , I' --
10
1' e �►•
. .,','',,,',,)7174 5:1,',.
, o; .
"Illit: t .. ' I ''- _
!ALI ,,
•
S
'. __
,- /OP labia -'44144.1111 .
7
y!^
Source'Aliquot Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
V-Ni
0 1000 2000 4000 L
Figure 1-5
PRELIMINARY LANDSLIDE MAP LEGEND•L -c-�-C — — PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(W ;'
v�4', RECENTLY ACTIVE LANDSLIDE
'
' 'vi G
/� -. r' k'•„0 {
7-4 SURFlCIAL LANDSLIDE••-"t E -" '
" i. . 7� . A,..6/::
- S*',\ , rJ v.
�� \' i f /� DEEP-SEATED LANDSUDE
N* : is-.
' ( . I'.1111"''\ (/ A1/47-7--s),1?).
• <�) L
,Ay..'' `L.% .. .--;W .�\ �'� !C / i _��� POTENTIAL ROCK FALL
..)„,..5s,
.t, j ` .\ `\ . S,�.. . n. ` I "� ‘ ry.( ly_t SOURCE AREA• c. ' t s Yom!.' ' T, .402,> . ~41 ({i ; t . ,e' lu —-— CRONIN PROPERTY•
.^_.yt. , ) !\ _-h Y 1 '�� I / �� U f��\\ - �%.NJ/
/ \. t:T
. , .. `` j y9 , s Y''(■ tl / 1 krt. '. `� l t7' :,2z�) C�/J/j(�/�I/ /' a,.•E`� .r`- f ,e .( '(,'ei'. - �\j\;>/. • v f q�� `' tom. ' �'c%`,
tv
7
.� NJ - S `� , ,,,,, ... ., ,t.:.,
�' e .�. ° ,gyp Z 1 :.i u )\. 9 LL • .(�� �IA!,
s /.. 7 • .�) ( �tr V3V1 f1 ".. _-.
. i -i �° i � �� � ` . . !•._,, • \ ,r "° 1 ', 7 ' Q4-' �'
" f r>u
Source:Barlogar Gaotachnlcal Consultants Prepared by:WPM Planning Toam,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA •
SP • EIR
0 1000 2000 4000 a
Figure 1-6
VEGETATIVE COVER MAP
Legend:
POWERLINE CANYON WOODLAND Non-Native Grassland
Ir >
1 \,t.‘
-� `` '•'- '� Coast Live Oak
� �)1 � �%/ 1 Woodland
n �(
:r Northern Coastal
a Is r' i Scrub
I/,i ,,
, �� '_. Riparian
ELDERBERRY CANYON .....'-`:4.r1.-.,-:„,..:-,-:- Exotic Trees
•
WOODLAND < >, j-
l
T' . t,;
} > WALSH'S POCKET WOODLAND/
ROCK RIDGE WOODLAND j ' 4� �z:
J; COASTAL SCRUB
Vsb1
r-, A /i, T - 1- {' .. -,.c-----'
W ;Y.ri - - ~ ',
OAK RIDGE �, , ',
WOODLAND tit , • ,
'".•, 'I ~ ,*� —"'-T --f '� .,C. ,� "'c2 .11 ' ,i.
PHILLIPS' �` _ ■
RIDGE /
''-- ...;}t,.,, Y \ MARTIN CANYON
WOODLAND :; �,i RIPARIAN WOODLAND ry,
�
� lf*i
HOLLIS CANYON / `
RIPARIAN WOODLAND -� r^4. — 3 'V f4;4—
F .-' -;
SHELL RIDGE WOODLAND " ; � '� ,
Source:Dr.Sam McGinnis,Biologist Prepared by:WPM Planning Taam,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA •SP • EIR 7"N E
0 1000 2000 4000
Figure 1-7
VISUAL SENSITIVITY
LEGEND
VERY HIGH
,,'•\-.Z-30,- 1- .:-.;:for-_,-21 \...;:f7L-6'iv . ....
-.-",-"1,.....,.`,1 \••----...-.- ....-.-..",12_,-,--....., .',..---,1-2. •-.„ ,',..••,:::',...:::::::
',...*4-4'1,', DIVIDE RIDGE
.? 4.., ,' . ' . .■ . , -
:' '
,, /f
_-- ' HIGH
. ..' ' it ,..--. :"
. . ,.
-, ..,..
MODERATE TO LOW
, - • - '',:'of; '''.1›,...-,..f,x".,'...,---.', \
' " • . '
, ,...
Vf'-'''
•...*,2 , -..:::::f,:......--.•, *
: ' , — J'Y'r..-'0,;p-:.:;--;, l• . . ", ..•,:i.,?. .....;;•-• ''''t,'..i.-
• ' 1,„ )......:......„.:::;§:',4.-`-,,,,,, ', "...i..K
.,... \ -
, ..
1 , . ....,... . ..
. . .,.
k.-':'-14 .)4 '.':':
... ...... .... .
r - i .,......
.....
. •-..., .,.. .
,, ...,.r:i,,,:r.•*.:.":':,....'*' .',C... ...
, . .....
........,
. .- ..,.. ‘ .„
. ., ...
; , . .,.....
..... .
.. ' :„..
' ':• '',
-—''''%'."=',::W:....5. ••• - ''t. '
.,,......,.
'''''"• ..
2 %. '''....
-...
_ . . J ..a. — , / —
N •
RIDGE
, . . / -/. . . . ‘ %
. . ..
.
-- ...' i ,.
N.:2r ____ - -- - , .-.....-
_ _ r ..
:11- ''-------- ---- - - — l', _
-::':".•::::;::,.•
.A . ...:\
N.
„.„. ,- --.•,..,____„ , ... _
,i'...0•
1-580 CORRIDOR
— - - - P-• '
. i---. ---
'.. . ....
ared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
Source:WPM Planning Team,Inc. Prep
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR • ArNN
0 1000 2000 4000 L---1 1---1
•
•
Li
CHAPTER 2
LAND USE. OPTIONS:
,EDEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP/
SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROPERTIES
r�1
i
Cf
2. LAND USE OPTIONS -
EDEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP/
SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROPERTIES
2.1. The Design Refinement Process
Over the past year,the applicant,the City's consultant team,and City staff have looked at various
alternatives for the Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights properties.Through a series
of meetings, the Consultant team and City staff have raised various issues and concerns. In
addition,the consultant team prepared several alternative designs which emphasized environ-
mental protection.The developers responded with a series of plan refinements.The current plan
for the Eden Canyon Country Club is the result of this process, and is described and evaluated
in Section 2.2. A brief synopsis of the design refinement process is noted below.
It
• Eden Group submits Plan 1 to the City for review(see Figure 2-1).This plan would include
up to 4,300 units,would involve removal of about 58% of the trees on the site, and would
require about 60 million cubic yards of grading.This development plan would have resulted
in the obliteration of the most scenic and biologically-significant parts of the site.
• WPM completes Plan 1 critique, focusing on major issues such as excessive tree loss and
grading.This critique is presented to the applicants.
• Eden Group completes Plan 2 (illustrated in Figure 2-3). A key feature of this plan is the
protection of the Rock Ridge - Shell Ridge woodland area and wildlife corridor. Areas of
I woodland are preserved on Oak Ridge.Upper Elderberry Canyon and Hollis Canyon would
be filled for the proposed golf course.
• WPM prepares alternative concept plans. These options are based on development largely
in keeping with General Plan policies. Alternative G (Figure 2-2) is a presentation of a
pedestrian-oriented planning concept, with well-defined village centers and open space
networks.The goals of this plan would be to allow future residents the opportunity to walk
or bike to key destinations on the site,rather than being locked into a total dependence on
the automobile.This would have potential benefits for air quality and traffic,since the total
number of auto trips would be reduced.
• Eden Group completes Plan 3, the current Eden Canyon Country Club plan (Figure 2-4).
1 1 This design concept is presented and evaluated in Section 2.2.
I
'. I
2-1
j 1
B:\8914-3\8914-2
Land Use Options
Key Issues of the Design Refinement Process
As the process of preparing and refining alternatives continued,several key issues emerged.In
some cases,these issues have been substantially resolved,while in other situations these issues
remain to be dealt with in the Specific Plan/EIR phase.
An evaluation of the current Eden Canyon Country Club plan is included in Table 2-2 and
Appendix D. Four key issues are identified below; these remaining concerns will need to be
addressed in the Specific Plan.
Excessive Grading ,--.
Any development on a hilly site will require grading,but the early plans prepared by the Eden
Development Group included massive grading even in the context of hillside development. As
the Eden plan has been refmed, the grading has been substantially reduced, although further
reductions in grading would be highly desirable from an economic and environmental
standpoint.
Tree Loss
The original Eden Development plan would have resulted in the removal of over half the trees
on the site, including some large stands of oak woodland. Through the premitigation process,
the applicant has refmed the plan so that current tree loss would be less than 25%.
Wildlife Corridors: Elderberry Canyon
One of the most serious environmental concerns throughout the design refmement process has
been the disruption of wildlife corridors through the destruction of creekside vegetation and the
removal of woodland areas, and the placement of homes and streets across existing wildlife
corridors. A key remaining issue is the proposed filling of upper Elderberry Canyon;this would
result in the loss of an intact riparian corridor.
Pedestrian Vs. Auto Orientation
Initially, the Eden Development plan was almost totally auto-oriented. Through the design
refmement process,the current Eden Canyon Country Club plan now has considerable potential
for a convenient,high-quality network of pedestrian and bike paths. Details of this pedestrian
network can be addressed in the upcoming Specific Plan.
2.2 Option 1: Eden Canyon Country Club
This option,illustrated in Figure 2-5,represents the culmination of the design refinement process
as described above. This plan incorporates some key features of the earlier WPM alternatives
yl
2-2
B:\8914-3\8914-2
��i
Land Use Options
1
which had been previously proposed to address some serious environmental concerns.A detailed
evaluation of this option is included in Appendix D and summarized in Table 2-1.
Project Description: Eden Canyon Country Club
Table 2-1 summarizes the characteristics of the Eden Canyon Country Club plan. This option
would have a range of 2860 to 3240 dwelling units; more than half of these would be
single-family homes.A golf course would occupy about 175 acres of the site.The project would
also include 26 acres of parks,a seven-acre commercial center,streets,a school site,fire station
site,and some other minor public uses. A freeway interchange would be built at Schaefer Ranch
Road to serve the project.
Evaluation of Option 1 (Applicants' current plan)
The proposed Eden Canyon Country Club plan would have the highest level of environmental
impact of the three options under consideration.Environmental issues associated with this option
include:
Li
• Major inconsistencies with existing General Plan policies
• Traffic generated by the project, adding to congestion in the area. A detailed look at traffic
issues associated with this proposal is included in Appendix B.
• Visual concerns, including possible effects on I-580, as well as landform alteration on the
site. -
• Removal.of 130 acres of trees, about 22 percent of the total woodland on the site
�i • Destruction of the woodland and wildlife corridor in upper Elderberry Canyon
- • Over 30 million cubic yards of proposed grading, with resultant potential for soil erosion
and other geotechnical impacts
I 1 • Landslides in areas of proposed development
• New demand for public services and facilities
f I
• Sedimentation and pollutants typical of new development
• Auto-oriented development which would add to regional air,quality problems,although the
project would have some potential to encourage mass transit,pedestrian, and bicycle use
} From an economic perspective,the project would have a favorable long-term fiscal impact on
the City of Dublin;more money would be taken in from taxes and fees than would be spent on
City services, as noted in Appendix F.
2-3
c B:\8914-3\8914-2
Land Use Options
2.3 Option 2: The Open Space Option
The primary goal of this alternative would be to protect and enhance environmental quality.
This option would be designed to be generally in conformance with current environmental
policies of the Dublin General Plan. In particular, steeply-sloping areas would be left in open
space, woodlands would be preserved, and creek corridors would be protected. Development
would be limited to low-intensity uses which would not require major traffic improvements such
as interchange construction. Septic tanks or other on-site sewage treatment methods would be
used,since a low-intensity development approach would not support the major costs of bringing
sewer lines to the site.
A summary evaluation of this option is included in Table 2-2, with a detailed evaluation in
Appendix D.
Project Description: Open Space Option
This option would have the following land uses: •
• Rural Residential:about 200 homes on lots from 3 to 5 acres in size.This large lot size would
be necessary since septic tanks would be used. Given the limited amount of developable
land on the site,and the various environmental constraints which have been identified,this
is the estimated maximum number of rural residential lots which could be created on the
property.These lots would be located along Hollis Canyon,in the Schaefer Ranch area,and
on other areas suitable for low-intensity development.
• Recreation: some low-key recreational facilities would be provided, including a regional
trail along Skyline Ridge,local trails providing pedestrian links to the rest of the site,and a _
small neighborhood park for the residents' use. An equestrian center with associated trails
would also be a possible use.
• Open Space. This would be the predominant use on the property, functioning as a natural
resource conservation area with some limited recreational access.
Evaluation of Option 2
This land use option would have the fewest environmental concerns of the three options under
consideration. Since Option 2 would have only 200 homes,traffic and other impacts related to
the number of units would be much less than for Options 1 and 3. Most of the site would be
kept in open space, with resultant environmental benefits. There would be considerably less
grading;creeks,woodland,and wildlife corridors generally would be left intact.However,rural
residential development of this type would have higher per-unit effects on air quality and energy
conservation; the dispersed development pattern would result in a relatively high amount of
private automobile use per household,with little opportunity to use mass transit.
2-4
B:\891473\8914-2
Land Use Options
The net fiscal impact of this option would likely be positive. There would be a fairly small
increase in demand for public services.Property values of homes would probably be high,and
would likely fund any necessary increases in annual public service costs.
U
2.4 Option 3: Cluster Development Option
With this option,fairly intensive urban development would be clustered on the 600 acres of the
site which are relatively constraint-free. This approach would have the benefit of generally
conforming with the current policies of the Dublin General Plan.Key areas of natural open space
would be preserved on the site,while opportunities for innovative urban development could be
explored.
Project Description: Cluster Development Option
With this approach, densities would be somewhat higher than for the Eden Canyon Country
Club. Residential units would be predominantly townhouses and apartments in two and
three-story frame structures. Office and commercial uses would also be included. There would
also be the possibility of some medium-rise residential or office structures. An assumed 3,500
units plus public and commercial support facilities could be accommodated on the site using
this development approach.
�)r
Evaluation of Option 3 (Cluster Development Option)
This land use option would have fewer environmental concerns than Option 1 (the applicant's
proposed plan), but more environmental problems than Option 2, the Open Space Option. By
j clustering development in areas without major constraints, most of the environmental effects
associated with the applicants'plan could be substantially reduced.In general,on-site impacts
j( Il such as grading and tree removal would be less,while traffic and other off-site impacts would
I be similar to the applicants' project.
-' While the fiscal impact of Option 3 on Dublin would be unknown until a detailed development
program could be worked out,a development with sufficient density to be economically feasible
could become a net fiscal drain for the City.A carefully-selected mix of housing and commercial
7 1 uses would be needed to provide a balanced or positive fiscal impact for Dublin.
2.5 Other Possible Options
There are various other possible land use options for the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties. In
this section,reasons are given why other options were not chosen for detailed study.
U
2-5
B:\8914-3\8914-2
U - .
Land Use Options
r-,
Intermediate Development Option
Option 2(the Open Space Option)has about 200 residential units,while Options 1 and 3 would
have about 3,000 to 3,500 units.An intermediate development option would look at a develop-
ment scenario between these two extremes. However, because of the unique characteristics of
this site, development would either need to be at a semi-rural level (with minimal need for ;4
grading and urban services)or at a fairly intensive level(with major grading and infrastructure
improvements). There currently does not appear to be an economically-feasible intermediate
alternative between these two options,for the following reasons:
• Terrain. On level or moderately-sloping sites,the intensity of development and number of ,
units can vary widely, based on various planning considerations. However, as noted, this
site is characterized by very steep slopes,with only limited areas available for development.
Alternative development approaches for the site would thus be to(1)rely on available land
with existing slopes suited for development, or (2) adopt a development approach which
relies on extensive grading-for streets and homesites.
• Traffic Improvements. Unless site development is kept at a fairly nominal level (a few
hundred homes at most), expensive traffic improvements would be required to provide
access to the site.In particular, a freeway interchange would be needed at Schaefer Ranch
Road.The developer would be expected to pay for the interchange,and this cost would need
to be spread out over a large number of homes.
• Wastewater Treatment. This site is remote from existing sewer trunk lines, and there are
upcoming limitations on sewage treatment plant and conveyance capacity.Solutions for this
site would be to (1)keep development at a semi-rural level,with use of septic tanks,or(2)
invest in expensive sewer line extensions or on-site treatment plants. Again, major was-
tewater treatment costs would need to be distributed over a large number of residential units.
• Economic Considerations.The consultant team completed a preliminary economic analysis
which included these major infrastructure, costs. Assuming typical development practices
similar to the applicants'proposed plan,this analysis indicated that a project with less than
about 2,800 units would not appear to be economically feasible.
In summary, then, a low-key approach to development on this site could be economically
feasible,but would have a limit of a few hundred units,due to traffic and other considerations.
Intensive development with full infrastructure improvements would not be economically
feasible below about 2800 units. The intermediate development option thus was not selected
for detailed study in this report.
Land Bank Option
Another approach for this property would be to defer development for now, which in effect
would place the property in a"land bank".This would be in keeping with current General Plan
2-6
B'8914-3\8914-2
( , Land Use Options
policies which require postponement of development until agricultural preserve contracts are
close to expiration;current contracts on most of the property will not expire until 1998 or 1999.
LJ The"land bank"approach,where property is temporarily kept in open space,is often used where
there is an uncertain need for new housing,or where a city is having difficulty in dealing with
rapid growth.
Since the Land Bank Option would not involve any development at this time, this option was
' not chosen for detailed analysis in this report.
4 Increased Development Options
Numerous other land use options could be considered for the property, with more residential
f { units and more intensive development. However, environmental concerns would increase as
more of the site would be required for development. For example,the original proposal by Eden
Development/Schaefer Heights(Figure 2-1)included about 4,300 homes.To accommodate this
tl development,58 percent of the trees on the site would need to be removed,with about 60 million
cubic yards of grading. City staff and the City's consultant team considered this level of
environmental disruption to be severe.Increased development options thus were not chosen for
detailed review in this report.
it
,
I
2-7
B\8914-3\8914-2
,--
llitile2gtertojett:DegtriptioivdtikettilyOMCOltlitrrtitibminopi:i:i:::::::::::i::::::::i:i::::i:i:
Residential Uses.
,--
4
Single Family
Detached
No.of Units No.of Units ,----'
Owner Lot Size(SF) Lot Type (Low) (High)
Eden Canyon Associates 1 acre Custom 10 10
_ ,------,
Eden Development Group 15,000 Custom 20 25 : 4
Eden Development Group 12,000 Custom 100 115
Eden Development Group 10,000 Semi-Custom 240 270 ,
Eden Development Group 8,000 Production 130 150 ,
Schaefer Heights,Inc. 8,000 Production 70 80 ,
Eden Development Group 7,000 Production 260 ..., 290
Eden Development Group 6,000 Production 100 120
Schaefer Heights,Inc. 6,000 Production 100 110
,---
Eden Development Group 10,000 Cluster 80 90
. ,
Eden Development Group 7,000 Cluster 200 220
r---
Eden Development Group 5,000 Cluster 220 250 i,
----------f
Total Single Family 1,530 1,730
—
Multi-Family Attached
No of Units No of Units
Owner Product Acreage (Low) (High)
Eden Development Group Townhouse 13 acres 110 130
Eden Development Group Duets 26 acres 200 230
,
Schaefer Heights,Inc. Townhouse 17 acres 240 260
Schaefer Heights,Inc. Condos 4 acres 60 70
;
Eden Development Group Condos 7 acres 120 140 t
Eden Development Group Condos 7 acres 120 140 -...
f"--)
Eden Canyon Associates Condos 6 acres 80 100 '
Eden Canyon Associates Apartment 22 acres 400 440
- 1-'--
Total Multi-Family 1,330 1,510
Total All Residential Units 2,860 3,240 ,...._
B:\8914-3\8914-2A 2-8
,
)
Table 2.1 rojeet De*eriptlon Eden Canyon Country Club(continued)
Non-Residential Uses(Public):
Improved Parks 26.0 acres
I ! School Site 10.0 acres
Fire Station Site 1.5 acres
Park/Ride and EBRP Staging Area 1.5 acres
Sewer Treatment Plant 1.0 acre
Roads 185.0 acres
TOTAL 225.0 acres
Non-Residential Uses(Private):
L-1
Commercial 7.0 acres
L' Golf Course/Country Club 175.0 acres
Private Open Space 145.0 acres
I TOTAL 327.0 acres
Public Open Space: .
Open Space .
Owner Total Acreage Acreage Open Space(%)
Eden Development Group 2,636 1,650 62.6% .
Li Schaefer Heights,Inc. 306 200 65.4%
PROJECT TOTAL 2,942 ! 1,850 62.9%
Source: Eden Development Group
I '
! '
1 1
B:\8914-3\8914-2A
2-9
•
f
«:'::Mble2.2.:::;Evaluafioi of iiiuU' }_:
P.Land l,lse� :" ....Ed�; :.:::.; :�: <><:>: :::;_>>:
Option 1: Eden Canyon Country Club Option 2: Open Space Option Option 3: Cluster Development Option •
(Applicants'current plan) (Ranchettes) (based on current General Plan policies)
Project Description - Golf-course oriented residential development - About 200 ranchettes,3 to 5 acres in size - Development clustered in constraint-free parts of the
- 2860 to 3240 dwelling units - Most of site kept in open ace site
- Emphasis on single family homes with - Some low-key recreation facilities - Assumed 3,500 residential units,mostly townhouses
some townhouse and multifamily - No major interchange improvements or other and apartments
- Commercial center and various public facilities infrastructure costs - Mixed-use approach with some commercial/office
use and public facilities
Land Use and Planning - Major inconsistencies with General Plan policies -General consistency with General Plan policies -General consistency with General Plan policies
-60%of site kept in open space -Most of site in natural open space -Emphasis on medium and high density residential
-Diversity of housing types -Single housing type(ranchettes) development areas surrounded by open space
-Mix of residential,office,commercial-uses -
TrafHc and Circulation -Project traffic would not have a major effect on -No major effects on Dublin -Project traffic probably would not have a major effect
intersections in Dublin -Possible safety concerns on Eden Canyon Road on Dublin intersections-trip generation probably
-Cumulative traffic would add to congestion,and -No interchange at Schaefer Ranch Road similar to Option 1
mitigation measures would be needed -Cumulative traffic would add to congestion in area;
mitigation measures needed
-Clustering improves.potential for mass transit use and
pedestrian orientation
Visual Quality -No serious off-site visual issues -Less visual impact than Option 1 -No serious off-site visual issues
-Possible visual conflicts with regional trail -Further visual analysis needed -More urban on-site visual image within development
-Possible effects on I-580 need more study clusters,compared with other options
- lra
Major on-site visual concerns--grading and landform -Less grading and landfonn alteration than Option 1
alteration
N
,— Vegetation and Wildlife -130 acres of trees to be removed(22%of total) - -Preferable to Options 1 and 3 (much less tree removal) -Less tree removal than Option 1 •
o -Protection of some key wildlife corridors -Creeks,woodland,wildlife corridors generally left -Wildlife corridors generally protected-
-Destruction of Elderberry Canyon wildlife intact -Creeks and woodland generally left intact
corridor/riparian habitat
-Other possible problems with wildlife movement
Geotechnical -More than 30 million cu.yards of grading proposed -Much less grading than Options 1 or 3 -Much less grading than Option 1
• -Major geotechnical concerns(typical of any hillside -Landslide areas generally avoided -Most landslide areas avoided;some repair necessary
development) -Possible localized geotechnical risks -Some major landform alteration for Schaefer Ranch
-Many landslides upslope/downslope of homes access road
-Landslides near access roads
Economic and Fiscal -Long-tear positive fiscal impact for Dublin -Probable small positive fiscal impact on Dublin -Possible negative fiscal impact on Dublin;per-unit
property values might be too low to pay for increased
services.Further analysis needed
Public Facilities and -Neighborhood and community parks included -Much less demand on public facilities compared with -This option would have highest demand for most
Services -Ten-acre school site Options 1 and 3 rniblic facilities and services
-On-site treatment plant with wastewater reclamation -On-site parks and other public facilities would be -More park area needed than with Option 1
-Minor water service issues minimal -Assume school,fire station and wastewater treatment • '
-Wildfire management plan needed -Septic tanks assumed for wastewater treatment • similar to Option 1
-New fire station included
Hydrology, Flooding and -On-site basins needed to mitigate downstream flooding -Less runoff than Options 1 and 3 -Highest potential runoff of the 3 options
• Water Quality -Sedimentation and pollutants typical of new -Potential for increased erosion and water pollution -Sedimentation and pollutants typical of new
development from livestock development
Air Quality -Auto-oriented development would add to regional air -Low traffic generation means lowest total air quality -Total air quality impact probably similar or less than
-Squality problems impact of 3 options Option 1
ome potential to provide pedestrian and transit -Highest per-unit air quality impact of 3 options,due to -Per-unit air quality impact considerably less than
opportunities dispersed development patterns and auto orientation Options 1 or 2
-Major opportunities for mass transit and pedestrian
L - orientation
A:\8914-3\8914-T2
Figure 2-1
ORIGINAL PLAN - EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB
(Approximately 4,300 Units)
OPEN SPACE
o'7 J(�w1rn
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
• o, `{ `� a a, GOLF COURSE
_ h ' s i C � -� of �.. 7
ipG. '' J♦ `� 2''w a Y .
:1:- .-.,,z.,..n 0 + !t 4 �. N. �'� CRONIN RANCH
SINGLE-FAMILY /C� Ct �'gh),, "•1. . -/-- - a- . >,' \
RESIDENTIAL 9'" 1. 3� .. 'j`/ c, '. • : 0 \\,
• 4,z. --- . - iN
N `*mss f• .J\ •J•' _ MD i j.4 i l �„ '�"N'�(�.J).
r \ �t
r -
A9: •14c ":.)�. O 4. is - -' c dpyA YD �C
a. . . 'try 4__ - • �1► ,ry l-
. O G r
1r
I/ 1
o'Piii aj
4011101111a11116
r`
/; MORRIS V Ro qP _ PK
PROPERTY o G ,... ° \-
;.i -� ; i, .n ter_
as ;� -
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY ---- -1, �, _. . _ =_
RESIDENTIAL
RETAIUOFFICE
Source:Edon Development Group Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
/1
0 1000 2000 4000
Figure 2-2
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED COMMUNITY CONCEPT
(Approximately 2,400 units)
- c v' Q 1%._■ .i ;f `
LOCAL TRAILS LINKED
21\, TO REGIONAL TRAIL
i_
•
DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERED ,"� r, b±.' 1 '�
INTO NEIGHBORHOODS C '�. ��
�-.4 "+, 1.-1 - • GOLF COURSE
`� ` �p '
�`'-'f `1 ° / �" SCHAEFER RANCH
°°o� alb �
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE TRAIL NETWORK 4 �s ' S i' TOWN CENTER
�" ELDERBERRY CANYON RETAINED '�. _i(s ' "-"`�' �-k1' 1`•,,.y, . ��
IN OPEN SPACE - !/`iii . r ,14i\ ?,
tea.,
OAK RIDGE �—v�) . —4 'r
VILLAGE CENTER e' c" ` , itll �'r►�‘K4_5,,__...
�'�' �•.r 9. - ` cd 8fy_ .%�1 `�y�
n, O •\-�. : ���,� C 14"d BAs.. . •� �+••
•
/ ,s„..,-,.' 1%,/ . ' . ,•4C0
n - i,Vu C`
R evi. yx1. . . S% ` /J
Source:WPM Planning Team,Inc. Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA SP . EIR VNAN
0 1000 2000 4000
Figure 2-3
INTERMEDIATE PLAN - EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB
(Approximately 3,000-3,600 Units)
� �g LEGEND
g K. 1.WEST OAK RIDGE WOODLAND PRESERVED
U o
2.ROCK RIDGE WOODLAND PRESERVED
0 0 it 3.BRIDGE OVER ELDERBERRY CANYON
oU
CsIb 4 ' r:414---2.e.& t "."-N—.
---\..
•)( 2.---;'4'.7410*.<71"40 s'i..,. — c - 9
a° 14,/ , ', 1 4%I *\, .„, ... ...)
:...4:„ ,,,,,,z, .,„ , \\;, ,, , '.:.1.\'''..-- . 4 Q,
'r ' ,";;;e0t. :covii 1. q , - A
N 0 , . �..' .� . .. Pik ,, .f;±. O ♦.�„,,u. ,.- , ....,.- , ,,,e r 741( it. 'IIIIIMIIIIIIIZ) #
,-- :.5 ,. - €,:b .. -. .4.
.,-.1.--..1!.=-_,.. ` o _. a h. '010,„.. p
- " �Vi aq
•
I la,:4”' '1; \'.',, \'.... ‘, ' N V
j "opNtlisdliepe ..r .'' '''''' '''.IN* S. 'L , ialbp 14t - , .,,,..' , 4
, 14*%- . -1:lt '1...f..34 44.
-47=%s� —p
Source:Edon D.vaiopmont Group Prepared by:WPM Planning Taam,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR F. . ]
\, ,\ \
``/.
, -Vi "4.°S. ie. .4)asib
, !I •• ,
•
i� � '` iE�w ♦ , i •
NI
iit
r
SP.:,H f o l ;."...1111-..-1<-•' td • 7r•
'q ' f` `' -.tF
�'ri
s.r Jr •, ` t',d• :100.4.p s •
S:y; : r,•
fr., 0 ir- y..,..,,,,...:„A..;:::::....„.....,..... 1 A4 ,
•. : c ` " •
Imo
i� } .�" ,.y Y.._o.4°`', Fes"•
•
of
I
•t- 011 0, _____
% •
• 0
art
d
Y So
■
a
•
1 i..110/\ ("1". \ .
M
V
O.
m
3.C=.<O o -1 ; 1 alIf : 1 11 F HHhhThHill L
7 i F = E _ g
rr a r.
" N 3 a a 3 E ' 9 . § € 3 5 A
9
n d 1 = ' ' ' i ; 3 .b R T
E " " " d Ill li s g "s £ o a g g "s 8 ° li$
C Is to 'i s x a ih R % a g x o 1 " ° ii
Figure 2-5
KEY FEATURES: EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB (OPTION 1)
HOMES ON MACHADO RIDGE
` -. GOLF COURSE
FILL IN HOLLIS CANYON
Ai _____ _.
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
MAJOR TREE LOSS Nr:- PROPOSED GREENBELT AND REGIONAL TRAIL
ELDERBERRY CANYON v O fir.*
• , •wJ I C, ,, (�,' r1 ■ o
l ' ` :',4 ..-• / ~- 'l CRONIN PROPERTY y.
EXTENSIVE GRADING- co `ir t'"-.-.,.' a '��..a)` tr'�'1 ' , ' `--/ �- •
N OAK RIDGE AREA �4 ��'.. ' . w ''") ;-Nt, ^'° 0 o-42 MULTI FAMILY c %✓.. "?.� \ x ? -c6u- ---• r °,,.,a ' l` — --.t i-- `�
RESIDENTIAL If _ " `1 / °
„i• • i , • ilij ..:......,\,,,,,„
. )(<1"— . **** .i'l4ic,,A=.--.; L 0-itli..) .= .1.1*. 7\ilqi
'7 , '__.-- . - ., --.17- - -'1\-7....- \\, . --7---t--- -,- °,404;. .( ''''417.4, '''' .. ‘.
O • JV ' 7,,,c4..?:...:,r -
Tr ao �
SHELL RIDe ;D A = GE WOODLANDS PRESERVED % i M -.^ D
...„, 0 Iv v
OPEN SPACE ALONG 1-580 _ --«� °9t wv. _
s + ice'
COMMUNITY PARK AND SCHOOL SITE - _
TOWNHOUSES SCHAEFER RANCH COMMERCIAL CENTER
Plan Source:Eden Development Group EXTENSIVE GRADING FOR ACCESS STRE Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
0 1000 2000 4000 I�
Figure 2-6
OPTION 2 - OPEN SPACE OPTION (200 Units)
'/ , J
i;;'::"/:'">7.-
y � MOST OF SITE
'� i '� KEPT IN OPEN SPACE
�a s R?
Ak - ' % /7.' N'... pril If;\( .....41111161Pa I li ' -_ , _
...li
,=-,-.7,L, 4 —4, Wario ;
, k; . \ V.)... 1' A / tirs-,_ ' d '," ' ''.\-"''''
*4 ff ,) fX l�J 1 ∎`.EXISTING WOODLAND 1 .J, rJ iIYf ' ,..2 7.'., i ..•1
7- ..-4- \ -, , . 1,51)
S.) RURAL RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES ° !',_ � � ' ? 1 - g l _ - j / �"y .�
' /' , °a ' i,-')I --_, ------ Akft.....‘ \,.(-- -k ---\-7 1 ''\ `.:.- -r- (-. ) ' ' ' ,'\‘-:-. •\-\\--
• v o' a + /a r Cis ! \ 1 ( '>
�, ,\ 6 "�p 0\y ,a d�. '�. __ a X1 7 t _
r r _ ° °ay 1 it \,, � J 1 \� S f�l
s1 i r ''''Y'''' '.2 1• ° • \ ;`t\ 1. 1 'e, '`4.
4. ;4 L ∎MIS li/� - — .. . \\V>\•\- \ �4, \\ \\ 'II \,' C"�\'S, \�_ � T '11\
�'� s- - +ate •s \..-. --1:'— �J. �� )�• ,
°""7/ ''r�'��l�L` �` 41,,,,,...k..„„, _ "/� ' \ Q 0���\ ,` _J Z
, ,_-_ `c_=-J „z„�\1 'mil= ! 1` V .-,
, ,_...,.....„,,' 1-580 �?±,� .., - r �' � `�
-, l ip 1s,;rc►t' N v l - ° ,.
�'� =�=--r $ ,iii
NO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS f�s- '� Prepared by WPM Planning T.y am,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA •SP • EIR I VN
0 650 1300 i
Figure 2-7
OPTION 3 - CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION (3,500 Units)
West Dublin Study Area boundary -- \
41- o
North Ridge Village '1'
..-11 Oponal gaff course
col P
Elderberry Canyon nature preserve /�0��
1 t� ---,
`; Custom homesites \// �/ 1�� ( I��� , /
1 pr High-density .4 1,ii
C. ei.
'\ tLIt t.••;residential '`- a% ,
Ali
"4•46.:"...."'N. Mixed-use town center
Oak Ridge 0.�`,� ,
,� I , 1
Village Center
S8p - 0, ,.
P —. : - -
8destnan trail network IryyY o �' — ^' r , 'L ` ,_c
Community park c�°"�t� =-_ .�.`
Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA •SP • EIR AVNN
0 650 1300
t- •
CHAPTER 3 .
LAND USE OPTIONS.:
CRONIN PROPERTY
L
1[.
•
LI •
L
rr
3. LAND USE OPTIONS - CRONIN PROPERTY
3.1 Site Description and Constraints
Careful consideration of alternatives is particularly important for the Cronin property,since this
site has unusually severe constraints for development. The Cronin property is the only major
landholding not integrated into the Eden/Schaefer Heights planning process in West Dublin.
Figure 3-1 shows the location of the Cronin parcel.
• Size: about 179 acres.
J • Existing Land Use. The site and surrounding area is currently used for grazing. There are
no structures on the site.
• Properties in Vicinity.As shown in Figure 3-1,the Cronin site is nearly surrounded by land
controlled by the Eden Development Group.The Donlan Canyon property is located south
of the site, and the Hansen Hills site touches the southeast corner of the Cronin property.
i �
• Site Features are identified on Figure 3-2. Martin Canyon, a deeply-incised valley, is a
—, dominant site feature. The sides of this valley rise steeply as much as 500 feet above the
canyon floor. Skyline Ridge,the major north-south ridge in the area,crosses the west edge
of the property. Cronin Ridge is a secondary ridge in the south part of the site.
Constraints
This property has major limitations for development.Based on the constraint analysis in Report
1, only about eight acres of this 179-acre site would be free of major development constraints.
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the key constraints for site development on this site.
Traffic and Site Access Issues
• Remote Location. The site is a considerable distance from existing streets. One or more
streets would have to be extended to the site,adding to construction cost and environmental
r disruption.
• Effect on Local Streets. Traffic from the project would be directed onto local residential
streets in the Dublin Hills,with possible adverse effects on local residents.
• Limitations for Road Construction.All potential access routes to the site must traverse major
landslide deposits,which would require extensive and costly landslide repair.
3-1
A N89143\8914-3
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
Visual Setting
• Skyline Ridge and Cronin Ridge.The upper slopes of Skyline Ridge and Cronin Ridge are
highly visible from Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Parts of the Cronin site above 740 feet
elevation generally are visually sensitive areas.
• Clark Ridge,located immediately west of the Cronin site,is also highly visible from parts
of Dublin; this is a constraint for a possible access route across this ridge.
r-
Public Facilities: Parks and Recreation
• Open Space Corridor. The East Bay Regional Park District has plans for a regional trail
along Skyline Ridge,on the west side of the property. An open space corridor of undeter-
mined width would be appropriate along this trail route.
Geology and Soils
• Steep Slopes. Large areas of the property have slopes exceeding 30 percent.
• Landslides have been identified on large areas of the site. In particular, the north and
south-facing slopes of Martin Canyon have extensive landslide conditions.
• Earthquake Fault. The Dublin Fault follows the east Cronin property boundary. While the
exact location and status of this fault are unclear,the Dublin Fault could be a constraint to
development along the eastern edge of the site.
Vegetation and Wildlife
• Creeks and Associated Riparian Habitat.The riparian plant community along Martin Creek
has high value as wildlife habitat.
• Oak Woodland and Coastal Scrub.These plant communities on the site have high biological
value, particularly where vegetation in a linear pattern or large mass serves as a wildlife
corridor.
Opportunities,
The site has relatively few conventional development opportunities, due to its remote location
and difficult terrain.
Visual Setting
• Upper parts of the site have views over the Tri-Valley area.
• Trees and slopes on the site would provide a scenic setting for homes.
• I
3-2
A:\8914-3V914-3
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
Noise
• Existing noise levels are low, due to the site's remote location.
3.2 Background: The Planning Process for the Cronin Property
• Initial Plan.The Milestone Development Corporation submitted a preliminary development
plan entitled the "Cronin Ranch" (Figure 3-5) to the City of Dublin in August 1989. This
plan,prepared by Bissell and Karn,included 143 units.This plan had an estimated tree loss
of about 13 acres (26 percent of total tree cover), although landslide repair work probably
have resulted in a much higher percentage. Grading requirements were estimated to be 1.2
million cubic yards, although this figure is probably low, since detailed information on
'- landslide repair was not available.
•
•
• Critique of Platt. The WPM consultant team prepared an evaluation of this initial plan,
focusing on major environmental problems which would be caused by the project. The
developer, members of the WPM consultant team, and City staff had several meetings to
discuss these concerns. These included the placement of lots in a visually-sensitive position
on Skyline Ridge, as well as traffic impacts on the local neighborhood, geotechnical
constraints due to landslides and steep slopes, and biological concerns.
• Second Revised Plan. A new plan for 125 units,prepared by Stedman & Associates, was
submitted to the City in July 1990,with lots removed from Skyline Ridge. This plan again
was reviewed by the WPM consultant team, with a primary focus on the issues of street
access and geotechnical issues. The applicant agreed to redesign the project based on this
information. Direct tree loss and grading would be similar to the previous plan.
• Current Plan. In November 1990, the property owners presented a revised plan, again for
125 units.This is the current plan which is called Option A in this report.A more conservative
approach was used in preparing this alternative,with 3:1 cut and fill slopes used rather than
the steeper 2:1 slopes on the earlier plan. Figure 3-6 illustrates this plan.About 23 percent
of trees would be removed, including areas of landslide repair. Grading for this plan is
estimated at about one million cubic yards; again,this figure is probably low,due to the lack
of detailed geotechnical information.
•
U
3-3
A:A8914-3V914-3
f I
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
3.3 Cronin Option A: Applicant's Plan
Project Description
The applicant's current site plan, dated November 26, 1990, is illustrated in Figure 3-6. This
plan has the following features:
• 125 residential lots which would be sold by the applicant. A number of these lots would
have slopes ranging up to 3:1. Custom or production homes would be built on these lots.
• Two access streets: an extension of Brittany Drive and a connection to a proposed street on
the Hansen Hills property.
• A 1.2 acre putting green is proposed as part of the project, and a recreation area is proposed
along Martin Creek.
• An 8 feet wide trail and emergency vehicle access route is proposed on the west part of the
property. This trail would connect with the planned ridgeline trail along the west edge of,
the site.
Evaluation of Option A —
Table 3-1 provides a summary evaluation of this option, while a more detailed critique is
included in Appendix E. Based on this preliminary review, this option would appear to have
the highest level of adverse environmental impact in all categories.However,this project would
have the most fiscal benefit of the concepts under consideration.
It should be noted that this site has unusually severe constraints for development. In comparison
with the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties, access is much more difficult. Also, there is very
little developable land on the site. Only about eight acres of this site (about 4 percent of the n
total area)is free of major constraints.
3.4 Cronin Option B: Reduced Development Option
This option features a small number of homes which are clustered in sections of the site which
are suited for development.The site plan is designed to minimize environmental disruption.In
the case of geotechnical constraints,development generally is located in areas of the site which
do not require massive landslide repair,thus making a massive reduction in site development
costs.However,major geotechnical measures would still be necessary to bring the access street
(Brittany Drive extension)to the site.
3-4 •
A:A8914-3v8914=3
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
Features of this development option include:
• Sixteen homesites on the Cronin property. Most homes are clustered on the lower slopes
of Cronin Ridge, in an area with relatively few environmental constraints. About eleven
homes would be located on lots of about 8,000 square feet, while five luxury homesites
would be located on larger lots,with intervening open space(four additional homesites could
be located on the adjacent Eden Development property).
• A single access street(Brittany Drive extension).As noted,any access route to the property
would need to traverse major landslide deposits,resulting in difficult and costly repairs.The
Brittany Drive alignment requires massive grading and landslide repair,but does avoid the
disruption of riparian habitat which would be required by the Hansen Hills and Martin
J Canyon Road access routes.
• A recreational trail/emergency vehicle access route along Cronin Ridge to the proposed
regional trail along Skyline Ridge.A trailhead with some parking would be provided on the
Cronin parcel.
Evaluation of the Reduced Development Option
A summary evaluation of this option is included in Table 3-1,while a more detailed critique is
included in Appendix E. Impacts for this alternative generally would be considerably less than
for Option A(the applicant's plan).However,Option C(the Open Space Alternative)would go
further in eliminating impacts. In particular, Option C development would not require the
elaborate and expensive construction of a full access street to the site.
With this alternative, there are serious questions of economic feasibility. Extending urban
services and a full street to this property are very costly, and this expense can only be spread
over a limited number of units.The preliminary economic analysis in Appendix F suggests that
these infrastructure costs may exceed$200,000 per unit,which would not be supportable in the
marketplace. This option could also result in a minor long-term negative fiscal impact for the
City.
3.5 Cronin Option C: Open Space Alternative
Because of the complex set of environmental constraints on this property, an open space use
would be appropriate.In considering the open space alternative,the City would need to be aware
of the following general issues:
• Economic Use of Property.There is a need to allow economic use of property.The question
then becomes what is an appropriate use of this land, given the steep terrain and difficult
access problems.
i '
3-5
A:\8914-3\8914-3
Jf
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
• Entitlements. The Cronin property is currently in the County, and is located some distance
from the Dublin city limits.While the site is included in Dublin's extended planning area,
this does not in itself imply that this particular piece of land is suitable for urban development.
• Public Benefits. With the Open Space Alternative, there would be public benefits from
keeping the site in open space, including protection of views and natural resource values.
On the other hand, this alternative would not include the addition of housing, which is in
short supply in the Dublin area. The City would need to weigh the relative importance of
these potential benefits.
Description of Open Space Alternative
The primary goal of the open space alternative would be to reduce environmental impacts to a
negligible level; a major change in the design concept would thus be required. This would be
achieved in two ways. First, development on the site would be kept to a minimum, requiring
only minor site alteration. In addition, by having uses on the site which would generate very
little traffic,there would be no need for major offsite street construction and associated landslide
repair.
• Land use.Two luxury homesites would be allowed on the property.Grazing would continue
on the site. Conditional uses could include a small-scale horse boarding operation, a small
inn/conference center, or similar uses with minimal traffic generation and environmental
impact.Because of the difficulty of access,uses generating frequent truck traffic would not
be appropriate.
• Access.The existing jeep trail along Martin Canyon Road would be paved as a single-lane
driveway to these homesites, with no substantial grading. If a conditional use involving
significant traffic is allowed,the road may need to be widened to two narrow lanes.
r—,
• Water supply would be provided by wells, assuming availability of adequate quantity and
quality of water.
• Wastewater. Septic tanks would be used,subject to the approval of local health authorities.
Evaluation of Open Space Alternative
A summary evaluation of this option is included in Table 3-1, with more detailed notes in
Appendix E. Because of the minimal development under this alternative, impacts would be
much less in comparison with the other alternatives for the property.Infrastructure costs would
be low. A suitable conditional use could be an important factor in the economic feasibility of
this option.
3-6
A\8914-3\8914-3 j .
Alternatives for the Cronin Property
3.6 Other Possible Options for the Property
There are numerous other possible land use options for the Cronin property. In this section,
reasons are given why these other alternatives were not chosen for detailed study.
i .
Regional Park
The entire site could be acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District or some other entity,
for use as passive open space. The site is strategically located in the north-south open space
corridor which now exists in the East Bay, separating development along San Francisco Bay
from communities in the Tri-Valley area including Dublin.However,this solution has obvious
disadvantages.
• Lack of Money. Park districts have a limited budget for land acquisition, and there are
pressing priorities for land acquisition elsewhere.
Li • Terrain.There is little level land to use for trailhead parking lots or active recreation uses.
• Difficult Access. There is no convenient vehicular access to the site. Because any access
Li road would traverse landslide areas, improvement of access would be difficult and expen-
sive.
• Lack of Unique Features.The limited budget of park districts in the area may be best reserved
for properties with high visibility,major botanical or wildlife values,protection of rare and
endangered species,or other unique values.
• Slope Stability. Park districts are often understandably leery of acquiring property with
existing unstable terrain or large landslides,such as those on the Cronin site.
Non-Residential Urban Use
Other possible alternatives for the site include commercial, industrial, or institutional use.
However, these uses would require similar or greater environmental disruption, and traffic
access would be a particular problem.
Li
3-7
(
A:\8914-3\8914-3
•
Option A: Applicant's Plan Option B: Reduced Development Option Option C: Open Space Alternative
Project Description - Residential subdivision: 125 lots - Residential subdivision=16 lots on Cronin property - Two luxury homesites with possible conditional uses
• - Two access streets plus 4 lots on Eden property - Driveway access
- Putting green and recreation area - One access street
- Trail and emergency vehicle access to west - Trail and emergency vehicle access to west
Land Use and Planning - Inconsistent with a number of General Plan policies - Generally consistent with General Plan policies - Consistent with General Plan policies
Traffic and Circulation - Highest traffic generation of 3 options - Minimal traffic generation - Negligible traffic impacts
- Possible neighborhood concerns about increased - Use of narrow streets and steeper grades to reduce - Minimal access with narrow paved driveway -
traffic earth work possible.safety concerns
Visual Analysis - Homes proposed in visually-prominent location on - Considerably less visual impact than Option A: most - Minimal visual impact
Cronin Ridge homesites below 740 feet elevation - Visually-sensitive areas kept in open space
- Development near crest of Skyline Ridge - Visual analysis needed for some homesites
- Highly-visible trees removed •
Vegetation and Wildlife - Destruction of 1,500 feet of Martin Creek - Minor disruption of Marlin Creek(mad crossing) - Minimal disruption of natural environment
- Substantial tree removal(11 acres) - Minor tree removal(about one acre)
- Disruption of wildlife corridor - Some effect on wildlife
Geotechnical - Major grading required(over 1 million yards) -Much less grading than Option A(estim.300,000 yds.) -Minimal grading
- Homesites in areas of major landslides - Devel• ient mostly kept out of landslide areas - Access road and homesites would need investigation
co
- Access streets would cross landslide-prone areas - Major •dslide repair needed for street access
- Major geotechnical concerns typical of hillside
development
Economic/Fiscal - Net fiscal benefit to Dublin Small positive fiscal impact for Dublin -Negligible fiscal impact for Dublin(minor negative,
- Economic feasibility of project is questionable -Project probably not economically feasible due-to high long-term impact if access drive is public)
• infrastructure costs - Low infrastructure costs
Public Facilities - Highest demand of 3 options - Urban services provided - Homes on wells and septic tanks
- Urban services provided - Minimal demand on public services - Rural services
Hydrology, Flooding and - Flooding potential increased by"undergrounding"of - Minimal hydrologic impacts - Minimal hydrologic impacts
Water Quality Martin Creek - Much less potential erosion and sedimentation than
- Increased runoff, grading, erosion, and pollutants Option A
associated with development
•
•
•
• • I • •
. _j . ' _
_ . • 1 , , , _ '
Figure 3-1
CRONINP"ROPERTY SETTING
,-,<Ei i_ire2 'cycm\ -_,_;__;v., , , ,/---. /%4--) _ ..;.' /I,/ 5\:_:_, _>,‘ ,
,(,c7 t ,,,
'\. ....... 0, \ —c ...-.., , igi . \ .., ill 4.LA, ------------- ,.. ..70.1,h, ‘....)..s,
. /cc:- " - \* It 410
A.
x ...:, * \ (---------_-__,N.., , k
c— � . CRONIN PROPERTY ' ,■
, 1 0,, ." v ,,.r" • ILN,::: ....,11" ..... .........„ 14 C
DUBLIN
r = t 1. �•^ ♦ _ \\. • •; I 7��~ '� HILLS
�.. - �r - U l -�! 6 1. i \+ems`■
�'EDEN CANYON � f I *0nw iy ji, I\ S
----,z,„ -----,...;_ ,\ ..COUNTRY CLUB •L �%. ..►-�- ° `\ �� u.4.,
- c
�s .r o
II\ rill* N,,,,,.I> , I cz:" •
■cp '\s"... e" *I.Nk •, l'" 1 ,,...., ,--J 1 VilbS.
�. s• ..• � VP� \\ ~ t �. .,.,.'d ill
- r' •_ o• ' \ \ CANYON v . HANSEN HILLS
�' -A � \ , SITE RANCH �)
�' 1'- _ _ �� ` '� � , i b ,r SITE I liftok 141k4 - !
//1. 'A 11.-, — r
`-, -41‘ ' \\le ti 41011't '''''' , .., 4 ---,.__,..
\' % VALLEY
��� •�� "=: ' ,))f �� 1 , \ __ : CHRISTIAN„..,:__ ic,..0.�3...~. f .c. cf.: _° -� f, I , , ', A. _ ` ) �e CENTER
_D - /'�Q._-t-- it .-E.----- A-11 -- �� �`- =--- r i-
_� - V Nom• —i — ..O�t�- '. 1 I
Source:WPM Planning Team,Inc. Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN PA
G SP • EIR VNAN
0 1350 2700
Figure 3-2
CRONIN PROPERTY - SITE FEATURES
•
7 : , H -- -►
1.«�\ '`=��� \ 7 .\`� \ -�;;f I �� �
\ \\ - \ A!'\ .. \6�' )---.?; ( RK RIDGE
s. .. 1 IP (/( '
-t'' '' 's\-=------=-- ', \- --- *44% -'1.6 --N - , .--- -P) i LI
,N, ..;------:-.-.„ 3_ . ,,. \ \Q .., , . „ ,,__, , \ ,
, ,.. ,,, , t, , \... ,
: z\-\„-_--- \,.,- - ft- 40-17 - \ '"\ '---
..,,,�) — •�\ � � -, � �\\ " : . \ _, 1 ciiiiiirtitat (At \\ t, _ \ \N \ �' - -____
� j,` �` ..,\\ ���� ��(���- »DUBLIN
C \\ ,r" k\ � \ � �1����\
'-----... ....'\\\_/ )\ c-N .-:'
.. \cioiv) \jttl ."*. "‘11.■ .. -- '. \\ _ ) .
.:"_= /*/ '`-.- »\\)\ ) ' ... \ ---- -"") )
�� ��` _
A , 1 `�� ^_ice
HANSEN HILLS SITE
Prepared by WPM Planning Team,Inc.
-- -
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
0 650 1300 J Li
Figure 3-3
GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS - CRONIN PROPERTY
..., •
,
,i/ ,N, ,,':: 7 4 ........?-._-_,; ,, -, , , ,J• ..._ _ . ..., s-: ._,. - . . ... , Nix.. :.. ) . -....-7-,, . -../.-._ „ I : /
--.0% -. -, ---
■,\,,,, \' . -) , '„ ----4.. ---- .
,.. , , • ,' :.. i . .. i. -,
. _ .,.... - , / ' ' i• - ..-y.':,, '<!::::-.- I -- - .. . ' 1 x ....' ‘ : (..../ E.
,116.. - ., . )••• =4- -_. ----:- . :‘ si=• -...- ' - --It -1 - '
-.777 7 „7...,..,...,...,-c...c......„: , .
. --,-... .0, . ' '1\ - -.,...' • 4...,,, . ..,, ,1 -
... ,
• , ----7-s■ 'A
•
1 .7#g ; 1 . ''-'-'Loe"...7 - . ., -., . ,\' , is. . ''., • I '',7,,L---7`-•... N ‘.\.3 / .
x-.......''■, .1 . 5 , "...,,,,..1 ---- :. ,r, .\ --------r. •.eP' 1 : ;)e..,:. -• :),s., ‘‘. I ... , .. 1 't--r: '.r---i, • )1; , , ,
.. ...., ....\.; ,
....... ..
I . ,
6) - \:, < ,,.. :I -- „ - 24- ..- --:, ' -, /-Y(,1/4.:. , '-:, -',-: '- • . : '. ' - ' 1.6-1
N .
•.
...__ .
,..,, ..... .... i.„- :• <. , / .....,i,-0--,;(--,. ' -, ...,,,p, , . Srtill '
\.. .,-c-, ......,., % , , . _............. •: ("1/ " \ ,,,,\ '' ,I
•
__.. _ ,....„, , . .=■iN••■•el I■0 0,1.■' Mr=MB•_0.M.at- 4' ,,s INI Min. 110 777 loomil■1 ..„...,..... — \<,:...s 00- • I(0>
" • b
- A /
,....,
1‘\ . - -
1.•■• / •••111.....
.' ' ' '04‘,/i /ii,-
......
LEGEND :
. • , c , „.. : , 1
„,
4 •
• \ .. . I/ . ol C).
. ', ' if ' I '
. ,, : / , .
----- PROPERTY BOUNDARY • O A !, / -
(I,
i ' 6......c)-- lf .
.\-. . .(..... ) - Ciilif• --> .v7 ,, N ...■ \ %
RECENTLY ACTIVE LANDSUDE
.L.''1V. t iri) • "3-1 -° ‘. ,. , '' '2.,<'' 1\ 's (4/ [1114
% . ...
7.-ri) SURFIC1AL LANDSUDE
., . .: • A / .. !-.\ s..%
•
1 • . .
. .
' Al •r".". yk.e. e/
7.-j--) DEEP-SEATED LANDSUDE
, ) • .4,......... ''\ .'' • . ' ...-. 1 4 . ...,
/ ... .- ..'- ,...../.7 '.`•
,,, - •.... - -.- ,'`. . 'N _............' ........../.
i i CCI ff.T f s-,. . -.,...._ .____' ' . .1 . : . ._ ...
POTENTIAL ROCK FALL . ... •••.-•••-•-••
.0.■ .
SOURCE AREA 1 i \ --r-A-- ,-J ,.1---:_//2-.. . • .... / l'i , ,,,
Source:Berlogar Geotochnical Consultants Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GpA • Sp • EIR 1-/A7N
0 650 1300
Figure 3-4
OTHER CONSTRAINTS - CRONIN PROPERTY
HIGH VISUAL sENSmvITY
STEEP SLOPES(OVER 30%)
��� - '�" � \q, ° 1 O ��h�1i,�,449`` i. WOODLAND&COASTAL SCRUB
J
S/Aett:St:SeiS.:3:6:Nk=1,,,N, s�����,N�� t������� RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
P WO:404,344g► , s♦♦gig♦��a �� �►pA :.#t %'%*.;�;,� �•, . •����� -. 141�� �•♦X4'.74�1 \
jai♦
/ f.4e4rdir I ..ta'AlavesAllteifiiiiik- 1 •-03102 /�,:•, ��►; `1VIA,, \„*:_r�1 � , _
„' sky— Y � 1�`� a�1����`��(! e 14 _ ��� — _ /•
.. �t A, .e�1 3131��► ,'�\I{\`,� i`� `,i' 'l• ) \t..s\\Vit.Sii ._—__- -:-).? .._,_ ,...?.))
\. "Z0:0;TO" ::".52-,'. 44117(.1;!it:Sir\...&i4,.1,41 \ ''':77-'-----A \— ---z-7------ j ( - ',''''
it. 141,417040;4:0":?.iil■tvx-kitics.tc,s\<._ --,,,:...1%, _ ., .._ .,,.. .:,,,. \\..._._ / .\\\\\_,, . ,
,...\
∎.4,4.....,4.6_444,..0 j� ,!,�. I ,, .- Nom. ) ,
`- '- %,...."•-•1/4- .,,-Nk:„..--44..-ttge4""l1/4.4"■§>"tilbwt:tiPt.'"•••.-_--//,--?--------‘N Nss , -_______
- - - ,t,-Iiizetki.. .%.:-ArIpx,..., 4„,:- - iv \‘‘‘N
� -��
•
Prepared by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
. FNA
WEST DUBLIN GPA •SP • EIR
0 650 1300 N
Figure 3-5
INITIAL PLAN - CRONIN RANCH
F __
ipgzs D D
y. z CLA K
`SA z _i RIDGE
I . z
FT
arilli
*
,
1 ar•�y4,N I •mmul1• • :1-•. �� ALTERATION OF
�' -- -- , MARTIN CREEK
4, HIGHLY-VISIBLE R/ ..- ��•I•
HOMESITES )* a �,, ..
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL
w4 'kw,, •.
LAND USE SUMMARY II -- •� * ♦'
LAND USE x F . ♦ .: , 1
RESDENT1AL 55.9 31 ,•�' '•,�,.•
• Phase f��l 22.7
aro.I O/P+14 i*Sibil �ir q
▪ Pe,*C n 33� b HOMESITES ON CRONIN RIDGE 410
Phase
I
OPEN SPACE 115.1 64 ' A�0L IT
Q CAM. J
ROADS 9 • —------
'TOTAL SITE 179 100 143
Source:Bissell&Karns Prapand by:WPM Planning Team,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR
0 650 1300 FNAN
Figure 3-6
OPTION A - CRONIN RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN (125 Units)
-- 1 I ! I T - - -�\\�\
r
of �� ___ ���= ,1r� ;� �� 1� _-
SPACE _ W� ev�` ' J/ I 7 )( E 4 ,A.���� / ( C._ .. ). 1)
\�`.a \ �. �,Q,��.��IR �► , + \ \` / l 1 MARTIN CREEK FILLED- , . „,.1-- ..., ''\-- =, Wa.,Apiv A
, -- ,, --,,N.--_-_7.-- --- . I ' ,, ,\--__- ;\ -,# SVII.4,4 N•4-z.: '•- \'-' \\\\ '
w t --i;' 44111.(1 / \i'litiAditigiilkirill\ 4460‘,S741444*.■:\- -4114111‘. ILi. 7._ . Aigy r% ,--)
i,...t.-- -Box MAJOR LANDSLIDE REPAIR I `� las`` ►�I'I 4.aN*Nor■ �;
• N.i SS OCikkil'a V 11111V Tt nx„ , 0012 , '�-�` �I . �. C -t• , :..7„.,-.•
elatioNsl‘ 4.-.FIT,fel. ��tt I
TREES TO BE REMOVED ,,4\,'% 4►11144 e \ - \_ - r
' Allar:415:410 N ' l'7- - n ,,----'' '''''''. 7N .\‘, . - ) \',
GRADING&HOMESITES ti � jL �' ,.,
IN HIGHLY-VISIBLE AREA . � , ,-
-� ... HANSEN HILLS\- f�� — %— STREET CONNECTION
PUTTING GREEN
WEST DUBL IN GPA SP EIR /r 1\�
_ - 650 00
Figure 3-7
OPTION B - REDUCED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT-CRONIN PROPERTY (16 Units)
MARTIN GRES<PRESERVED
•
Iffig:gig1 ..::::;44.... . '.. ' -
..:.,..,...;....t...4. iee , ,:i..N._•,,.: -4p::.,,,-;e.: ,,.- •
.,....::,;::. 715,,,..t.,v,,,•:...ftzi>.-C-vVi•ik,..A.I.;:=R4:4,,s-4.-.1 :7; – ( %
l()))\
p
------,_, \\ „,...--..-_,--_-----, ) ...kii,40: „Agiott• -\,, \----,-\ :,.- .'s.,t,‘, . iiii/ I ( --_, ,,..... -
-,,,,\ \\\ ___-::.-z_17.,----,:,■ •,.....1--. \\,,,,, ) i L /
1 \ \ ____,- \. '\ ----.' 0- Vi' • -N \\ ' \ tAlli'''Illte-"‘f \ ''-\\-- -/-*--'11 -.- \ (N ----7---- ----ji i-
LANDSLIDE REPAIR AREA
\ :.,*:!..:4kk•\..\\ 4., .' ' A,,,\, ,,-......,, -/ P )1
A Ilk ., _ ------- \ \ • ,,,\ v___-- • t'Az.-:.: ' 1 4' ) ) \`..0*,:,, \v ---- \_ . \ - ,.-„› .., :-T.:
.,.. . . ...
') N __---c) ! ( • oak J
_ .. ,;,_ ,
ui (\ )k - '' ''5 `-....-- - '.
- • 4‘.....,.:N. ....."!.. .....,_
TRAILJEMERGENCY
lesoli...::. • 4:4 \Ay"71•Ikie••■•-'.'" -- -rm . ',\i, ;,, -- r _,..,.
) .k ,....,A.
„..,...:., . . ,,,. .:::.:..• .,„,, , . ,,,,...k .e \\ -!-----,--_, ) \,------- j \\iv--
TRAILHEAD ‘') '4•4. .—.N.:.\.... ,,-.V ‘' \it \ 4'-----1-- -. ' --- --
4-------- , - 4:-1.1,,: 4,... \-tt,' ‘ ',.. ,-- f - ). "--. ---: --*-1
-',, 1 \- ■ %,,,i2v,;:.. ,.....' ,4,),\ ,..4 ' _..,)( .„---:----.7---.. ,\ ) C-""N
CUSTOM HOMESITE I/4
\\
SCREENED FROM VIEW \„I : 1'' • -'' ',I. ...,:t.;`.‘1.k,.;,--, _ _ j \\\
v,4-'A 2.,,.. '-_:_-__:___--__--_=._----:.---------_---7---_-:---',,,fc,i-'-7.s,-4_.:—..-."-=.,:.2r 1),,' \ 1 i,;.?7k;::::•,::..,''._;''.,;ii',.:.:4-1-:-.--:'--,:?.
-':.•... --;----0
EN
:TREE COVER PRESERVED
-,:„....,:.-.„,„--7- _----------.--t----- -40, ,. %,,.. ?":....• ---yr? , S
•-• :-------:- -*:::• .., ' . .;:',-or.••-`• :.. -•.* . ---- i .
-•`---------„,.. ..t*•-•07—z., :i,:).:1,:-..'::..''.- ...---. ._I) f___\SI.
----------_____'_---'----.N. N - EDEN DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
CLUSTERED RESIDENTIAL DEVFI OPMENT_ --
•
ON LOWER CRONIN RIDGE
ing Tea
Source:Stedman&Associates Prepared by:WPM Plannm,Inc.
WEST DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR V7i/i N
0 650 1300 L---I 1---1
[ . .. „ , .
I. . ,
. . . . .
_:„., .
I,- , .
CHAPTER 4 • ,
,;..,1 ,
E _ .
„. .
,„. .
L - - - ' GENERAL PLAN .POLICY
IMPLICATIONS FOR WEST DUBLIN
C
uY-
,:„„
r, - . .. . .
( .
,L . .
„„, . . .
„.
,,T.:, . .
:::i., .
, .
„.„.....,
it .
....._,
,,;,.,,, _ . .
.„,:,,,,, . . , .
..
[ - . . . .
....:
,,..,
. $ . . , . . .,5T ,
L . ' . . - . • . - - .
-
4. GENERAL PLAN POLICY IMPLICATIONS
FOR WEST DUBLIN
L
The Dublin General Plan includes a number of policies which emphasize protection of natural
and visual resources.Appendix G contains the full text of these policies.In Tables 4-1 and 4-2,
the various land use options for the Eden/Schaefer and Cronin properties are listed, together
with an evaluation of whether or not these options are consistent with each General Plan policy.
As indicated in Tables 4-1 and 4-2,the Eden Canyon Country Club and Cronin Ranch proposals
I would be inconsistent with various General Plan policies. Furthermore, in some cases,major
changes would be needed in the applicant's development concept, to the extent that these
projects would not be feasible unless certain General Plan policies would be changed.
In proceeding with planning for the West Dublin Study Area, then, the City needs to choose
one of the following options:
• Delete these policies from the General Plan.However,this would affect planning elsewhere
j + in the City,particularly in East Dublin.
• Keep these policies intact. This decision would mean that the City would not accept the
basic development concepts currently proposed in West Dublin.In this case,the City could
choose another land use option for study purposes, such as those presented in this report.
=, • Modify the policies to allow development under certain conditions.Any such modification
; would need to be legally and environmentally sound.The underlying purpose of the policy
should be retained,with more flexible language used to meet the special conditions present
in the West Dublin Study Area.
At this stage,the precise wording of these policies is less important than a clear understanding
that General Plan policies will need to be made more flexible if the current direction of planning
L_ is to proceed. If the City agrees to the idea of policy modification for West Dublin, specific
policy language will then need to be developed. It should be emphasized that any changes made
to the current General Plan policies will necessitate review of the entire G eneral Plan for internal
consistency.
I
i �
4-1
H
B:\8914-3\8914-4
Policy Considerations for West Dublin
4.1 Land Use Options - Consistency with General Plan Policies
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 include a list of applicable General Plan policies. Table 4-1 then includes a
comparison of the land use options for the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties,while Table 4-2
provides a similar comparison for the Cronin property options.From these tables,the following
conclusions can be made:
Eden/Schaefer Heights Properties
• Option 1,the applicant's proposed plan,has several major inconsistencies with the General
Plan. t
• Options 2 and 3, the Open Space Alternative and the Cluster Development Alternative,
would be generally consistent with current General Plan policies. J j
Cronin Property
• Option A,the applicant's plan,has a number of serious inconsistencies with existing policies.
• Option B,the Reduced Development Alternative,would generally be consistent with current
General Plan policies, although there are some questions for certain policies.
• Option C, the Open Space Alternative, would be consistent with current General Plan
policies.
4.2 Key Policy Issues for the West Dublin Study Area
If the City of Dublin decides to proceed with the applicants' plans as the preferred land use ;7
option, several key issues will need to be resolved. In particular, General Plan amendments
would be needed for policies relating to ridgelands,steep slopes,woodlands,and creek corridors.
Ridgelands
The General Plan notes the importance of the ridgelands,which are described in general terms
as the hills bordering Dublin on the west. The importance of these western hills in providing a
greenbelt is noted, along with the high natural resource values of this area. The General Plan
includes this policy regarding the ridgelands:
Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will require deter-
mination that proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the
ridgelands. (policy 2.1.4.c)
4-2
W8914-3\891414
Policy Considerations for West Dublin
The key issues to be resolved in the General Plan and Specific Plan would include:
J • What are the ridgelands?A more precise definition and mapping would be needed.
• How can the need to preserve open space and natural resource values in the ridgelands be
reconciled with other key objectives, such as the need to provide housing and recreation
facilities?
• What other land uses would be compatible with the predominant open space use in the
ridgelands?
• What methods can be used to assure that a substantial greenbelt is provided in the ridgelands?
Steep Slopes
The City's policy regarding development on steep slopes is a pivotal planning issue for the West .
Dublin Study Area. The policy states:
Maintain slopes predominantly over thirty percent(disregarding minor surface bumps
and hollows)as permanent open space for health and safety. (policy 3.1.B)
Since most of the Study Area has slopes over thirty percent, and remaining areas suitable for
% development are widely dispersed, this policy as currently written would essentially preclude
Li any development similar to the applicants'current proposals for West Dublin.The Specific Plan
and General Plan would need to resolve these issues:
I
• Can development in steeply-sloping areas be reconciled with the potential hazards of
building in these areas?
• What precautions are needed to assure that environmental problems such as soil erosion,
sedimentation, and visual impacts would not result from development in certain steeply-
sloping areas?
Woodland and Creek Corridors
The General Plan includes a number of policies which emphasize the need for protection of
} woodlands,riparian vegetation, stream corridors and creeks for their biological, aesthetic, and
Li hydrologic values. Two of the most important policies are:
Preserve oak woodlands,riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their
natural resource value. (policy 3.1.A)
Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as
Li
a habitat and aesthetic resource. (policy 7.1.A)
4-3
j I B:\8914-3`8914-4
•
Policy Considerations for West Dublin
Both the Eden Canyon Country Club and Cronin Ranch development proposals would include
removal of creeks,riparian vegetation,and woodland.The Specific Plan and General Plan would
need to address the following issues: ? _!
• Can strict standards be devised to keep destruction of natural features to a minimum?
• Can measures be formulated to reconstruct creek channels and replace vegetation in a way
which is biologically, aesthetically, and hydrologically effective?
Other Issues
In reviewing Tables 4-1 and 4-2, it is apparent that other policies may also need to be revised
if the City wishes to allow development as proposed by applicants in the West Dublin Study
Area. Policies relating to agricultural land, ridgelines, and other concerns will need careful
review and evaluation.
i
}
4-4
B:A8914-3\8914-4
: Si:::::: :::iii: i iii'`:? ti i i;: :';r: : '2:`< :i i';; y'i ii ii 2 ' �i i i:::: ' ! ii r'i >i ?'`<i 2i i = 2 2' 3 Y ?' '2 ''`? 2a ' s%' i i_.
::. ;:<.;:.;; :::<. :..:;:.: : .::::.;: :. ;:: .:.;°Table.:41..:;Eden/S c .::. n,. .. .. ..:.:; >:;:;::<;::::::>::;;:�:;:<:::.:;.;:
.........................................:.... .:.:............._.......................................er �ud.:Use.. bons.-.� ;:....
:::::::::.:::.:::::....:..................................... .. Sefectci .leral::Pia�i.:., ::.;::;;;:.;::::::.:::::;::::::<.;;:;;;;:;.>:::::;:>::>:;:::>:;::;::;::<:::�;:;::;:-
' General Plan Policy GP Eden Option 1 Eden Option 2 Eden Option 3
Pg.No. Plan) (Open Space Option) (Cluster Development Option)
A. Require a mix of dwelling types in large projects. 7 Consistent Not applicable(small project) Consistent
B. Consider residential on moderate slopes;multi-family 11 Inconsistent: some multi-family in steep Consistent Consistent
densities on flatter land. slope arras y
C. Utilities and public safety services will be provided 11 Consistent Probably consistent:further study needed May be consistent:further study needed
without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses.
D. Proposed site grading and means of access will not 12 Inconsistent: major grading proposed in Potentially consistent:Careful design con- Potentially consistent:careful design con-
disfigure the ridgelands. ridgelands trol needed trol needed
E. Tuning of development will not result in premature 12. Potentially consistent with phasing Potentially consistent with phasing Potentially consistent with phasing
tennination of viable ag.operations.
F. The fiscal impact of new development shall support 12 Consistent Probably consistent May be consistent:negative impact is pos-
itself. y sible
G. Preserve oak woodland,riparian vegetation,and natural 15 Inconsistent: proposed alteration of Consistent Generally consistent
creeks. creeks and removal of woodland
H. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30%as open space. 15 Inconsistent: development proposed in Generally consistent: Some homes on Generally consistent
areas of existing slopes over 30% steep slopes
I. Require reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open 15 Inconsistent:homes on some steep slopes Generally consistent Generally consistent
space. and ridges
1
Ln J. Maintain lands currently in ag. preserve as rangeland 15 Inconsistent unless development is Inconsistent unless development is Inconsistent unless development is
with certain exceptions. delayed beyond 1998 delayed beyond 1998 delayed beyond 1998
K. Expand park area to serve new development. 16 Potentially consistent: parks included in Probably consistent: minimal need for Potentially consistent
•
plan parks
L. Restrict structures on hillsides that appear to project 16 Probably consistent Consistent Consistent
above major ridge lines.
M. Preserve or enhance ridge lines that form the skyline as 16 Probably consistent: analysis needed in Consistent Consistent
viewed from freeways or arterials. Schaefer Heights area
N. Improve freeway access. 19 Consistent May be inconsistent: no interchange in- Consistent
cluded
0. Streets need to accommodate projected traffic with the 19 Consistent (for project traffic alone). Potentially consistent:possible problems Probably consistent:further study needed
least friction.Operating levels of service of major intersec- Mitigations would be needed for cumula- on Eden Canyon Road
•
tions shall not be worse than LOS D. tive traffic impacts.
P. Provide safe bike routes along major arterial strets. 22 Potentially consistent: no information Not applicable(no arterial streets) Potentially consistent: no information
available available
Q. Protect views from I-580. 23-24 Probably consistent: analysis needed in Probably consistent Probably consistent
Schaefer Ranch area
R. Encourage housing of varied types,sizes,and prices. 25 Consistent Probably consistent Consistent
S. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public 25 Consistent Probably consistent • Consistent
services and will be accessible to public facilities.
T. Protect riparian vegetation. 28 Inconsistent: would require removal of Consistent Generally consistent .
•
some riparian vegetation
A:8914-3\8914-TBL
ns...±Cernsistenae <:1�VYth. r..al:Pian:: . ll
•
General Plan Policy GP Eden Option 1 Eden Option 2 Eden Option 3
Pg.No. (Dev.Plan) (Open Space Option) (Ouster Development Option)
U. Require open space corridors of adequate width to 29 Inconsistent: would require removal of Consistent Generally consistent
protect all ripanan vegetation. some riparian vegetation
V.Maintain natural hydrologic systems 29 Inconsistent:major creek alteration Consistent Consistent
W. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes 29 See Item H See Item H See Item H
R. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. 29 Inconsistent: large areas of development Consistent Generally consistent
in steeply-sloping areas
Y. Preserve oak woodlands. 29 Inconsistent:woodland removal would be Consistent Generally consistent
required
Z Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall 31 Potentially consistent:major geotechnical Potentially consistent Potentially consistent
be located away from geologic hazards. problems
AA Preserve woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain 35 Inconsistent: removal of woodlands, Consistent Generally consistent
creek channels with ample right-of-way. riparian,and grading of creeks proposed
BB Require dedication of stream corridors. 35 Inconsistent: development proposed in Consistent Potentially consistent
area of stream corridors
CC Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of 35 Inconsistent: removal of vegetation Consistent Generally consistent
woodlands. proposed
•
rn
AA89 1 4-38 9 14-TBL
s
. >:. _ • ::
1 >::: :<.>....<><.».. >>:>::>::>:;;>';::::'.>:::: >::>:>.< :Table? :2 ✓ro i:un Propert LAiid: s :OptiOti s .C+�iiiisisten NYfthSe ected..Gensaip lanPoli cioci:
i g : ;;rn: >
:.:.
General Plan Policy GP Cronin Option 1 Cronin Option 2 Cronin Qptton3
Pg.No. (Dev.Flan) (Reduced Dev.) (Open Space)
A. Require a mix of dwelling types in large 7 Not applicable(small project) Not applicable Not applicable
projects. .
B.Consider residential on moderate slope;multi- 11 Partially consistent: some residential on steep Consistent • Consistent
family densities on flatter land. slopes
C. Utilities and public safety services will be 11 Consistent,subject to fiscal review Consistent,subject to fiscal review Consistent
provided without financial burden to Dublin
residents and businesses.
D. Proposed site grading and means of access 12 Inconsistent:homes proposed near ridgeline Potentially consistent:Careful design control Consistent
will not disfigure the ridgelands.• needed
E. .Timing of development will not result in 12 Potentially consistent with phasing Potentially consistent with phasing Consistent
premature termination of viable ag.operations. •
F. The fiscal impact of new development shall 12 Probably consistent: fiscal analysis needed. Probably consistent: fiscal analysis needed Consistent
support itself.
G. Preserve oak woodland,riparian vegetation, 15 Inconsistent: proposed alteration of creeks Consistent" Generally consistent
and natural creeks. and woodland
H. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30%as 15 Inconsistent:development proposed on steep Generally consistent: some homes on steep Consistent ,
open space. slopes slopes
I L Require reservation of steep slopes and ridges 15 Inconsistent:homes on some steep slopes and Generally consistent: some lots on steep Consistent
as open space. ridges slopes
J. Maintain lands currently in ag. preserve as 15 Inconsistent:ag preserve cancellation needed Possibly consistent with phasing Consistent
rangeland with certain exceptions. -.
K. Expand park area to serve new development. 16 Inconsitent:no general-use park proposed • Probably consistent:no park necessary Not applicable ._.
L. Restrict structures on hillsides that appear to 16 Probably inconsistent:visual analysis needed Probably consistent with design controls Consistent
project above major ridge lines.
M. Preserve or.enhance ridge lines that form the 16 Inconsistent: homesites proposed near Probably consistent with design controls Consistent
skyline as viewed from freeways or arterials. iidgeline
N. Improve freeway access. 19 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
i
! 0. Streets need to accommodate projected traffic 19 Probably consistent:further study needed Consistent Consistent
with the least friction.
P. Provide safe bike routes along major arterial 22 Not applicable ' Not applicable Not applicable .
streets.
Q. Protect views from I-580. 23-24 Inconsistent: development would be visible Probably consistent: visual analysis needed Consistent
from freeway
R. Encourage housing of varied types,sizes,and 25 Probably not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
prices.
S. Ensure that housing in Dublin will have 25 Probably consistent:project would be remote Probably consistent:project would be remote Generally consistent: rural development
adequate public services and will be accessible to from some public facilities from some public facilities would•be largely independent of City
public facilities.
•
A\8914\8914-TBL
." •••
Table 4.2 Crown Property Land Use Opüons-Consistency With Selected General Plan Policies
General Plan Policy GP Cronin Option 1 %.oetniceOcritvn Cronin Option 3
Pg.No. (Dev.Plan) (Open Space)
•
T. Protect riparian vegetation. 28 Inconsistent: large area of riparian vegetation Generally consistent: minor removal of Consistent
would be removed riparian vegetation
U. Require open space corridors of adequate 29 • Inconsistent: considerable riparian Generally consistent: minor removal of Consistent
. width to protect all nparian vegetation, vegetation destroyed vegetation
V. Maintain natural hydrologic systems. 29 Inconsistent: pan of Martin Creek would be Consistent Consistent
piped underground
W. Regulate grading and development on steep 29 See Item H See Item H See Item H
slopes.•
X. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 29 See Item H See Item H See Item H
percent. •
• Y. Preserve oak woodlands. - 29 Inconsistent: some woodland would be Partially consistent:removal of some trees Consistent
removed
' Z. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or 31 Potentially consistent: landslide repair Potentially consistent: landslide repair Consistent
' development shall be located away from geologic necessary necessary
hazards.
AA. Require special precautions against fire. 34 Potentially consistent Potentially consistent Potentially consistent
BB. Preserve woodlands and riparian vegetation. 35 Inconsistent: substantial areas of woodland Generally consistent: some woodland Consistent
co " Retain creek channels with ample right-of-way, and riparian vegetation would be removed removal would be necessary
CC. Require dedication of stream corridors. 35 Potentially consistent(stream corridor would Consistent Consistent
be altered)
DD. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit 35 Inconsistent:removal of vegetation proposed Partially. consistent: some trees would be Consistent
removal of woodlands. removed
•
•
• AN8914\8914-TBL
• L- I
s.-
•
r
•
APPENDICES
•
„,:,
•
.•
!,7„
•
P.7!
•
•
•
•
•
•
{
r.
Ill '
APPENDIX A
REPORT PREPARERS
This Report has been prepared for the City of Dublin Planning Department by WPM Plan-
ning Team,Inc.. The persons and firms involved in report preparation are as follows:
ii
WPM Planning Team,Inc.
Rudolph R.Platzek-Project Manager
Dennis Dahlin-Assistant Project Manager
Robert Schilling-Computer Graphics
Lynne Green-Graphics
Janiene Yori-Platzek -Publisher
Lani Foit-Word Processing
Associating Consultants
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants-Geology and Soils
McGill.Martin.Self,Civil Engineers-Sewer,Water and Drainage
I �
TJKM, Traffic Engineers-Traffic and Circulation
Sam McGinnis,Ph.D.-Biology
■ Economic and Planning Systems-Public Services
Economic Research Associates-Economics/Fiscal
Li
Lj
ii
1
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB
•
I
U
MEMORANDUM
iG
February 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Traffic Impact of Proposed 3,240 Dwelling Units Scenario for the Eden
Canyon Country Club Development
L.2 This memorandum documents the results of the traffic analysis of the proposed
3,240 dwelling units scenario for the Eden Canyon Country Club Development. The
analysis considers traffic impacts of the proposed development and full build-out of
the surrounding areas. Specifically, this memorandum focuses on impacts to major
roadways in central Dublin.
This study considers three scenarios: 1) Existing Traffic; 2) Existing plus Project
Traffic; and 3) Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Traffic. Both future scenarios
assumed the construction of the Schaefer Ranch Road interchange. Other
assumptions include the connection of Dublin Boulevard to the project site.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Key transportation routes in the project vicinity include I-580, I-680, Palo Verde
Road, Dublin Canyon Road, and Foothill Road. I-580 provides primarily regional
access. Dublin Canyon Road and Foothill Road primarily serve work-oriented trips
to North Pleasanton, regional shopping trips focusing on the Stoneridge Mall area,
and trips to I-680 via the Stoneridge Drive interchange with I-680.
I-580 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the project area. This is the primary
connector between Hayward/Oakland/San Francisco to the west and Livermore/
Tracy to the east. The Foothill Road/I-580 and Eden Canyon Road/I-580
interchanges are located in the vicinity of the planning area. These two
interchanges are approximately five miles apart. According to the 1987 Caltrans
Traffic Volumes report, there are 103,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on I-580 near the
Eden Canyon Road interchange.
Dublin Canyon Road is a two-lane east-west frontage road to the south of I-580
' between Foothill Road and Eden Canyon Road. The posted speed limit is 50 miles
per hour. However, travel speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour are common.
Schaefer Ranch Road (approximately 2.5 miles west of Foothill Road) is the only
cross street on Dublin Canyon Road between Foothill Road and Eden Canyon Road.
The average daily traffic volume on Dublin Canyon Road near Schaefer Ranch Road
is 1,640 vpd. The width of the roadway is approximately 28 feet, with a six-foot bike
lane on the south side between Foothill Road and Palo Verde Road.
4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214, Pleasanton,California 94588•(415)463-0611
PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO.FRESNO•CONCORD
•
B-1
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. It has two
travel lanes west of Donlan Road and four travel lanes east of Donlan Road. Dublin
Boulevard provides access to downtown Dublin and the major shopping areas
between San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road and on Village Parkway. To the
east and to the west of Silvergate Drive, the average daily traffic on Dublin
Boulevard is 3,800 vpd and 1,000 vpd,respectively.
Eden Canyon Road is a two-lane road which has a diamond interchange
configuration with I-580. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Currently,
this road serves only a few ranch homes to the north of the freeway. The average
daily traffic volume to the north of the westbound ramps is 270 vpd. For
approximately 2.5 miles to the north of the I-580 westbound on-/off-ramps, it is a
winding 20 foot wide two-lane road. There is a relatively steep cliff to the east side
of the road while to the west there is a steep slope. To the north of Dublin Canyon
Road, the average daily traffic volume is 2,530 vpd.
San Ramon Road has two southbound and two northbound travel lanes from
. 150 feet north of Silvergate Drive to Amador Valley Boulevard. South of this point,
San Ramon Road has been widened to six lanes. It has four lanes between Vomac _
Road and Alcosta Avenue. San Ramon Road is scheduled to be widened to four
lanes between Vomac Road and Silvergate Drive. San Ramon Road provides the
primary access for West Dublin residents to I-580 and the City of Pleasanton to the
south and to the City of San Ramon to the north. San Ramon Road also provides
access to I-680, either via the I-580/1-680 interchange or via the I-680/Alcosta
Boulevard interchange in San Ramon.
Schaefer Ranch Road is currently a private road and is striped as a 24 foot two-lane
road. It has 10 foot wide paved shoulders on either side of the road. Currently, it
forms a T-intersection with Dublin Canyon Road and is gated. To the south of the
• intersection is Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park.
Land Use Assumptions
The traffic analysis is based on the build-out of the land use in the surrounding
area. The impacts of developable portions within the study area were determined by
considering future build-out of North Pleasanton based on the Pleasanton Plan and
future growth in the Dublin hills based primarily on development plans for the
Hansen Hills, Donlan Canyon, and downtown Dublin cumulative build-out. The -
Eden Canyon Country Club Planning Area consists of approximately 3,019 acres. It
is projected to have a developable potential ranging from 2,860 units to 3,240 units.
The results of this analysis are based on the assumption of 3,240 units, 175 acres of
golf course, an elementary school and 7 acres of commercial use. The land use
assumptions for the land to the west of the planning area in the County of Alameda
was obtained from the report Rancho Palomeras Environmental Impact Report,
Addendum, dated March 1988.
Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment
All detached residential units were assumed to have a daily trip generation rate of
ten vehicle trip ends (vte) per dwelling unit. In the p.m. peak hour, a trip rate of
1.0 vte per dwelling unit was assumed with 63 percent inbound and 37 percent
-
B-2
11
outbound. For multi-family units, a daily trip generation rate of 6.1 vehicle trip
ends (vte) per dwelling unit. These assumptions are based on the Trip Generation,
Fourth Edition, 1987 Institute of Transportation Engineers. It is estimated that the
Eden Canyon Country Club development would generate approximately 34,125 daily
trips, 2,433 a.m. and 3,336 p.m. peak hour trips. A detailed summary is shown in
Table I.
Existing plus Project Traffic (With Schaefer Ranch Interchange)
A capacity analysis was performed using the projected peak hour volumes to
determine the future traffic conditions during the peak hour. The method used,
known as the critical movement analysis, involves consideration of"critical" (or high
volume) conflicting movements and is based on information from a number of
sources including Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87 Highway Research
Board, 1985. A description of this method is contained in Appendix A. The turning
movement counts and capacity calculations are contained in Appendix B.
The volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratio is an indication of the level of service (LOS). The
level of service classification system is a scale which ranks street and highway
operations based on the amount of traffic and the traffic conditions. A complete
description of the system is included in the Highway Capacity Manual (Special
Reports 87 and 209) Highway Research Board, 1985. Briefly, the level of service
ranking system is a scale with a range of A through F. Level A represents free flow
conditions and Level F represents jammed conditions. The relationship of volume-
to-capacity ratio to level of service is given in the table in Appendix A. The existing
volume-to-capacity ratio to levels of service for the existing conditions at the study
intersections is shown in Table II.
The existing volume-to-capacity ratios and levels of service for six study
intersections are shown in Figure 1. The existing traffic operations on I-580 near
the proposed Schaefer Ranch interchange experience very little congestion.
However, traffic congestion occurs at nearby Foothill Road and San Ramon Road
during the peak hour. The levels of service during the p.m. peak hour at the
intersections of San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Foothill Road/Dublin
Canyon Road is LOS D. If the proposed Schaefer Ranch interchange is not
constructed, future traffic from the build-out of the area would be diverted to local
arterials and thus would further impact already congested arterials; particularly at
the intersection of Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Road and the intersection of
San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard.
It should be noted this analysis assumed the construction of the Schaefer Ranch
Road interchange. Two alternatives are being considered by Caltrans at this time.
The two alternatives are: . 1) A diamond interchange; and 2) a hook-ramp
Li interchange as shown in Figure 2. Existing topography of the area could pose some.
problems with grades near the proposed Schaefer Ranch Road interchange.
Development of the proposed Schaefer Ranch interchange could affect the
recreational Rowell Ranch Park. The first alternative would affect much of the
existing Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park recreational area. The second alternative would
involve more grading but needs less right-of-way acquisition. From a traffic
standpoint, both alternatives would result in acceptable operating conditions with
the traffic from the project site.
B-3
[ f
The average daily traffic volumes generated by the project are shown in Figure 3.
The existing average daily traffic for a few key roadways are shown in Figure 4. It
is projected that project traffic would not adversely impacted any of the study
intersections in the Existing plus Project Traffic scenario. On a daily basis, project
traffic would increase the daily traffic on San Ramon Road by approximately
1.5 percent. For Dublin Boulevard, project traffic would increase the daily traffic by
approximately 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively, east and west of San Ramon
• Valley Road. The levels of service of the seven study intersections would be
unchanged.
Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Traffic (With Schaefer Ranch.
Interchange)
As mentioned earlier, the cumulative traffic considers the build-out of the
surrounding area. The impacts of developable portions within the project area were
determined by considering future build-out of North Pleasanton_ based on the
Pleasanton General Plan and future growth in the Dublin hills based primarily on
development plans for the Hansen Hills and Donlan Canyon. The land use
assumptions for the land to the west of the project in the County of Alameda was
obtained from the report Rancho Palomares Environmental Impact Report, dated
March 1988.
This study assumes the development of 2,400 dwelling units for the West
Pleasanton Expanded Planning Area. The cumulative peak hour traffic volumes for
the intersection of Foothill Road and Dublin Canyon Road is obtained from the
report entitled A Traffic Impact Study of the Proposed Stewart Kramer Office
Building in the City of Pleasanton, dated September 14, 1990.
The volume-to-capacity ratio and level of service of this scenario is illustrated in
Figure 1 and shown in Table III. Under existing lane configurations, the
intersection of San Ramon'Road/Silvergate Drive would change from LOS A to
LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS B to,LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The
intersection of San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard would deteriorate from LOS C to
LOSE in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS D to LOS Fin the p.m. peak hour. Level
of Service F indicates that drivers would experience congestion and delays at the
intersection up to several cycles.
The intersection of Eden Canyon Road Eastbound on/-off ramps/I-580 would change
from LOS A to LOS D (indicating tolerable delays) for both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours. The intersection of Eden Canyon Road Westbound on/-off ramps/I-580 would
deteriorate from LOS A to LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and from LOS A to LOS D in
the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation measures are recommended for these intersections.
The remaining two intersections on Silvergate Drive would remain at LOS A. The
intersection of Foothill Road/Dublin Canyon Road would change from LOS D to
LOS F in the p.m. peak hour and from LOS A to LOS Bin the a.m. peak hour.
The projected average daily traffic for the cumulative traffic scenario is shown in
Figure 4. On a daily basis, project plus cumulative traffic would increase the daily
traffic on San Ramon Road (south of Dublin Boulevard) by approximately
39 percent. For Dublin Boulevard, project plus cumulative traffic would increase the
daily traffic by approximately 47 percent and 33 percent, respectively east and west
of San Ramon Road.
B-4 I
I
•
Mitigations
San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard
1 The mitigation measures for the intersection of San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard
is shown in Figure 6. This intersection configuration has been adopted by the City
of Dublin:
Eden Canyon Road Ramps/I-580
As described earlier, Eden Canyon Road is a two-lane roadway near I-580. To
accommodate the projected project plus cumulative traffic, this road would need to
be widened to a four-lane road with turn lanes. In addition, an additional lane
would need to be added to the eastbound off-ramps. The future eastbound off-ramp
would have a right-turn lane, a left-turn lane and a shared left and through lane as
shown on Figure 7.
�I The westbound off-ramps would need to be restriped to one left-turn lane, one
shared left, through and right-turn lane. At the intersection of Eden Canyon Road
and westbound off-ramps, the northbound approach would have one left-turn lane,
one share left and through lane, and one through lane as shown on Figure 7. Both
off-ramps intersection would need to be signalized.
The results of these mitigation measures are as shown in Figure 5. These
mitigation measures would improve all intersections to acceptable Level of Service D
or better as shown in Table III.
Foothill Road/Dublin Canyon Road
J In reviewing recent project proposals in the Stoneridge Mall area, the following
improvements have been identified as necessary to mitigate short-term traffic
impacts:
• Widen Canyon Way between Stoneridge Mall Road and Foothill Road to
provide one additional westbound lane. This will provide a total three
westbound lanes. The purpose is to improve existing traffic flow and
mitigate the impact of new development by extending a very short
existing right-turn lane for westbound traffic destined for the Foothill
Road interchange.
• • Add a fourth northbound lane on Foothill Road between Deodar Way and
the northbound to eastbound ramp at the Foothill Road interchange with
I-580. This will provide two northbound lanes on Foothill Road to the
ramp toward eastbound I-580. The two lanes would transition to one
lane prior to joining the collector-distributor road. The other two lanes
would serve the existing two lanes toward the overcrossing at I-580.
Foothill Road between Deodar Way and Canyon Way can be restriped
between the existing curbs. Foothill Road.between Canyon Way and the
northbound to eastbound ramp will require widening Foothill Road and
moving the existing sidewalk back within the existing right-of-way. An
additional lane will be constructed next to the existing one-lane
B-5
northbound to eastbound ramp which will require Caltrans approval.
The purpose of this improvement is to provide additional capacity for the • ,
northbound through movement and to more evenly distribute traffic
across the lanes thereby reducing the amount of green time needed for
the northbound movement.
• Lengthen the eastbound Dublin Canyon Road left-turn lane next to the
median by narrowing the existing 18-foot wide median. No additional
right-of-way is required. The purpose of this improvement is to fully
utilize the capacity of the left-turn lanes by reducing the possibility of
one lane being blocked. Green time at the traffic signal could be reduced
for this movement by creating a more even distribution of traffic for the
left-turn lanes.
These mitigation measures would improve the Foothill Road/Dublin Canyon Road
intersection to acceptable levels of service LOS D or better.
ca _.
Attachments -
157-049M.3CT
■
j-1
B-6
L�_1 % l T_r J `"- I 111.--S1 LTI - 1 1 l- L
•
Eden Canyon Country Club Traffic Study
TABLE I
•
Eden Canyon Country Club Trip Generation
Traffic DAILY DAILY AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM
Zones LAND USE SIZE UNIT RATE TRIPS %DAILY IN OUT VEH-IN VEH-OUT TOTAL %DAILY IN OUT VEH-IN VEH-OUT TOTAL
1 Proposed Project
Single Family 1,045 DU 10 10,450 7.5 27 73 212 572 784 10 63 37 658 387 1,045
Medium/High Density 640 DU 6.1 3,904 8.7 18 82 61 279 340 11 68 32 292 137 429
Subtotal 14,354 273 851 1, 124 950 524 1,474
•
2 Proposed Project •
Single Family 685 DU 10 6,850 7.5 27 73 139 375 514 10 63 37 432 253 685
Medium/High Density 870 DU • 6.1 5,307 8.7 18 82 83 379 462 11 68 32 397 187 584
Golf Course 175 Acre 8.3 1,453 3.2 80 20 37 9 46 4.7 8 92 5 63 68
Elementary School 10 Acre 60 600 26 60 40 94 62 156 5 30 70 9 21 30
Subtotal 14,210 353 825 1,178 843 524 1,367
3 Commercial 64 KSF 86.9 5,562 2.4 70 30 93 40 133 8.9 49 51 243 252 495
Grand Total 34,125 719 1,716 2,435 2,036 1,300 3,336
•
Note:
1 Assuming FAR = 0.21
•
•
•
•
TABLE II
EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection V/C LOS
1. San Ramon Rd.1/ A.M. 0.55 A '
Silvergate Dr. P.M. 0.68 B
2. San Ramon Rd./ A.M. 0.72 C -
Dublin Blvd. P.M. 0.89 D
3. Silvergate Dr.1/ A.M. 0.31 A
Dublin Blvd. P.M. 0.19 A
4. Silvergate Dr.1/ P.M. 0.16 A
Rolling Hills Dr. P.M. 0.16 A
5. Eden Canyon Rd.1/ A.M. 0.22 A
I-580 EB Ramps P.M. 0.18 A
I, 6
6. Eden Canyon Rd.1/ A.M. 0.23 A
I-580 WB Ramps P.M. 0.20 A
{
7. Foothill Rd./ A.M. 0.41 A
Dublin Canyon Rd. P.M. 0.88 D
1 = Unsignalized intersections
V/C= volume-to-capacity ratio
LOS = level of service
r 8
Note: Traffic counts for Intersections 1 - 6 are based on counts
from available data in 1988 to 1989, while counts for
Intersection 7 is based on January 1990. ;a k
r
B-8
TABLE III
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing plus Project plus Cumulative
Existing + Project Existing + Project
+ Cumulative + Cumulative
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. San Ramon Rd./ A.M. 0.70 B -.- -
Silvergate Dr. P.M. 0.84 D -.- -
2. San Ramon Rd./ A.M. 0.91 E 0.73 C
Dublin Blvd. P.M. 1.12 F 0.87 D
3. Silvergate Dr.'/ A.M. 0.31 A -.- -
Dublin Blvd. P.M. 0.19 A -
4. Silvergate Dr./ P.M. 0.16 A -.- -
Rolling Hills Dr. P.M. 0.16 A -.- -
5. Eden Canyon Rd./ A.M. 0.82 D -.- -
1-580 EB ramps P.M. 0.84 D -.- -
6. Eden Canyon Rd./ A.M. 1.00 E 0.65 B
1-580 WB ramps P.M. 0.81 D 0.51 A
7. Foothill Rd./ A.M. 0.67 B 0.60 B
Dublin Canyon Rd. P.M. 1.28 F 0.90 D
V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio
LOS= level of service
B-9
Existing V/C ratio&LOS \•\ i-� /
i
KEY: Cumulative V/C ratio&LOS / GOUNr�N
AM IK V/LOS \ *
PM LOS N i
LOS V
W
3
01 Study Intersections 680 s
—1
EX. CUM.
— AM oil 0.70
9
B
6
9i
0.68 0
6 0.84
m PM 0.
q
B D
14,),on. P
O
PROJECT ��, 1 y
SITE ' > EX. CUM. \�t,s 4=''
0.16 0.24
AM Z ¢ Po's
N
P
,y PM
0.16 0.13
}
i
A A
gz
Ov`�N 9
Q0, HANSEN 2 EX. CUM.
s / 0.7 0.91
r EX. CUM. EX. CUM. `� AM E
.vi oe AM 023 1.00 ' AM 0110.11 0.46 F9 PM 0.89D K
PM 0.20 0.81 _ - ^ - _ 019 0.36 � b
6 D �1 PM 3
\ �. 'sso
5 ?: / 11, DUBLJN CANYON RD. 419.16,7 111"11."111111111■00 EX. CUM.
909 ii EX. ��CUM. \ AM 0.4 A 0.67 B I.
4- AM 0.2 0.82 REFER TO FIGURE 2 0.88 1.28 9
D a
0.18 0.84 PM D F
PM A D
TRAFFIC STUDY EXISTING & CUMULATIVE F I G U R E
EDEN CANYON VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY (V/C) RATIO, 7k41 COUNTRY CLUB & LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) T- 1
DEVELOPMENT
157-049-12/90-CT
I. Diamond Interchange Concept
To Project Site N
TO HAYWARD TO DUBLLN --)
DUBLIN CANYON AD.
LL
rn
To Project Site
II. Hook-Ramp Interchange Concept
W
LL
U2
14— TO HAYWARD TO DUBLLN -�
PNYON R0.
0 J��1N
TRAFFIC STUDY EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT
SCHAEFER RANCH RD. FIGURE
INTERCHANGE CONCEPT T- 2
157-049.1290-CT
B-J1
\ i COONS4 \NE ,
_____ \
Y
N w
6.o
_ \
9,jy m
on. O
p 570
PROJECT 4.°.'‘IC).
SITE S ,,,
fe `i 00.
c
i dug\.\N B\
VO
HANSEN a 1 100
P�
!L / '
, 570
8,600 9
- M." ��
' _ - - 6,670
;\ I"-` / sso pppp
1,100 ;, ;, .;;. 250 DUBLIN CANYON RD. 8j300
L
�P� \ REFER TO FIGURE 2 �e
99
TRAFFIC STUDY FIG U R E
EDEN CANYON PROJECT AVERAGE
jialif
COUNTRY CLUB DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) T- 3
DEVELOPMENT
157 049-12/90-C T
KEY: \ Gown u
S
\------ *
X,XXX =EXISTING ADT N
(X,XXX) =EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS
CUMULATIVE ADT W
c,
680 S
e
9,
Q4
rr�� (35,000) s
24,000
o.
ts
y
O N
2
Q
TZ
bi
2
1 II
O
'J.) � I ,lo
Q
U p e�
N
Z
1
V�
HANSEN / 15,000 0
29,400
' (22'000)
F (39,000)
..,e, 43,200
0,9 3,800 (60,000)
270(8,870) \I _ _ _ _ _ _ - (8,900) Alibb,..
—......iii........._ I.. — _ / 580
At,ki;; • / 't -- DUBLIN CANYON RD. —"Illq41Vir
Allinsimut
IFF sm.
(10,000) REFER TO FIGURE 2 ��
TRAFFIC STUDY FIGURE
EDEN CANYON EXISTING AND CUMULATIVE
jig,
COUNTRY CLUB AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) T-4
DEVELOPMENT
O T
157-049-12/90-CT
KEY: -�Nn�N
Mitigated Cumulative V/C ratios i- co
&LOS -�
AM /LOS _ N
PM V/C
OS
<
680
A
B 9
�y m
h
P
PROJECT ��1�,�
SITE LS
O N
P
2
r
F
?r
U O
Z ex-40
c HANSEN OO f0 AM 0.73
���� AM 0.65 3 PM 0.87 D
cN / '9
PM 0.51 ��
A
_- DUBLIN CANYON RD.
0
•
Q li AM 0.77 REFER TO FIGURE 2 9
o
PM o...asicivi
TRAFFIC STUDY FIGURE
EDEN CANYON
COUNTRY CLUB MITIGATED V/C & LOS
awkilf T- 5
DEVELOPMENT
157-049.12/90-CT
11
11 N
" Hi "
-__
r
=map. ---
--Z
Z
DUBLIN BLVD.
/ / 0 t iftt
P.
4
z / / 11
0
aZ'
Z
up
TRAFFIC STUDY ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS Amplai FIG U R E
EDEN CANYON AT THE INTERSECTION OF
COUNTRY CLUB SAN RAMON RD. AND DUBLIN BLVD. J T- 6
DEVELOPMENT
157-049-12/90-C T
A
a
WC12. 11"
C ›
Wz
U
4
iill N
I-580 wB-ON
--,,,,\ 1 4 t --._
TO HAYWARD
11' 12' 12'
580
II I
7
---.46 I -/--- / / VA
I S 12,
80 EB
/
'2�OF
t r
12' 11' 11' 12' 12'
41 i, 1
EAST CASTRO VALLEY BLVD. —
t_
....s.\ 4 At+ I DUBLIN CANYON RD.
TRAFFIC STUDY EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDED EDEN CANYON FIGURE
INTERCHANGE MITIGATION T- 7
157-049-12/90-CT
B-16
LI
1 ,
Iti
f�
lwl
I`
I
U
I � •
J
r
APPENDIX A
i '
DESCRIPTION OF THE
, I; •INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
I ,
Il
Li
■
•
•
L�
U
U
Li
u
i I
DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
TJKM utilizes a method of intersection capacity analysis known as the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. A variation (and derivation) of the TJKM
method, known as the critical movement analysis, is described in Interim Materials
on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Circular 212, January 1980,
published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences. The TJKM method is similar to the Planning Applications method of
Signalized Intersection Analysis described in Circular 212.
The method sums the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of each governing (or critical)
signal phase at an intersection to produce an overall intersection volume-to-capacity
ratio. When the ratio of volume to capacity reaches unity (1.00), the intersection is
"at capacity" and is described as operating at Level of Service E and approaching
Level of Service F conditions. See the table "Summary of Levels of Service for
Intersections" for the relationship between the level of service rating and volume-to-
capacity ratio.
A sample calculation is shown on the accompanying computer print-out "TJKM
P P
Intersection Capacity Analysis." This example describes a hypothetical intersection
of A Street and B Street, which is regulated by three phase traffic signals. The first
phase is for southbound traffic only and contains three lanes. Right turn
movements in the right lane (189 vehicles) have a smaller per lane volume than in
the two remaining lanes (226 vehicles). Therefore, the length of the signal phase is
governed by the traffic in the two left lanes. The capacity of Phase 1 is
2,700 vehicles per hour of green, the volume is 452 vehicles and the resulting
volume-to-capacity ratio is 0.1674. Phase 2, for the northbound movements, has two
lanes and a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.1877. For Phase 3, the westbound through
plus right traffic cannot proceed through the intersection at the same time as the
eastbound left turn movement, even though they are on the same signal phase.
Practically, the left turning vehicles and opposing through traffic alternate as gaps
in traffic allow. The total Phase 3 capacity requirement is the sum of the westbound
through and right combined, 0.2187, and the eastbound left, 0.0900. The critical i
movement V/C ratios are summed, then rounded to two decimal places. An
allowance for yellow time (assumed to be lost time for vehicle movement)is added to
obtain the overall intersection volume-to-capacity rating. In the example, the
intersection rating of 0.76 equates to a Level of Service C designation.
The advantages of this type of capacity calculation is its direct relationship to actual
intersection operations and the ease with which changes in volume or capacity (or
both) can be analyzed. In addition, the level of accuracy of this method is
comparable to that of the traffic projection process used to determine future traffic
volumes. .
B-18
r-1
u TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION 1 A STREET and B STREET SAMPLE
COUNT DATE/TIME: 1/1/00 4:00-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30-5:30 PM
,
CONDITION : P.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE XXXX
j RIGHT THRU LEFT
Li 189. 225 227
I I I
A I I I " NORTH
Li I <--- v ---> I
LEFT 110 --- 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.1 1.1 --- 2 RIGHT
STREET NAME:
THRU 623 ---> 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 644 THRU B STREET
RIGHT 15 --- 1.0 1.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 --- 11 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
i I <--- ---> I N
L v I I I v
I 10 484 10
I LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: . A STREET SPLIT PHASE? Y
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
1-1-1
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C 1
NB RIGHT (R) 10 10 1500 0.0067
THRU (T) 484 484 3000 0.1613 Lam,,
r LEFT (L) 10 10 1500 0.0067
I j T + R 494 3000 0.1647
T + L 494 3000 0.1647 /;
T + R + L 504 3000 0.1680 0.1680
a' SB RIGHT (R) 189 79 * 1375 0.0575
THRU (T) 225 225 1500 0.1500 t )
r I LEFT (L) 227 227 2600 0.0873
__i T + L 452 2600 0.1738 0.1738
EB RIGHT (R) 15 0 * 1375 0.0000
THRU (T) 623 623 3300 0.1888
L.r LEFT (L) 110 110 1375 0.0800 0.0800
j ( WB RIGHT (R) 2 2 1500 0.0013
LJ THRU (T) 644 644 3150 0.2044
LEFT (L) • 11 11 1375 0.0080
T + R 646 3150 0.2051 0.2051
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.63
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.73
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C
. * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
r
1
1 B-1 9
The number of lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted with a special nomenclature described below:
Lane Nomenclature •
X,Y Where X Denotes the number of lanes available for a particular movement.
Y Denotes how the lanes are used.
When Y is ._ ... The following applies:
' L LO IL 1
0 .- 1.0 r A lane used exclusively for a particular movement(I.e.exclusive left-turn lane).
/r 1.0 1.
I ' —,
1.1 x A lane which is shared,that is,either of two different movements can be made
sr- 1.OL particular ---
1 r- T from a articular lane(i.e.a lane which is shared by through and right-turn traffic).
i 1
1 '
.a- 2I R Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared,one with
2 LI L left-turn traffic,the other with right-turn traffic. .
I '
3 Denotes an expressway through movement 1
S 's a Denotes a right-turn movement from an exclusive right-turn lane with right-turn
—2.0 T arrow and U-turn prohibition on the conflicting left-turn movement. __;
I '
6 ' a Denotes a right-turn movement from a shared lane with a right-turn arrow and
._ "T U-turn prohibition on the conflicting left-turn movement
7,8,9 Denotes a turning movement which has an additional lane to turn into,as shown below:
1.7 a Turn lane which is shared and under signal control,and which has its own lane to
7 •--21 T turn into. rTh
It:ti
R= '•'a Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control,and which has its own lane
-20 T turn Into
t: If
L
l t L,a Exclusive turn lane not under signal control,often referred to as a"free"turn. Since
9
F the volumes in this lane do not conflict with other intersection movements,the V/C
ictr es- :o T ratio of the free right-turn movement is not included in the sum of critical V/C ratios. -1
{ I
R-9n
I_ ' L C____� r T L
d t'' 1-3 t4 < 00000000000000000000000 •
Or caioiDi00o0o000oCoCo00 00 00 00 17 17 .4 11 11 -7 ■7 17 11 b. 8
�. N Cnn wN � ococlo -4 CDCA14wtD � occoo -4 oDcna). wtD � p cp
•a. � wwwNDND∎ND ►.Ai u, n
i-r o co i-, o is � o i-i o °;- 0 g 6 o
o• C
°, (1)
Pt: a
x•40 00000000000000000000000 ,ti H4
CD CD On 0000000000000000000 -ii1 -, (1:) —I
cn o � i--' [.DNww4PtPCnCACDC D -l -.l0oCOCDCD000CD �1L
" El C 0 X
G o O D
rno) cn �. � www ►-4 ►-A p o r-
;P■i:D cn"co It)O1-, ca-CA n � ()jF
cn 0 cn 0 cn 0 cn 0 0 cn cv n 0 C 0
00 00000000 w 8 nr *
x 0 D -a —
0- o C0n1
00000000000000000000000 r, D
VD CD 0 is co co cD 0 CO CO 00 00 Co 0o Oo co co 0o 0o oo 0o 0o 00 E,
0 0) 03 � r-4000DCDCo00 -1 - O C 101 CAD > � D
o C
N
N
CD
-I E
H Cl)
0 w N Z
ww � � � m � 00000 -.3
CD CD • -1-cncn C) CD DU
0h" 1" 1�+ � 0
00 0000 w U)til +
00 0000 0 IC
CD
m �, oo w 5, 00
Fins, v0 o m I-. 0000
w " Q. 000000•
'1 ..
ou
JtidCW 10
•
•
SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS
Level of Type of -,
Service Flow Delay Maneuverability V/C Ratio'
A Stable Very slight or no delay. If Turning movements are easily made, 0.00-0.60
Flow signalized,conditions are such that and nearly all drivers find freedom of
no approach phase is fully utilized operation.
by traffic and no vehicle waits
longer than one red indication.
B Stable Slight delay. If signalized, an Vehicle platoons are formed. Many 0.61-0.70
Flow occasional approach phase is drivers begin to feel somewhat
fully utilized. restricted within groups of vehicles.
C Stable Acceptable delay. If signalized, a Back-ups may develop behind turning 0.71-0.80
Flow few drivers arriving at the end of a vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat
queue may occasionally have to restricted.
wait through one signal cycle.
D Approaching Tolerable delay. Delays may be Maneuverability is severely limited 0.81-0.90
Unstable substantial during short periods, but during short periods due to temporary
Flow excessive back-ups do not occur. back-ups.
•
E Unstable Intolerable delay. Delay may be There are typically long queues of 0.91-1.00
Flow great-up to several signal cycles. vehicles waiting upstream of the
intersection.
F Forced Excessive delay. Jammed conditions. Back-ups from Varies'
Flow other locations restrict or prevent
movement. Volumes may vary widely,
depending principally on the
downstream back-up conditions.
' In general, volume-to-capacity ratios cannot be greater than 1.00, unless the lane capacity assumptions are
too low. Also, if future demand projections are considered for analytical purposes, a ratio greater than 1.00
might be obtained, indicating that the projected demand would exceed the capacity.
References: - Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209,Transportation Research Board, 1985.
- Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 87, Highway Research Board, 1965.
- TJKM
n
B-22
i
I
•
II
1
APPENDIX B
(,I
EXISTING plus PROJECT plus CUMULATIVE
1
I •
1 t
f � _
t..J
1
ri_.
1
i-i
LJ
i
I ,
I �
le J
B-23
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
INTERSECTION 1 SILVERGATE DR and SAN RAMON RD. DUBLIN .
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: INTERSECTION 1 SILVERGATE DR and SAN RAMON RD. DUBLIN
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : PM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1
RIGHT THRU LEFT
49 1086 0 A RIGHT THRU LEFT
I I I A 126 1165 0
NORTH
< v 1 A I I I NORTH
LEFT 77 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT I <--- v --> I
STREET NAME: LEFT 52 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU SAN RAMON RD. STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU SAN RAMON RD.
RIGHT 229 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
I <--- ^ ---> I N RIGHT 189 --- 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
y
1
I I y I <---I I^ ---> I N
87 341 0 y 302 1211 I O y
LEFT THRU RIGHT
LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N
STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 341 341 3450 0.0988
LEFT (L) 87 87 1650 0.0527 0.0527 NB THRU (T) 1211 1211 3450 0.3510
LEFT (L) 302 302 1650 0.1830 0.1830
SB RIGHT (R) 49 0 * 1650 0.0000
td A THRU (T) 1086 1086 3450 0.3148 0.3148 SB RIGHT (R) 126 46 * 1650 0.0279
THRU (T) 1165 1165 3450 0.3377 0.3377
EB RIGHT (R) 229 149 * 1650 0.0903 0.0903
LEFT (L) 77 77 1650 0.0467 EB RIGHT (R) 189 109 * 1650 0.0661 0.0661
LEFT (L) 52 52 1650 0.0315
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.46
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.59
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.56
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.69
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 YY
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 YY
11 L r [-- L- [-- t -- -- L [_ - L- C- i r- L- L LI I
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
INTERSECTION 2 PALO VERDE RD and 1-580 EB OFF DUBLIN INTERSECTION 2 PALO VERDE RD and 1-580 EB OFF DUBLIN
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 CONDITION : PM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1
RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT
0 211 97 A 0 121 70 A
I
I A NORTH I I I NORTH
LEFT 125 --- 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT LEFT 384 --- 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME: STREET NAME:
THRU 1 ---> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB OFF THRU 1 ---> 2.2 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU 1-580 EB OFF
RIGHT 48 --- 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? RIGHT 54 --- 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
1 ^ 1 N 1 <---I ---> 1 N
v
I 0 10 194 v v 0 11I9 147 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: PALO VERDE RD SPLIT PHASE? N STREET NAME: PALO VERDE RD SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 94 14 * 1650 0.0085 NB RIGHT (R) 47 0 * 1650 • 0.0000
THRU (T) 60 60 1725 0.0348 THRU (T) 119 119 1725 0.0690 0.0690
SB THRU (T) 211 211 1725 0.1223 0.1223 SB THRU (T) 121 121 1725 0.0701
to
LEFT (L) 97 97 1650 0.0588 LEFT (L) 70 70 1650 0.0424 0.0424
na EB RIGHT (R) 48 48 1650 0.0291 EB RIGHT (R) 54 54 1650 0.0327
"' THRU (T) 1 1 3300 0.0003 THRU (T) 1 1 3300 0.0003
LEFT (L) 125 125 1650 0.0758 0.0758 LEFT (L) 384 384 1650 0.2327 0.2327
T + R 49 3300 0.0148 T + R 55 3300 0.0167
T + L 126 3300 0.0382 T + L 385 3300 0.1167
T + R + L 174 3300 0.0527 T + R + L 439 3300 0.1330
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.20 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.34
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.30 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.44
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN.
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
INTERSECTION 3 SILVERGATE DR and ROLLING HILLS DUBLIN INTERSECTION 3 SILVERGATE DR and ROLLING HILLS DUBLIN
•
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 CONDITION : PM FX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1
RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT
4 69 0 A 20 54 0
•
I A NORTH ^ I I I A NORTH
1 <--- v ---> I 1 <--- v --->
LEFT 7 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT LEFT 8 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT
STREET NAME: STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU ROLLING HILLS . THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0<--- 0 THRU ROLLING HILLS
RIGHT 10 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? RIGHT 8 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
I^ I N I I ^I I N
v 2 48 10 v v 8 47 10 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (T) 48 48 1650 0.0291 NB THRU (T) 47 47 1650 0.0285
LEFT (L) 2' 2 1650 0.0012 0.0012 LEFT (L) 8 8 1650 0.0048 0.0048
T + L 50 1650 0.0303 T + L 55 1650 0.0333
to SB RIGHT (R) 4 4 1650 0.0024 SB RIGHT (R) 20 20 1650 0.0121
na THRU (T) 69 69 1650 0.0418 THRU (T) 54 54 1650 0.0327
a` T + R 73 1650 0.0442 0.0442 T + R 74 1650 0.0448 0.0448
EB RIGHT (R) 10 . 10 1650 0.0061 EB RIGHT (R) 8 8 1650 0.0048
LEFT (L) 7 7 1650 0.0042 LEFT (L) 8 8 1650 0.0048
T + R + L 17 1650 0.0103 0.0103 T + R + L 16 1650 0.0097 0.0097
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.06 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.06
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.16 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.16
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
INTERSECTION 7 SILVERGATE DR and DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN INTERSECTION 7 SILVERGATE DR and DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 CONDITION : PM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1
RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT
37 0 171 ^I 7 0 72 I^
I I 1 A NORTH A I I I A NORTH
1 <--- v ---> 1 <--- v ---> 1
LEFT 0 --- 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 53 RIGHT LEFT 10 --- 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 --- 149 RIGHT
STREET NAME: STREET NAME:
THRU 105 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 179 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. THRU 113 ---> 1.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 98 THRU DUBLIN BLVD.
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
1 <--- A ...> 1 N 1 <--- ^ ---> 1 N
� IDIo " 1IDID " .
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
SB RIGHT (R) 37 0 * 1650 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) 7 0 * 1650 0.0000
LEFT (L) 171 171 1650 0.1036 0.1036 LEFT (L) 72 72 1650 0.0436 0.0436
bd
N EB THRU (T) 105 105 1725 0.0609 EB THRU (T) 113 113 1725 0.0655 0.0655
....j LEFT (L) 0 0 1650 0.0000 0.0000 LEFT (L) 10 10 1650 0.0061
WB RIGHT (R) 53 0 * 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 149 69 * 1650 0.0418
THRU (T) 179 179 1725 0.1038 0.1038 THRU (T) 98 98 1725 0.0568
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.21 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.11
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.31 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.21
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90
INTERSECTION ' 8 EDEN CANYON and I-580 WB OFF DUBLIN INTERSECTION 8 EDEN CANYON and I-580 WB OFF DUBLIN
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 CONDITION : PM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.I
RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT
317 157 0 231 100 0 A
I A
NORTH NORTH
1 <--- I I--> I-- 1 <__I I__>
LEFT 0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 30 RIGHT LEFT 0 --- 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 --- 99 RIGHT
STREET NAME: STREET NAME:
THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 3 THRU 1-580 WB OFF THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1<--- 3 THRU I-580 WB OFF
RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 --- 146 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? RIGHT 0 --- 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 --- 87 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
1 <--- ^ ---> 1 N 1 < -_ 1 N
v
iV I 3 16 0 v 58 45I
9 10 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: EDEN CANYON SPLIT PHASE? N STREET NAME: EDEN CANYON SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL.
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB THRU (7) 146 146 1725 0.0846 NB THRU (7) 459 459 1725 0.2661 0.2661
LEFT (L) 37 37 1650 0.0224 0.0224 LEFT (L) 58 58 1650 0.0352
ed SB RIGHT (R) 317 317 1650 0.1921 SB RIGHT (R) 231 231 1650 0.1400
THRU (7) 157 157 1650 0.0952 THRU (T) 100 100 1650 0.0606
c T + R 474 1650 0.2873 0.2873 T + R 331 1650 0.2006
WB RIGHT (R) 30 30 1650 0.0182 LIB RIGHT (R) 99 99 1650 0.0600
THRU (T) 3 3 1650 0.0018 THRU (T) 3 3 1650 0.0018
LEFT (L) 146 146 1650 0.0885 0.0885 LEFT (L) 87 87 1650 0.0527
T + R 33 1650 0.0200 T + R 102 1650 0.0618 0.0618
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.40 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.33
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.50 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.43
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NN Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 NY
- 1 -
t- �- �' � �- -' -t -
TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 12/5/90 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
12/5/90
INTERSECTION 10 SAN RAMON RD and DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN • INTERSECTION 10 SAN RAMON RD and DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN
COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR:
CONDITION : AM EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.1 CONDITION : PM•EX+PROJ TRAFFIC FILE 157049.I
RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT
243 1208 173 A 112 912 189 A
A
A NORTH ^
< v I > I <- I I I ^ NORTH
LEFT 102 --- 2.1 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 48 RIGHT LEFT 170 --- 2.1 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 I-- 96 RIGHT
THRU 138 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 91 THRU STREET THRU 190 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 226 THRU DUBLIN NAME:
RIGHT 320 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 --- 361 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? RIGHT 416 --- 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 --- 999 LEFT SPLIT PHASE?
I <--- I^ .
v 45) 544 796 v v 396 991 1113 v
LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT
STREET NAME: SAN RAMON RD SPLIT PHASE? N STREET NAME: SAN RAMON RD SPLIT PHASE? N
ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL
MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C
NB RIGHT (R) 796 435 * 2970 0.1465 NB RIGHT (R)' 1113 114 * 2970 0.0384
THRU (T) 544 544 5175 0.1051 THRU (T) 991 991 5175 0.1915
LEFT (L) 456 456 2970 0.1535 0.1535 LEFT (L) 396 396 2970 0.1333 0.1333
SB RIGHT (R) 243 163 * 1650 0.0988 SB RIGHT (R) 112 32 * 1650 0.0194
THRU (T) 1208 1208 5175 0.2334 0.2334 THRU (T) 912 912 5175 0.1762 0.1762
td LEFT (L) 173 173 2970 0.0582 LEFT (L) 189 189 2970 0.0636
1
N
MD EB RIGHT (R) 320 240 * 1650 0.1455 0.1455 EB RIGHT (R) 416 336 * 1650 0.2036 0.2036
THRU (7) 138 138 3375 0.0409 THRU (T) 190 190 3375 0.0563
LEFT (L) 102 102 2970 0.0343 LEFT (L) 170 170 2970 0.0572
T + L 240 4695 0.0511 T + L 360 4695 0.0767
WB RIGHT (R) 48 0 * 1650 0.0000 WB RIGHT (R) 96 16 * 1650 0.0097
THRU (T) 91 91 1725 0.0528 THRU (T) 226 226 1725 0.1310
LEFT (L) 361 361 2970 0.1215 0.1215 LEFT (L) 999 999 2970 0.3364 0.3364
VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.65 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.85
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.04
TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.75 TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0.89
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: C INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: 0
* ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED
Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 YY Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1990 YY
,
APPENDIX C
• TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
—1 CRONIN PROPERTY
c—�
4
t
I
(�`"`
I j
{ yl
{
III
r Y
f 1
akmMEMORANDUM
February 7, 1991
•
U
`l SUBJECT: Traffic and Circulation for The Cronin Ranch Project Alternatives
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of our traffic evaluation of
the proposed 125-unit Cronin Ranch residential development and alternatives. The
proposed project is as shown on Figure 1.
•
Existing Setting
4 The proposed project is located to the west of Rolling Hills Drive. Some of the major
roadways in the immediate vicinity include Silvergate Drive, San Ramon Road and
Rolling Hills Drive.
Silvergate Drive has one travel lane in each direction plus a dual left-turn lane
between Peppertree Road and Betlen Drive. East of Peppertree Road and south of
Betlen Drive, Silvergate Drive is a four-lane divided road. Silvergate Drive passes
through a residential neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. Many single-
family homes front directly onto Silvergate Drive (primarily east of Castilian Drive
or south of Hansen Drive) or are oriented toward the side streets so that their sides
or backs are adjacent to Silvergate Drive. The average daily traffic to the north of
Dublin Boulevard is 2,600 vehicles per day (vpd). Just to the west of San Ramon
Road, the average daily traffic(ADT)is approximately 6,200 as shown on Figure 1.
San Ramon Road has two southbound and two northbound travel lanes from
150 feet north of Silvergate Drive to Amador Valley Boulevard. South of this point,
San Ramon Road has been widened to six lanes. It has four lanes between Vomac
Road and Alcosta Avenue. It is scheduled to be widened to four lanes between
l_ Vomac Road and Silvergate Drive in 1991. San Ramon Road provides the primary
access for west Dublin residents to I-580 and the City of Pleasanton to the south and
to the City of San Ramon to the north. San Ramon Road also provides access to I-
680, either via the I-580/1-680 interchange or via the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard
interchange in San Ramon.
Rolling Hills Drive is generally a wide two-lane road with on-street parking. It is a
curving road with a gradual grade on some sections of the roadway. The existing
average daily traffic is approximately 500 vehicles per day.
I
{ 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214, Pleasanton,California 94588•(415)463-0611
PLEASANTON•SACRAMENTO.FRESNO.CONCORD
C-1
Alternate Access Route Evaluation
Three alternate access routes are considered in this evaluation. The three
alternative site access connections to the site are: Brittany Drive, Martin Canyon
Road and through Hansen Hills as shown on Figure 2.
Brittany Drive is a two-lane road with a slight grade. Eight homes currently have
driveways front the north side of the road. Field observations indicate that no sight
distance restrictions at the intersection with Rolling Hills Drive.
There is a hill to the north of existing Brittany Drive. Preliminary calculations
indicate that the proposed future connection to the site would have approximately ,1
8 to 16 percent grade over some sections of the future roadway. -
Martin Canyon Road is a short, two-lane road. It is approximately 40-foot wide with s
on-street parking allowed on both side of the roadway. Approximately four homes
front the roadway. It has a slight grade over the entire section of the roadway. No
sight distance problems are anticipated. A possible future roadway connection to ■
the north would have a grade of approximately two to three percent.
Hansen Drive is a wide two-lane road with on-street parking on both sides of the
roadway. It has approximately six to eight percent grades over the entire section of ,
the existing roadway. Thirty-two homes front on the existing roadway section to the
west of Silvergate Drive. A possible connection to the north would have a grade of
approximately eight percent.
In general, the capacity of a section of roadway is determined primarily by the width
of the street or the number of lanes, the types of uses or number of driveways along
the street and the number of intersections. In general, a two-lane road can
physically accommodate approximately 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd), a two-lane p
road with left-turn lanes (three-lane road) can physically accommodate (.
approximately 15,000 vpd, a four-lane undivided road can physically accommodate
20,000 vpd and a four-lane divided can physically accommodate 25,000 vpd. These —�
numbers generally equate to Level of Service C conditions. Although the physical
capacity of a two-lane street can be considered to be approximately 10,000 vehicles
per day (vpd), the. amount of traffic that is "environmentally acceptable" to the
people living along the street is usually much lower. Our opinion, based on
experience in responding to residential concerns about traffic volumes, is that
40 percent of the physical capacity of the roadway is a reasonable standard for the
environmental capacity of the roadway. This equates to a capacity limit of �!
approximately 4,000 vpd on a two-lane road. Above this level residents are more
likely to have serious concerns about the amount of traffic, the noise it generates, its
speed, safety of pedestrians (particularly children), air pollution, detriment to
residential appearance and other factors. It should be noted however, that the
perception of tolerable traffic is very subjective and varies from neighborhood to '
neighborhood and from individual to individual. ~'
Traffic Impact
A traffic generation, distribution and assignment was conducted for the proposed
125-unit development. The trip generation rates and peak hour direction
percentages are based on data published in Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, 1987,
c-2 �:
Institute of Transportation (ITE). For single-family dwelling units, a daily trip rate
of 10.0 vehicle trip ends (vte) or one-way trips per dwelling unit was used. There
would be a total of 1,250 per day.
By considering the residential travel patterns near the site, projected trips were
assigned to the surrounding roadway. It is projected that there would be a total
daily traffic of 1,700 vehicles per day (vpd) on Rolling Hills Drive (west of Silvergate
Drive) for both the Brittany Drive and Martin Canyon Road alternatives. As
discussed previously, this is still within the environmentally acceptable limit for a
two-lane residential roadway. In the Brittany Drive alternative, it is anticipated
that there would be a total of 1,330 vpd on Brittany Drive if the project were built.
There would be approximately 1,290 vpd on Martin Canyon Road in the Martin
Canyon Road alternative. In the Hansen Hills alternative, it is projected that there
would be 3,450 vpd on Hansen Drive (just to the north of Dublin Boulevard) as
shown on Figure 3.
These daily traffic demands may be considered acceptable for the two-lane roadway
since they are within the environmental capacity value of 4,000 daily trips which is
considered acceptable for a two-lane residential streets. As mentioned earlier, the
existing average daily traffic on a section Silvergate Drive (to the west of
San Ramon Road)is approximately 6,200. It should be pointed out that this amount
of traffic is considered acceptable for a four-lane residential roadway.
From a traffic demand stand point, all three project access alternatives would be
acceptable. In the Brittany Drive alternative, grades of the future roadway should
be a major consideration. Typically, an acceptable grade would be 8 percent or less;
the City of Dublin may accept a grade of 12 percent. No grade issue seems to be
present in the Martin Canyon Road access alternative. Finally, in the Hansen Hills
alternative (access through Hansen Drive), future traffic would need to traverse
through a residential subdivision.
Overall, both the Martin Canyon Road and Hansen Drive alternatives appear to be
acceptable from a traffic stand point. The Brittany Drive alternative would be an
acceptable but less desirable alternative.
Project Alternative
•
The WPM plan calls for the development of 16 units on the site. This alternative is
projected to generate 200 daily vehicle trips. It is expected that any of the three
project access alternatives would be able to accommodate the protected traffic from
the 16-unit development. Traffic impact would be minimal.
This conclusion could also be made for the Open Space alternative (two rural home
sites on long existing driveway).
rhm
Attachments
157-049M.2CT
C-3
::............',..........,,.:::..7,...,"..„......,,,:......„..,...................................,..................... ..... ______ \
SI
::.::.::::.;:.;..............:;:.-... 680•
.5:
i
l
T
444,), OR R
9
9 m
m p
•3 v 6 2
00
/
11
N gyp.
- '51-s 423 y 5 ��
�, . o Z
i Z ¢ — � r�A
77 u a F
, 9 ap0
_ _ MANSE+0� 2 0.
7.,
ir L �O
os9 a
'ao c9 0 %$i' °o
13 46
seo
TRAFFIC STUDY SITE VICINITY FIGURE
CRONIN RESIDENTIAL & Tauw 1DEVELOPMENT EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
157-049-17/90-CT
\ i Go- t\NE
* '
Na
W
680 -'
C T�{•� � � .. i►J.�.s.I.,I:I_......;>E>E:EiE:E>."`>::<EE<„„'s >.�.?.rr•
•...........................................................................................................•............................................................................. .............................•................................................................ ...........................................
............................................................................................................
....................................... ..................................................................
....................................................................................... .................
B
9
1
i
I
I
A
Z
y•
• Q'J 1 g ��I� EMERGENCY stns
d5c.VEHICLE ° N 01,1-1 ACCESS ' � �
e
- - r HANSEN . O
L
%
0.
I ��Q�
_ _ _ - - - ‘41t
` .
96
TRAFFIC STUDY PROJECT ACCESS FIGURE
2
CRONIN RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT ji
157-049-12190-CT
4
N
i 1
9
BRIT r,44,
pP pDR. O In
4,4� ° 6,660 6,330
w
kt
° S
��s 1,700 $ �,
�.__ r1 N 2'¢O ZL
MARTIN J ¢ 2 V
`
CANYON RD. d 5 i ° p
Z Dix
HANSEN OP' 1.9,520 ir . HANSEN
s < a 0
- ,9 DO 0,J0 A
c7 F O 6,to
.O a 00 190 rs i•- O F 91-J 9
0 e2 0 15, ° g 1,, oe
0
pt�N „eirl,...
„de-1,-'44, '44,
BRITTANY DRIVE & HANSEN HILLS ALTERNATIVE
MARTIN CANYON ROAD ALTERNATIVE
TRAFFIC STUDY EXISTING + PROJECT
FIGURE
CRONIN RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES jkill 3
DEVELOPMENT
157 049-12/90-C7
,
APPENDIX D
DETAILED EVALUATION OF
LAND USE OPTIONS
EDEN/SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROPERTIES
i
Li
•
ii
1 l
APPENDIX D.
DETAILED EVALUATION OF LAND USE.OPTIONS
EDEN/SCHAEFER HEIGHTS PROPERTIES
H.1 Evaluation of the Eden Canyon Country Club (Option 1)
f .
Land Use and Planning
• Open Space. As noted in Table 2-1, over 60% of this site would be kept in open space. In
particular,all of the Eden Development Group/Schaefer Heights land on the east slopes of
j l Skyline Ridge would be retained as open space,providing a greenbelt between the existing
built-up area of Dublin and the proposed project.The extent and quality of open space areas
would be examined further as part of Specific Plan preparation.
• Residential Use. The current plan includes a wide diversity of residential unit types and
densities,in keeping.with the Dublin General Plan's housing policies.Affordable housing
issues would need to be addressed in the Specific Plan.
Li
• Other Land Use and Planning Issues. The Eden Canyon Country Club's consistency with
1 General Plan policies is evaluated in Chapter 4.
Traffic and Circulation
A preliminary traffic analysis of the Eden Canyon Country Club is included in Appendix B.
The main purpose of this analysis was to get an early reading on the possible effect of this project
on key streets and intersections in the area,and particularly in downtown Dublin.This analysis
was based on the assumption that the Schaefer Ranch interchange would be built on I-580.
i Conclusions of this analysis include:
i
• Project Traffic - Effect on Area Intersections. Based on project traffic only, the levels of
service of the seven study intersections would be unchanged.
• Cumulative Traffic.This project,combined with traffic from other new development in the
area, would add to existing congestion in several locations. In particular, the intersections
of San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Foothill/Dublin Canyon Boulevard would
deteriorate to an unacceptable"F"level of service.Mitigation measures would be available
to improve this condition, although peak-hour congestion still would remain.The Specific
Plan and EIR would need to include a close look at this situation,including other measures
to reduce traffic congestion in Dublin.
D-1
f B:\8914-3\8914-H
Li
Appendix D
i3
Visual Quality
For the most part,the Eden Canyon Country Club Plan would not have serious off-site visual
quality issues. Divide Ridge, Clark Ridge, and the eastern slopes of Skyline Ridge would be
kept in open space.
In general, the I-580 visual corridor would also be protected. The following visual resource
issues would need to be addressed in the Specific Plan:
• Skyline Ridge. Homes are proposed within a few hundred feet west of this ridgeline.
Although this homes would not be widely visible from offsite viewpoints, their visual
relation to the proposed regional trail in this location is important.
• I-580 Corridor. While existing ridges generally would shield proposed development from
I-580,proposed residential and commercial uses in the Schaefer Ranch area would need to
be analyzed for visual impact as part of the Specific Plan and EIR.
• On-Site Grading and Ridgeline Treatment. Major landform alteration is proposed, such as
lowering of ridgelines and filling of canyons. Identified scenic features such as the Los
Novios rock formation may be altered by proposed development.These on-site visual issues
would need to be explored in the Specific Plan.
Vegetation and Wildlife
• Tree Removal.With the current plan,about 130 acres of trees would be removed,or about
22%of the trees on the site.This is a considerable loss of existing trees,and further measures
to reduce this amount of tree removal would need to be explored in the Specific Plan and
EIR.
• Wildlife Corridors. The proposed plan includes innovative measures to protect wildlife
corridors, including a long-span bridge over lower Elderberry Canyon. However, the
proposed plan would require the destruction of upper Elderberry Canyon, an existing
wildlife corridor several thousand feet long.Also, a proposed street crossing would disrupt
the Hollis Canyon wildlife corridor, and proposed homesites in other areas could have an
adverse effect on wildlife movement.These issues would need to be examined in the Specific
Plan and EIR.
Geotechnical Issues
Any large hillside development such as the Eden Canyon Country Club generally has a number
of associated geotechnical concerns.The more routine concerns,such as settlement of deep fills,
expansive soils, seismic considerations, and erosion control can be addressed at later stages of °—j
project planning.However,the most critical geotechnical concerns for this project are the issues
of landslide hazard mitigation and slope stability.Thorough investigation of landslide areas and
major construction slopes, followed by detailed application of mitigation measures, will be MI
D-2 •—,
B:\8914-3\8914-H
Appendix D
needed to reduce landslide and slope stability risks to acceptable levels.In particular,there are
two areas of special concern which will need detailed evaluation in the Specific Plan and EIR:
• Landslides Near Homesites. Numerous landslides extend upslope and downslope of areas
-- proposed for residential development.
• Landslides Near Access Roads.A major access road is proposed at the southeast portion of
the site crossing a steep slope with numerous landslides.
Economic and Fiscal Issues
A detailed economic and fiscal analysis of the Eden Canyon Country Club is included in
Appendix F.Two different scenarios were evaluated.First,the midrange number of units in the
proposed plan(3050 units)was used as a basis for studying the fiscal and economic impact of
this plan. In addition, an option with a similar mix of 2800 units was studied to see if this
reduction in units would affect the fiscal impact. This analysis included the following con-
clusions:
• The Eden Canyon Country Club plan would have a long-term positive fiscal impact on the
City of Dublin,with revenues exceeding costs to the City.
• A similar plan with 2800 units also would have a positive fiscal impact on the City.
Public Facilities and Services
The proposed Eden Canyon Country Club plan includes a number of public facilities:
• Parks.The plan includes a community park,neighborhood park sites,and a staging area for
regional trail users. The size,location, and function of these parks will need more detailed
evaluation. Some issues to be considered will be the relation of parks to regional and local.
trails and greenways, use of parks as urban design elements, and the protection of natural
resource values in parks.The City of Dublin is beginning a comprehensive park master plan,
and the work on this plan will need to be closely coordinated with detailed planning in West
Dublin.
• Schools. A ten-acre school site is proposed. The tentative location on the current plan will
j need to be evaluated by the school district and city staff. The potential role of the school as
L a community activity center,as well as access and safety issues,will need to be explored in
the specific plan.
• Wastewater Treatment.The developer has proposed a wastewater reclamation system,with
an on-site treatment plant. While this approach has promising features in terms of water
conservation and recycling of resources,more detailed information will be needed to assure
that this system will be satisfactory.Possible odor issues,and the storage of reclaimed water
in a proposed reservoir, are detailed issues to be addressed in the Specific Plan.
D-3
B:\8914-3\8914-H
Appendix D
•
• Water Service. Detailed information on water facilities has not been provided at this stage.
There does not appear to be any major concern about availability of water. Related issues
to be explored in the Specific Plan include possible visual impacts of water tanks, water
conservation measures, and the possible use of reclaimed water for irrigation.
• Police and Fire.A 1.5 acre fire station is proposed near the Schaefer Ranch interchange.The
location and details of this fire station will need to be explored in the Specific Plan. Since
development is proposed next to natural open space,wildfire management planning stand-
ards will be needed which balance fire protection needs with biological and visual concerns.
Police-related issues in the Specific Plan would include emergency vehicle circulation concerns,
as well as measures to provide satisfactory security for new residents.
• Other Public Facilities and Services.The Specific Plan will need to include a review of other -
public facilities and services,to determine that they will be adequate for West Dublin.
'—
Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality
Development on this site will create the potential for on-site as well as downstream flooding,
degraded water quality, and hydrologic impacts because of increased runoff, grading erosion,
and development-associated pollutants.Appendix D provides a review of these concerns.Major
issues include:
• Flooding and Storm Drainage. There are existing flooding problems in downstream areas
including the Palomares, San Lorenzo, and Dublin Creeks. On-site retention and/or deten-
tion basins will be necessary to mitigate downstream flooding. It was originally proposed
that a series of lakes in the golf course be utilized for this purpose. However, the storage
area in the proposed lakes is not sufficient.A large detention basin is now proposed on the
site. The adequacy of proposed storm drainage facilities will need to be addressed in the
Specific Plan and EIR.
• Water Ouality.Sedimentation and pollutants associated with hillside development will need
to be discussed in the Specific Plan and EIR.
-i
Air Quality 1-
This auto-oriented development would add to regional air quality problems. However,there is
some potential to reduce vehicle trips and auto emissions by providing pedestrian and mass
transit opportunities.
H.2 Evaluation of the Open Space Option
The Open Space Option would have clear environmental benefits over the Option A,the Eden
Canyon Country Club plan. However,this option would fail to take advantage of a number of
development opportunities. i
D-4
B:\8914-3\8914-H �'
Appendix D
•
Land Use and Planning Issues
I This alternative would emphasize very low density residential and open space uses;these uses
would be appropriate for the difficult development conditions on most of the site.However,
from a planning standpoint, some of the site would be underused,notably the area around the
U Schaefer Ranch Road undercrossing. Since low-intensity development could not support the
cost of interchange improvements in this location,this alternative would not take advantage of
1 i the potential for placing urban land uses in convenient proximity to a freeway interchange.
This option would be in conformance with the City's General Plan policies. However, it is
unclear if the property would be annexed to the City, since development would take place at a
rural density.
Traffic and Circulation
This option would have very low traffic generation in comparison with the Eden Canyon
Country Club plan.However,without major traffic improvements to Eden Canyon Road,there
could be significant safety concerns due to increased traffic.
- Visual Quality
•
With this option,there would be considerably less visual impact in comparison with the Eden
Canyon Country Club plan.This reduced impact would be due to lower-intensity development,
if-, greater retention of open space,and general protection of on-site environmental features.
Vegetation and Wildlife
This option would be preferable to the Eden Canyon Country Club plan.Creeks,woodland,and
wildlife corridors generally would be left intact,with only minor alteration.However,if grazing
would continue in open space areas,the opportunity for restoration of grassland habitat would
be lost.
fl
Geotechnical Issues
Grading would be greatly reduced in comparison with the Eden Canyon Country Club plan.
Landslide areas generally would be avoided. However, localized geotechnical risks could be
increased with this reliance on a custom homesite approach,unless stringent controls would be
placed on grading by individual homeowners.
Economic and Fiscal Issues
If the property were annexed to the City, the net fiscal impact would likely be positive. There
would be a fairly small increase in demand for public services. The property values of homes
D-5
B:\8914-3\8914-H
i ,
Appendix D
would probably be fairly high and would likely fund any necessary increases in annual public
service costs. This conclusion is based on general observations about the current real estate
market,the relationship of property values to density,and the costs and revenue structure of the
Dublin city budget.
Public Facilities and Services
In comparison with the Eden Canyon Country Club plan, this option would have much less
demand on public services and facilities,due to the reduced number of units.Costs of providing
public services would be somewhat higher per unit,due to the dispersed pattern of development
in this option. On-site developed parks and other public facilities would be minimal.
Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality
This option would have considerably less runoff than the Eden Canyon Country Club plan,since
more of the site would be left in open space. However, if livestock were kept on the proposed
five-acre parcels,there could be a potential for increased soil erosion and water pollution from
livestock wastes.
Air Quality
The small amount of traffic generated by this option would result in the lowest tad air quality
impact of the three options. However, this option would have the highest per-unit air quality
impact,due to the dispersed development pattern and a reliance on the automobile for transpor-
tation.
14.3 Evaluation of the Cluster Development Option
In comparison with the Eden Canyon Country Club,this option would have a mixed array of
associated impacts.In general,on-site impacts would be less,while off-site impacts would be
greater.
Land Use and Planning
This option is based on the idea that development would be in keeping with current General ---
Plan policies. The City would need to accept the emphasis on higher-density housing.
Traffic and Circulation
This option probably would result in traffic generation similar to or less than Option1, since
higher-density residential development typically generates fewer trips per unit.Clustering would
increase potential opportunities for mass transit and pedestrian circulation.
D-6
B:\8914-3\8914-H
Appendix D
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
While the fiscal impact on Dublin would be unknown until a detailed development program
could be worked out, a development dense enough to be economically feasible for a developer
may become a net fiscal drain to the City. Per-unit property values might be too low to fund
u
public services required by new residents.
Other Impacts
•
In comparison to Option 1, most other impacts would be substantially reduced. Because
development generally would be located away from steep slopes,creeks,and woodland,biologic
and geotechnical impacts would be reduced.
'
L.;
■
D-7
B:\8914-3\8914-H
• APPENDIX
E
I ,
DETAILED EVALUATION OF
LAND USE OPTIONS
r , CRONIN PROPERTY •
•
•
•
•
I �
' f
' I
U
ll
f
C
!
Lj
•
•
■
1 I
1(_
I �
•
■ APPENDIX E:
EVALUATION OF LAND USE OPTIONS -
CRONIN PROPERTY
I,1 Option A: Applicant's Plan
Land Use and Planning Issues
This option would emphasize suburban residential land use on a site with major development
--' constraints and high open space values. Since the City's General Plan includes a number of
policies which would restrict development in areas with key environmental qualities, this
alternative would potentially be inconsistent with a number of current General Plan policies
regarding development in areas of steep slopes, geotechnical concerns, stream channels, and
existing trees.
With this option,a general plan amendment,rezoning,and annexation to the City of Dublin and
various special districts would be required.
Li Traffic and Circulation
As noted, there is a detailed analysis of traffic and circulation issues in Appendix B. This
alternative would have the highest traffic generation of the three alternatives under study. In
terms of physical capacity, there would be no significant impacts for any of the alternatives.
However, this project would generate traffic from 125 homes onto local streets in the Dublin
Hills.It is difficult at this time to predict the level of impact that residents on these streets would
perceive. However, it is likely that residents along some streets (particularly Brittany Drive,
i now serving as a cul-de-sac)could experience some subjective traffic impacts.
Visual Analysis
With this alternative, graded lots would extend up to the 860 feet elevation, and rooflines and
cut slopes would reach as high as the 900 feet elevation. A more detailed analysis would be
necessary to determine if structures would be silhouetted against the sky from certain offsite
viewpoints.Regardless of this issue,however,this project would potentially have considerable
visual impact for Dublin residents and possibly for motorists on I-580.This would be due to the
following factors:
• Development in Sensitive Ridgeland Area. About 40 proposed homes on Cronin Ridge
would be located in visually-prominent areas above 740 feet elevation.
E-1
B:\8914-3\8914-1
•
• Development Near Crest of Ridge.Roof lines of proposed homes in the southwest corner of
the site would be located near the crest of Skyline Ridge.
• Removal of Trees.Nearby trees often can soften the impact of new development.However,
with this alternative,nearly all of the existing oaks and other trees on Cronin Ridge would
be removed to make way for development, and visual impacts thus would be heightened.
Vegetation and Wildlife
This alternative would require the destruction of about 1,500 lineal feet of Martin Creek and
associated riparian vegetation.The creek channel would be filled to a depth ranging up to about
40 feet. The function of this stretch of creek as a wildlife corridor would be impaired. There
would also be substantial tree removal in other parts of the site. This alternative is less preferable
than the other options for the site.
Geotechnical Issues
Development is proposed in areas of deep-seated landslides, and access streets would have to
cross landslide-prone areas. From a geotechnical standpoint,this current plan is a considerable
improvement over previous development plans for the site. However, this plan still does not
address the question of upslope landslides. Major landslide repair would be needed to accom-
modate this proposed development. As with any hillside development,various other geotech-
nical concerns would need to be resolved.
Economic and Fiscal Issues
This concept would have a net fiscal benefit for the City of Dublin. A detailed analysis of this
concept's economic and fiscal characteristics is included in Appendix F. The economic
feasibility of this project is questionable,given the very high infrastructure costs of access streets
and landslide repair.
Public Facilities
This alternative would generate the greatest demand on public facilities and services,due to its
larger number of units, although no major public service problems are anticipated with any of
the alternatives.Water service would need to extend above the established maximum elevation
for current service.
T.-
Hydrology,Flooding,and Water Quality
Development on the site would create the potential for on-site,as well as downstream flooding,
degraded water quality, and hydrologic impacts because of increased runoff, grading,erosion,
and pollutants associated with development.In particular,this plan would"underground"about
1,500 lineal feet of Martin Creek, increasing the potential for flooding.
E.2
B\.8914-3\8914-I
I.2 Option B: Reduced Development Option
Land Use and Planning. This option generally would conform with the policies of the Dublin
General Plan.
i l Traffic and Circulation. In order to minimize earthwork, streets would be narrower(about 25
feet in many cases) and steeper(up to 15 percent in certain locations).
Public Facilities and Services.Sewer,water,and other urban services would be extended to the
site.Most of the site would be kept in open space,with opportunities for hiking and other passive
recreation.
Geology and Soils.Total grading for this alternative is estimated at about 300,000 cubic yards,
much less than the requirements for Option A.A major difference is in the way that development
is largely avoided in landslide areas with this option, in contrast to the large-scale on-site
landslide repair required in Option A. Major landslide repair would still be needed in order to
provide street access.
Visual Concerns.This option would have considerably less visual impact than Option A,since
most development is located below 740 feet elevation.Careful visual analysis would be needed •
for the large-lot homesites on upper Cronin Ridge.
Hydrology. Flooding. and Water Quality. This option would have minimal impacts of this
nature. Sedimentation from grading would potentially be much less than for Option A.
II Vegetation and Wildlife.Most trees would be preserved with this option,with less than one acre
of tree removal, in contrast to the eleven acres proposed by the applicant. Introduction of
development could still have some effect on wildlife. A road crossing would cause minor
I disruption of Martin Creek.
Economic and Fiscal Considerations. This option still would have a positive fiscal impact,
although the net revenue to the City would be considerably less than with Option A. Because
of the major infrastructure costs,and the small number of units,this project probably would not
be supportable in the marketplace.
I.3 Option C: Open Space Alternative
i
Land Use and Planning Issues. The property is now in the County, with agricultural zoning.
With this alternative,it is assumed that the property would not be annexed to the City of Dublin
or service districts.
Traffic and Circulation.In comparison to the other alternatives, traffic and circulation impacts
would be negligible. Conditional uses on the property would need to be carefully regulated in
order to avoid uses which would require frequent truck access or high vehicular traffic volumes.
Without careful design,the proposed narrow access drive could lead to safety problems.
E-3
B:\8914-3\8914-I
Public Facilities and Services. The Open Space Alternative would have negligible impacts on
public facilities and services, due to the minor amount of development, and thus would be
superior to the other alternatives.
Geology and Soils.This alternative generally would avoid development in areas of landslides
or other geotechnical problems, and areas of land disturbance would be very minor. This plan
thus would be superior to the other alternatives. Corrective work may be needed in the areas of
proposed homesites, and a detailed geotechnical investigation would be required for each
homesite.Also,the suitability of the access drive would need to be evaluated,since this existing
route crosses landslide deposits.
Visual Concerns. Visually-sensitive areas of the site would be kept in open space, and this
alternative would thus be superior to the other two alternatives.
Hydrology. Flooding. and Water Quality. By minimizing development,this alternative would
be the most favorable in terms of flooding and water quality impacts.
Vegetation and Wildlife. Again, this alternative would have minimal disruption to the natural
environment,and thus would be superior from an environmental standpoint.
Economic and Fiscal Considerations. With this alternative, there would be little or no fiscal
impact on the City of Dublin.If this land use option is chosen,the City would forgo the potential
positive fiscal impacts which could accrue from more intensive development.
This alternative has been designed to minimize infrastructure costs. There is an emphasis on
self-containment, with no need for water and sewer line extension, extensive landslide repair,
or major access street construction.
E-4
B:\8914-3\8914-I
' f
i C
APPENDIX F •
FISCAL ANALYSIS
•
•
•
•
E-23 Economics Research Associates •
Affiliated with Drivers Jonas
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Chicago
Boston
Washington.D.C.
Fort Lauderdale
Fiscal Analysis
,West Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan Studies
Prepared for •
WPM Planning Team, Inc.
January 1991
ERA Project No. 9497
•
i -,
1160 Battery Street.Suite 350.San Francisco.California 94111
1415)956-8152 Telex.340890(ERA SFO) Fax (415)956-5274
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I INTRODUCTION I- 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS II- 1
Development Options II- 1
Annual Operating Costs and Revenues II- 3
Analysis of Capital/Infrastructure Costs II- 5
III ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND
REVENUES: EDEN PROPERTY III- 1
Basic Demographic Analysis of
Project Alternative III- 1 •
Market Assumptions III-2
Analysis of Assessed Values and Distribution
of Property Taxes III- 3
Analysis of Dublin Municipal.Budget III- 3
Projection of Ongoing Fiscal Impacts III-6
IV ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS:
EDEN PROPERTY IV 1
Capital Costs IV 1
Typical Real Estate Products in West Dublin IV 1
Implications of the Cost of Infrastructure IV-2
V ANALYSIS OF CRONIN PARCEL V- 1
Annual Operating Costs and Revenues V- 1
Infrastructure Costs V- 1
(I
Section I
INTRODUCTION
Economics Research Associates is a member of the consultant'team headed by WPM
Planning Team Inc. This team is preparing a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan/EIR
for the West Dublin area. As part of Study Report 2, ERA has prepared this research
paper to identify potential cost and revenue flows generated by various development
alternatives.
Two separate development proposals have been made in the West Dublin Study
Area. The Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc. are proposing a golf
course-oriented residential community, with an estimated 2,860 to 3,240 units. In addition,
Milestone Development Corporation is proposing a 125-unit subdivision on the Cronin
property.
For purposes of comparison, other development options for these properties have
also been included in Report 2, and detailed descriptions of those development options are
included in Chapters 2 and 3. The fiscal implications of the applicants' proposed plans
and these other developments options are summarized in Section II of this research paper.
r 7
This research paper has three primary parts. After summarizing all fmdings and
conclusions in Section II, Section III presents the methodology for analyzing ongoing
cost/revenue impacts and describes the results of the analysis for various development
options on the two development scenarios for the Eden property. Section IV of the report
describes the methodology for analyzing capital infrastructure costs and also presents the
results'of this work regarding the Eden property. Section V describes both ongoing fiscal
impacts and analysis of capital infrastructure costs for the Cronin parcel, dispensing with
the descriptions of methodology found in Sections III and IV.
I-1
1�1
i—
Steven E. Spickard, Vice President in ERA's San Francisco office, served as project
manager for the fiscal analysis. Andrea Morgan, Associate, prepared the technical analysis
under Mr. Spickard's direction. Some of the product definition and market overview inputs
• to this analysis were developed during early phases of the work under the management of
William W. Lee, ERA Senior Vice President.
•
•
•
• I-2
•
•
Section II
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The central question in a fiscal analysis is; Will the added revenues generated by
the project be sufficient to cover the added costs? This question has two dimensions:
II
• On an ongoing basis, will the annual flow of taxes and other municipal
revenues be sufficient to cover the costs of ongoing operations and maintenance
for the project area?
• On a one-time basis, will there be sufficient fmancial capacity in the project
as planned to fmance the capital infrastructure that will be required?
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Eden/Schaefer Heights Properties
• Option 1: Eden Plan (3,050 units). This is the Eden Canyon Country Club
development proposed by Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc.
For this fiscal analysis, the midrange number of 3,050 units has been selected.
Based on this analysis, the Eden Plan would have a long-term positive fiscal
impact on the City of Dublin, with revenues exceeding costs to the City.
{ • Option la: Reduced Yield Alternative (2,800 units). Preliminary economic
analysis by the consultant team has indicated that, given the development
i approach of the Eden Development Group, the project would need a minimum
of about 2,800 units to be economically viable from a developer's point of
view. With this alternative, it is assumed that the applicant's proposed mix of
housing types would be used. In the Chapter 2 text, this alternative is a
variant of Option 1. This alternative also would have a positive fiscal impact
on the City.
•ii
11-1
I
•
• Option 2: Open Space Option (200 units). This option would consist of 200
ranchettes on the site, with most of the property kept in open space. Assuming
that the property would be annexed to the City, the net fiscal impact would li
probably be positive, although public maintenance of access roads could turn
this project into a net fiscal drain. There would be a fairly small increase in
demand for public services. The property values of homes would probably be
high, and would probably fund any necessary increases in annual public service
costs, particularly if roads were maintained privately. This conclusion is based
on general observations about the current real estate market, the relationship
of property values to density, and the cost and revenue structure of the Dublin t
city budget. pp
• Option 3: Cluster Development Option (3,500 units). This option would
include about 3,500 units as part of a mixed-use development approach. �r
Although this option's fiscal impact on Dublin would be unknown until a ''
detailed development program could be worked out, preliminary indications are
that a development dense enough to be economically feasible for a developer
may become a net fiscal drain to the City. In a very dense development, per-
unit property values might be too low to fund public services required by new.
residents. On the other hand, a carefully selected mix of housing and
commercial uses could have a balanced or positive fiscal impact on the City.
Cronin Property
isl
• Cronin Option A: Milestone Plan (125 units). The applicant's development
proposal includes 125 residential units. This development would have a small
net fiscal benefit for the City of Dublin. However, the economic feasibility
of this project is questionable, given the very high infrastructure costs of access
streets and landslide repair.
• Cronin Option B: Reduced Development Option (16 units). This option
features a small number of homes clustered in sections of the site that are
suitable for development. This option would still have a positive fiscal impact
(4
in the early years of project operation. Public maintenance of the access roads
II-2
1'
}
could later turn this project into a small net fiscal drain, but private
maintenance would mitigate this problem.
• Cronin Option C: Open Space Alternative (2 units). With this alternative,
1 there would be little or no fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. Two
households would make very few demands on the City's public services;
likewise,property and other taxes paid by these residents would amount to very
little. We do not expect that the access road for these two homes would be
maintained publicly; if it were, however, the cost of maintenance would
probably create negative fiscal impacts.
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES
Eden Property
A full analysis of the ongoing fiscal impacts of the Eden property is presented in
Section III. A projection of municipal revenues from a real estate development project is
only as good as the market assumptions that go into it. The anticipated market
performance of a real estate development is expressed in achievable sales prices and sales
rates for real estate products.
The same basic overall market conditions are assumed for both alternatives because
of the similarity of scale of development. In both cases, infrastructure development is
projected to begin in 1994, with real estate products available for occupancy in 1997.
Development and market absorption would accelerate from the early years, up to a
- maximum annual sales rate 284 residential ownership units per year. (Apartments are
expected to be constructed in phases of about 100 units every three years.) Typical home
prices would be $225,000 to $400,000 per unit for small houses not near the golf course,
and $490,000 to $800,000 for larger homes with golf course frontage or views.
The ongoing fiscal impacts from each of the two alternatives are presented in Table
II-1. Two different indicators of fiscal health are used. First, the annual fiscal surplus
--� (or deficit) is shown as a cash flow from 1992 (the year assumed for annexation) to 2018,
or 25 years after construction begins (in 1994). Each alternative generates a positive long
II-3
n
fi
run fiscal surplus for the City of Dublin, primarily because the high-value housing
generates such a substantial amount of property tax revenue. The annual fiscal balance
iP
is similar for each Eden Property alternative in the years 1992 to 2004, because the timing
and pricing of residential development is the same for both alternatives. Starting in 2005,
i4
the cash flow balance for the Eden Plan (Option 1) increases faster than for the reduced
yield Alternative (Option la), primarily because after Option 1 a is built out, several
hundred units are added under Option 1, and these high-value units are expected to
generate a fiscal surplus.
The second indicator of ongoing fiscal impact is the net present value analysis -.
presented at the bottom of Table 11-1. The net present value of the 25-year fiscal cash
flow discounts revenues in future years to account for losses from "the time value of
money," then sums all these amounts into one number. Using this simple measure to
summarize the entire analysis, the Eden Plan would generate a cash flow worth $508,000
from the entire area. The Reduced Yield Alternative would generate a cash flow with a
net present value about $185,000. (f6
I i
Cronin Parcel
6o
Analysis of the fiscal impacts of the Cronin parcel is presented in Section V, which
shows that both plans for this site would generate positive fiscal cash flows to the City 's
J
of Dublin. The net present value of these flows, over 25 years, would be $62,000 for
the Milestone plan (Option. A) and $46,000 for Option B, the Reduced Development
Alternative (Table 11-1).
x
The Open Space Alternative (Option C) would involve development of the Cronin
site with only two estate lots. With this alternative, the fiscal impacts to the City of
Dublin would be fairly small. Residents of these estates would likely use City streets and '
other services to a minor extent, but they would also expend some dollars on retail
shopping within the City limits, thereby generating sales tax revenues to the City. Both ; ;
of these effects are too small to estimate. Unless the access roads were private, the City i'
would, however, be obligated to maintain those roads, which would probably create
negative annual fiscal impacts.
,
11-4 ,
I
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
Eden Property
Section IV presents an analysis of the infrastructure costs compared with the market
value developed for each alternative. Under a straight-forward system of allocating costs
as a constant percentage of market value built (about 14 percent for Option 1 and about
15 percent for Option la), the average infrastructure load on each residential unit would
vary from roughly $49,000 per unit under the Eden Plan to $52,000 per unit under the
Reduced Yield Alternative, as presented in Table II-2. Costs allocated to commercial uses
at the rate of 14 to 15 percent of market value translate into $4.30 to $4.65 per square
foot of commercial land. The costs for these uses are shown at the bottom of Table II-
r�:
2. Costs are higher under Option la because such a large proportion of the infrastructure
costs are fixed regardless of the number of units, and the Reduced Yield Alternative has
less units over which to spread out the costs.
Development fees, assessment districts and other mechanisms for financing capital
costs of new developments have been increasing throughout the Bay Area in recent years.
r i The magnitude of the capital cost load estimated by the above analysis would be
supportable, but it would be among the highest for recent Bay Area development. Due
to the need to put proportionately more of the capital infrastructure into the project in the
early years, the initial costs per unit and per square foot will be even higher than those
in Table II-2, creating the need for other financing mechanisms to spread some of the front
end costs into the future. Although the cost load is not substantially different under the
two alternatives, profit margins would be squeezed more in Option la than they would
be under Option 1.
Cronin Parcel
Section V compares projected market price to infrastructure development costs for
both plans for this site; infrastructure. costs are quite high because the site would be
r _ difficult to develop and because there are numerous landslides that must be repaired.
Engineering cost estimates represent 26 to 40 percent of the projected market value of the
real estate products. If costs are allocated on the basis of value, the average cost is
11-5
Y ^'
ly
$119,000 to $224,000 per unit. These costs probably would not be supportable in the
marketplace. �?
I
f i
P°
C,I
II-6
i� r i , I'. ( 4._i !. J 1� �� i����
00 Qhx mm x -� cn
M (1 N R
8 O• b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D g A
.� O O O O O O O O O 8 O O O O O �D �O �O �p �p �p �p �p �p �p
Q C C O 8 O S O 8 So %o SO SO so SO .o so sn .0 n ,� $ �? C�
EO 00 J Ol In A W N O 00 J O\ to A W N .r O SO 00 J Os LA Ago W N r+ O .' 11 0 ( ..
;o C �i
p O O C C Cc 0 W
0 10' 2
Oa nE. °x
en e
wi
R.> 8. v ° 0
5 D
CI
oa I
= ' d as
to Oo J J J J J J J J Ol O� In A N r-� N A to Kg OS CI p c Z `1
O O 00 J VI W N .• O p Oo O W O J lA W In Os J A NN N A C O ry'1
,b
go 00 Vt 00 .� In lD OS O. 00 8 lA .- O In •-• In r a j C Ch v O lA A O O
1 Xi P
0
C o0 g" tti
D
0. Os Os Os OA Os OA to lA to lA lA A W N ∎-• ►+ N W A Vi lA O% d re •A,,, !
o 00 00 Ol A 4{,0.1 0 lO Oo J J lA lO 00 Ol lA W to lA Ol A ∎l A N N A C w f
•+ lA r lA l0 A 'O In W lA lD J W O. l0 W .- W `r 00 lA .•• N .- .. O VI A O O m 0
C 0.
G
CI
n
w W O x N .O 00 00 J Os V1 A W W N .- r N W A W 00 O W C W 'O W N N O O a x
Pa V
a.- r
O, o
G $• o to
A C 5 r
A I O, N N N N W W W W W W W A W W W N •- O+ J J 00 00 00 r l0 N N O O < i
Table 1I-2
ILLUSTRATIVE COST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
EDEN PROPERTY--- ----CRONIN PARCEL----
Eden Plan Reduced Yield Milestone Reduced Devel.
Option 1 Option la Option A Option B
3.050 DUs 2.800 DUs 125 DUs 16 DUs
Costs Allocated to Uses /1 Costs Allocated to Uses /2
Residential Cost in S/Unit Residential Cost in S/Unit
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots $100,800 $108,208 Premium view lots $126,198 $209,306
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 87,167 93,573 Creek frontage lots 120,940 ---
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 76,289 81,895 Open space lots 118,311 195,484 .
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 65,548 70,365 Interior lots 115,682 191,535
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 63,207 67,852 Luxury estate lots -- 276,442
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 73,535 78,938
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 55,082 59,130
Duets: 8-9 per acre 46,820 50,260
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 39,246 42,130
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 30,984 33,261
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 13,771 14,782
Average Per Residential Unit $48,781 $52,347 Average Per Residential Unit $118,942 $224,363
Commercial/Office .
Built Space(S/Sq. Ft.) $17.21 $18.48
Land Area(S/Sq.Ft.) $4.30 $4.62
TOTAL COSTS COVERED($Millions) $149.7 $147.4 TOTAL COSTS COVERED($Millions) $14.9 $3.6
Note: /I Costs include grading,streets,water and sewer,public open space,public buildings,and a contingency.
/2 Costs include grading, streets, public open space,and a contingency that should cover water and sewer extensions,if necessary. All lots have custom-built homes.
Source: Economics Research Associates
s
1' �? , _� 1 1 _____1 _,H
I Section III
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES:
EDEN PROPERTY
This section of the report documents the research and analyses that serve as inputs
to the fiscal impact model. Two alternatives are described. What is referred to as
Option 1 or the "Eden Plan" is the midpoint of the range of development proposed by the
joint applicants, Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc. This alternative
includes a total of 3,050 housing units. Option la, the Reduced Yield Alternative, includes
a total of 2,800 housing units with the same proportion of high and low density units as
shown in the Eden Plan. The results of analysis for both alternatives are presented here,
followed by detailed tables. The tables numbered as III-1, III-2, etc., present the analysis
for the Eden Plan, followed by tables numbered A-1, A-2, etc., for the Reduced Yield
1
Alternative.
This analysis is conducted from the fiscal perspective of the City of Dublin. The
West Dublin area is currently under the jurisdiction of Alameda County, but would be
annexed to the city prior to development.
BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
t 1 For the Eden alternative, Tables III-1 and III-2 of the fiscal model present an
analysis of the total land uses proposed for the West Dublin area and estimate the
'} socioeconomic implications of this land use pattern; similar tables A-1 and A-2 focus on
the Reduced Yield Alternative. In Table III-1, the number of residential units and acreage
of other land uses are used to estimate total square footage of building space produced and
S total assessed value expressed in today's dollars. Table III-2 focuses on both project
populations and project employment housed by the proposed land use program. ERA
1 1 estimates that the Eden Plan would house about 8,900 people and the Reduced Yield
Alternative would house about 8,200.
III-1
11
MARKET ASSUMPTIONS
ERA's market research for this project focused on two issues: housing sales prices
and housing unit absorption. Over the past decade, housing prices have been rising rapidly
in the Tri-Valley area, although sales prices have leveled or declined slightly in the past
six months. Single-family homes in hilly areas comparable to West Dublin are now selling
for $300,000 to $500,000 per unit, or more for lots with amenities like expansive hillside --
views or golf course frontage. The average price per square foot for single-family homes ,i
is close to $190. The onsite golf course would tend to push up on this range, thereby
allowing the project to achieve sales prices of $650,000 to $800,000 for some of the
single-family homes on large golf-oriented lots. Multi-family ownership (townhomes and
condominiums) units currently command prices of $200,000 to $300,000, with an average
price per square foot of around $150. For this analysis, basic prices per residential unit,
assumed golf course premiums, and prices for the commercial units appear in Table BI-
1. The pricing per unit is held constant for both alternatives because a similar scale of
development is proposed for each.
In recent years, an average of more than 3,000 housing units have been constructed
each year in the Tri-Valley area. Approximately half this construction has been in single-
family units and half in multi-family dwellings. Demographic projections for the area
show continued strong household growth -- about 2.6 percent per year -- and a relatively
affluent population. ERA expects that new population growth plus replacement of existing
units will continue to create demand for about 3,000 units per year in the Tri Valley.
r-,
ERA's experience with successful Northern California planned communities suggests that
major developments like this one can operate as two to four subdivisions marketing units
at the same time, thereby selling about 300 units per year. This amount would be
equivalent to a 10% share of the Tri-Valley market.
In order to make the analyses between alternatives as comparable as possible, the
same basic overall market conditions are assumed for both alternatives. In both cases,
infrastructure development is projected to begin in 1994, with real estate products available
for occupancy in 1997. Development and market absorption would accelerate from the
early years, up to a maximum of 284 per year for ownership units. Apartment
construction is expected to occur in stages throughout the absorption period, adding about
100 units in each of four years to the ownership (single-family, townhouses and
III-2
�Li condominiums) total. Market absorption assumptions for the Eden Plan appear in Table
III-3, and for the Reduced Yield Alternative in Table A-3.
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSED VALUES AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES
The basic real estate values per unit and per square foot in 1990 dollars were
presented in Table III-1. In order to accurately assess the fiscal implications of the
development's value, ERA's fiscal impact model takes into account the expected
appreciation in real estate, the tax limitations of Proposition 13, the rate of absorption, the
rate of turnover and consequent reassessment of properties after the initial sale, and the
differential resale patterns between residential and commercial/industrial uses. All of these
- factors are combined to project growth in assessed value over time, which is then deflated
back to 1990 dollars for comparison in the fiscal model. Total assessed values in constant
dollars are then presented in the top of Table III-4 (and A-4) throughout the 27-year
analysis period. Property tax collections are assumed to remain at the current one percent
' level mandated by Proposition 13. The distribution of property taxes in the West Dublin
area would be determined by the annexation agreement reached with the County; one such
recent agreement for East Dublin specified that the City of Dublin would receive 25.4
percent of property tax revenues. The distribution of the remaining portion of property
r-�
taxes presented in Table III-4 is derived from the existing distribution in the City of.
Dublin as reported by the Alameda County Auditor-Controller. There is no guarantee that
r-.
these distributions (including the 25.4 percent share for Dublin) will be achieved, but the
recent annexation agreement is the best available information.
} ANALYSIS OF DUBLIN MUNICIPAL BUDGET
Table III-5 presents an analysis of the General Fund Revenues in the current Dublin
City Budget.' The more significant of these revenues are projected in the model by direct
estimation (e.g., property tax revenues). The more minor revenues in some line items can
be projected on a per capita basis for the growth in population in the West Dublin area.
f
'/ Note there is no printout similar to Tables III-5, III-6 and III-7 for Option I a, the
fReduced Yield Alternative. This is because the same budgetary factors were applied to each
run of the fiscal model, regardless of the development scenario.
III-3
The most significant example of this is the Motor Vehicle in Lieu fee, which is collected
based on auto registration derived from the residents of vehicle owners (included in the
"Intergovernmental Revenue-State" line item).
Other revenue items and expense items are projected in this analysis using the
concept of a "resident equivalent." In essence, this concept recognizes the fact that
employees who do not necessarily live in the city also contribute some load on the city's ,
budget (e.g., calls for police services and contribution to traffic congestion), and also �R i
contribute somewhat to city revenues (utility franchise fees associated with employment
uses, motor vehicle fmes, and other miscellaneous revenues). However, the impact of an
employee on a municipal budget is less than the impact of a full-time resident. In this
analysis, the few new workers employed in the West Dublin area are projected to affect
the city budget .one-fourth as much per person as each full-time resident of the West
Dublin area. As can be seen in Table III-5, franchise taxes and court fmes are projected ,
on the basis of resident equivalents, rather than on population per capita, in recognition of
the contribution of new employees.
Table III-6 analyzes the revenues from all other funds in the Dublin Municipal
Budget. The majority of these funds (street lighting assessment districts, grant funds, and
others) will not be affected by the development in West Dublin. On the other hand, new f '
assessment districts, park dedication fees, and other capital contributions are likely to be
implemented in West Dublin to assist with the financing of development west of the
existing city. A few of the other funds will be somewhat affected by new population or
new employees in the West Dublin area, and are included in the fiscal projections below.
The expenditure side of the Dublin City Budget is analyzed in Table III-7. Again,
the concept of resident equivalent is applied to include the employees of Dublin in the
fiscal analysis. A current cost of Dublin's services per resident equivalent is calculated
in the second column of Table III-7. However, the population and employment base of
Dublin will more than double because of the proposed development in the Dublin sphere
of influence, both east and west of the existing city, and the current cost per resident 11
equivalent is not the best indicator of the total fiscal impact of residents and employees
in the future, larger city. In order to capture the more probable fiscal impacts generated
in a larger city, ERA analyzed the municipal operating costs per resident equivalent for
fourteen Bay Area cities of sizes comparable to the existing City of Dublin, and ranging
III-4
1 i
upwards to sizes comparable to what Dublin will become after the development of West
and East Dublin. The other cities analyzed in addition to Dublin include:
Pleasanton Pittsburg
Livermore Rohnert Park
Newark Petaluma
Union City Alameda
Vacaville Mountain View
Fairfield Walnut Creek
Antioch
L
I -�
i In order to project the impact on municipal expenditures of new residents and
employees, ERA used the mid-point between the current Dublin cost per resident equivalent
and the fourteen-city average for each of the line items in the Dublin City Budget. Thus,
the fiscal impact on general government of new resident equivalents in the West Dublin
area is projected at $41 each, which is slightly lower than the current general government
cost of $43 per resident in the city. Dublin is a new city, however, and as it matures the
average cost per resident and per employee of overall government services will decrease.
Just the opposite is likely for police services. As the city grows in size, it will probably
eventually take on the police dispatch function now contracted out to, the County, thereby
requiring new staff and equipment. The cost per resident equivalent is therefore likely to
trend upwards from the current level of $76 closer to the $98 averaged in the other
1 fourteen cities. Thus, a midpoint of $87 per resident equivalent is used to project the cost
of police services for West Dublin development.
e� A similar analysis is used for other line items, but with several exceptions. First,
West Dublin Development will require a new fire station staffed by ten people, at an
estimated annual cost of $700,000. This station must be in place and fully staffed prior
to homes being occupied; therefore it is not appropriate to use an average cost approach
as was used elsewhere. Second, a large part of the transportation budget is for street
maintenance, yet West Dublin streets, being new, will not need much maintenance for the
fast five years after homes start selling. When street maintenance, street sweeping, and
landscape maintenance is required, it is more appropriate to.estimate these costs on a per-
mile, rather than per-resident, basis. Third, most other cities have a more significant health
and welfare function than does Dublin, and fiscal projections are made based on
111-5
t.2
continuation of Dublin's minimal health and welfare service provision. Second, culture and
leisure services are projected as a net expenditure, after deducting the 16 percent of costs
currently covered by recreation fees. Third, a similar net analysis is used to project
community development costs, 50 percent of which are covered by planning fees and
building permits.
PROJECTION OF ONGOING FISCAL IMPACTS
Before presenting the projected fiscal impacts by budget line item, Table III-8 and
A-5 present a few other interim calculations, primarily to show the cumulative number of
residents and employees in the West Dublin area.
The annual flow of revenues and costs added to the Dublin City Budget due to
development in the West Dublin area is projected in Tables III-9 and A-6. Each line item
\
of revenues and expenses is projected according to its unique formula as described above.
We assume annexation upon project approval; for the purposes of this analysis, we
have set the annexation year as 1992. City property tax revenues will increase
immediately upon annexation. There will also be minor cost impacts because the City
would be responsible for police and fire services upon annexation, but because the area
would be largely uninhabited, we expect these costs to be minimal. The Fire Chief has
requested that the fire station be built and open when construction begins, assumed here
to be in 1994.
After annexation and infrastructure development, the next ongoing municipal impacts
would be felt in 1997 along with the occupancy of real estate products in the West Dublin
area. For both alternatives, the net fiscal balance in the early years is quite negative
because of the cost of staffmg a fire station before much value has been added to the land
in the area. By the time 50 to 60 percent of the homes have been built and sold, net
revenues turn positive. Overall, the total fiscal impact on the City of Dublin would be
positive, primarily because of the high value of the homes and their significant contribution
to property tax revenues. As a simple indicator of the value of each project's revenue
•
4
n..
III-6 r
j '
I stream to the City, the net present value2 of the 29-year (1990-2018) fiscal cash flow
(discounted at six percent) is presented at the bottom of Tables III-9 and A-6. The net
LJ present values of Option 1 and Option la are $508,000 and $185,000 respectively.
Several caveats are in order here. First, this fiscal analysis is not so much an
indicator of the level of future revenues as it is a way to compare different development
i options. We have made numerous assumptions throughout this analysis that reflect our
best judgement of conditions in the real estate market, trends in City of Dublin finances,
and current state law. However, there is considerable uncertainty about all these factors
25 years in the future. Furthermore, it is not likely that, in the future, the Dublin City
Council will find either budget shortfalls or surpluses attributable to development in West
Dublin. What it will find is that balancing the budget will be difficult in some years,
and service standards may have to be lowered throughout the city. And in other years,
budget-balancing will be easier, thereby making easier the funding of new programs and
1 services. In sum, then, we conclude that both the Eden Plan and the Reduced Yield
Alternative will generate a net fiscal surplus to the City on the long run, meaning that
Lrevenues from residents of these developments will be higher than costs to provide public
services to them. Option 1 shows a more positive fiscal balance than does Option la.
U Second, it is possible to improve the picture from the City's point of view by
) changing assumptions. For example, if the fire station is not opened until 1997, when
homes are first sold and occupied, (rather than 1994, when infrastructure development
begins), the net present value of the Eden plan becomes $1,916,000 instead of $508,000.
Or, if half the roads within the development are maintained privately, rather than by the
City, the net present value becomes $2,065,000.
f �
2/The net present value calculation condenses a stream of revenue over time into a single
amount for simple comparison, taking into account the time value of money. The calculation
essentially tells the city what that stream of revenue is worth today. The situation is
analogous to an investor figuring the potential worth of an investment that will yield dividends
U each year, but for which one sum must be paid now.
III-7
!
Table III-1
BASIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
-- Basis for Valuation ---- Total
Average Average % with Assessed Assessed Percent
Total Unit of Base Home Golf Golf Value/Unit Value of Project ,
Land Use Acreage Units Analysis Value Premium Premium (Average) (5 Millions) Value
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 10 Dwellings $665,000 $133,000 50% $732,000 57.3 0.7%
Custom Homes: 12;000-15,000 sf 130 Dwellings $550,000 $110,000 75% $633,000 $82.3 7.5% =
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 255 Dwellings $495,000 $99,000 60% $554,000 $141.3 12.9%
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 215 Dwellings $425,000 $85,000 60% $476,000 $102.3 9.3%
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 of 490 Dwellings $410,000 $82,000 60% $459,000 $224.9 20.5%
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 85 Dwellings $460,000 $92,000 80% $534,000 $45.4 4.1%
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 445 Dwellings $400,000 $80,000 0% $400,000 $178.0 16.2% 7
y i
Duets: 8-9 per acre 26 215 Dwellings $340,000 $68,000 0% $340,000 $73.1 6.6%
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 13 120 Dwellings $285,000 $57,000 0% $285,000 $34.2 3.1%
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 41 665 Dwellings $225,000 $45,000 0% $225,000 $149.6 13.6%
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 22 420 Dwellings $100,000 $20,000 0% $100,000 $42.0 3.8%
SUBTOTAL Residential 542 3,050 Dwellings $1,080.4 98.3%
Assessed
Average Value per
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES FAR Unit
Commercial/Office /1 . 5.0 54,500 Sq.Ft. 0.25 $125 $6.8 0.6% ,--
Golf Course/Country Club 175.0 18 Holes $667,000 $12.0 1.1%
Park&Ride 1.5 $0 $0 0.0%
School 10.0 SO $0 0.0%
Fire Station 1.5
r !
Parks(5) 26.0 50 $0 0.0%
Public Open Space _ 1850.0 $0 SO 0.0%
Private Open Space 145.0 $0 SO 0.0%
Roads 185.0
Sewage Treatment Plant 1_0 $0 SO 0.0%
TOTALS 2942.0 $1,099.3 100.0%
Note: /1 Residents of the area would provide market support for 5 acres of retail,but there may be potential for additional retail space.
Sources: Eden Development Group, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
u Table III-2
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GENERATION <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
} --Children of School Age-
1 Total Unit of People Project K-6 7-8 9-12
Land Use Units Analysis per Unit Population per DU per DU per DU
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 10 Dwellings 3.2 32 0.300 0.150 0.200
Custom Homes: 12,000-15.000 sf 130 Dwellings 3.2 416 0.300 0.150 0.200
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 255 Dwellings 3.2 816 0.300 0.150 0.200
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 215 Dwellings 3.2 688 0.300 0.150 0.200
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 490 Dwellings 3.2 1,568 0.300 0.150 0.200
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 85 Dwellings 3.2 272 0.300 0.150 0.200
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 445 Dwellings 3.2 1,424 0.300 0.150 0.200
Duets:8-9 per acre 215 Dwellings 3.2 688 0.300 0.150 0.200
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 120 Dwellings 2.5 300 0.100 0.050 0.070
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 665 Dwellings 2.5 1,663 0.100 0.050 0.070
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 420 Dwellings 2.5 1.050 0.100 0.050 0.070
U
SUBTOTAL Residential 3,050 Dwellings 2.9 8,917 674 337 453
[Total Children in School]
Sq.Ft.per Project
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES Employee Employment
Commercial/Office 54,500 Sq.Ft. 510 107
Golf Course 18 Holes 20
Park&Ride
School
Fire Station
Parks(5)
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Roads
Sewage Treatment Plant
-.,� TOTALS 127
•
Li
Sources: Eden Development Group, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
Li
ti
Table 1I1-3
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Total Unit of
Units Analysis 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 10 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 130 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 8 12 12 12 12 12
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 255 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 15 20 30 30 30 30 30
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 215 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 35
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 490 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 40 40 40 50 50 50 40
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 85 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 445 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 30 30 40 40 40 40 40
Duets: 8-9 per acre 215 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 40
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 120 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 665 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 40 40 55 55 55 55 55
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 420 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 105 0
SUBTOTAL Residential 3,050 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 135 148 294 199 199 359 284
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES
Commercial/Office 54,500 Sq.Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,500
Golf Course 18 Holes 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0
Park&Ride
School
Fire Station
Parks(5)
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Roads
Sewage Treatment Plant
Cumulative Occupied Units 0 0 0 0 128 269 548 737 926 1,267 1,537
. Cumulative Population 0 0 0 0 404 850 1,678 2,277 2,875 3,912 4,768
Cumulative Employment 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 127
Source: Economics Research Associates
c_ I. _ ' [ _ . P _ 1 _ r C _ I [_ [ I Li_ L--
Table III-3(Continued)
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Eden: Option 1> ,
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Land Use 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 12 12 12 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 30 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 35 35 35 30 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 40 40 40 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 40 40 40 30 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duets: 8-9 per acre 40 40 40 25 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 20 20 20 20 20 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 55 55 55 45 45 45 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 0 105 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL Residential 282 372 262 192 254 54 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES
Commercial/Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Golf Course 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Park&Ride
School
Fire Station
Parks(5)
Public Open Space .
Private Open Space
Roads
Sewage Treatment Plant
Cumulative Occupied Units 1,805 2,158 2,407 2,590 2,831 2,882 2,896 2,898 2,898 2,898 2,898 2,898 2,898 2,898 2,898
Cumulative Population 5,618 6,682 7,468 8,037 8,731 8,872 8,910 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916
Cumulative Employment 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127
Source: Economics Research Associates
Table 1II-4
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year]
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUES(in 1990$Millions) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Land and Infrastructure $17.7 $55.1 $107.5 $137.4 $159.8 $151.4 $135.9 $124.6 $113.4 $93.9 $77.9
Residential Assessed Value $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $53.0 $112.4 $197.9 $275.6 $352.4 $461.5 $568.4
Commercial Assessed Values m 0�.0 X0.0_ 0I0 $12.0 $11.7 $11.4 $11.1 $10.9 $17.6
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE BY YEAR $17.7 $55.1 $107.5 $137.4 $212.8 $275.9 $345.4 $411.6 $476.9 $566.3 $663.8
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES(1990$1,000s) $176.5 $176.5 $550.8 $1,074.8 $1,374.3 $2,128.0 $2,758.6 $3,453.9 $4,116.2 $4,769.0 $5,663.5
(at 1% of Previous Year's Assessed Value)
TAX DISTRIBUTION(by Agency] Percent [in 1990$1,000s]
City of Dublin 25.4% $45 $45 $140 $273 $349 $541 $701 $877 $1,046 $1,211 $1,439
Alameda County General Fund 31.0% $55 $55 $171 $213 $426 $660 $855 $1,071 $1,276 $1,478 $1,756
Schools 30.0% $53 $53 $165 $206 $412 $638 $828 $1,036 $1,235 $1,431 $1,699
County Library 5.0% $9 $9 $28 $34 $69 $106 $138 $173 $206 $238 $283
E.B.R.P.D. 3.2% $6 $6 $18 $22 $44 $68 $88 $111 $132 $153 $181
Flood Zone 7 2.3% $4 $4 $13 $16 $32 $49 $63 $79 $95 $110 $130
Others 1/ 3.1% 117 21 43 §66 sig 107 128 148 $176
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 100.0% $177 $177 $551 $786 $1,374 $2,128 $2,759 $3,454 $4,116 $4,769 $5,663
1/ Others include BART,Flood Control,Air Quality Management,Mosquito Abatement,etc.
Sources: Alameda County Auditor-Controller;and Economics Research Associates
- 1 i - _.
Table III-4(Continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year]
Total Assessed Value(1990$Millions 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Land and Infrastructure $61.9 $41.9 $27.2 $16.5 $3.5 $0.8 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Residential Assesed Value $673.4 $780.6 $874.9 $940.4 $999.5 $1,010.8 $1,014.8 $1,017.6 $1,021.1 $1,026.0 $1,031.8 $1,038.0 $1,044.4 $1,050.9 $1,057.5
Commercial Assessed Values $17.3 $17.1 $17.0 $17.0 $17.0 $17.1 $17.2 $17.3 $17.5 $17.6 $17.8 $18.0 $18.2 $18.4 $18.6
Total Assessed Value By Year $753 $840 $919 $974 $1,020 $1,029 $1,032 $1,035 $1,039 $1,044 $1,050 $1,056 $1,063 $1,069 $1,076
Total Property Tax Revenues $6,638 $7,526 $8,397 $9,191 $9,739 $10,200 $10,287 $10,321 $10,349 $10,386 $10,436 $10,496 $10,561 $10,627 $10,694
(1990$Thousands;at 1% of Previous Year's Assessed Value)
Tax Distribution(by Agencyl Percent
City of Dublin 25.4% $1,686 $1,912 $2,133 $2,334 $2,474 $2,591 $2,613 $2,621 $2,629 $2,638 $2,651 $2,666 $2,682 $2,699 $2,716
Alameda County General Fu 31.0% $2,058 $2,333 $2,603. $2,849 $3,019 $3,162 $3,189 $3,199 $3,208 $3,220 $3,235 $3,254 $3,274 $3,294 $3,315
Schools 30.0% $1,991 $2,258 $2,519 $2,757 $2,922 $3,060 $3,086 $3,096 $3,105 $3,116 $3,131 $3,149 $3,168 $3,188 $3,208
County Library 5.0% $332 $376 $420 $460 $487 $510 $514 $516 $517 $519 $522 $525 $528 $531 $535
E.B.R.P.D. 3.2% $212 $241 $269 $294 $312 $326 $329 $330 $331 $332 $334 $336 $338 $340 $342
Flood Zone 7 2.3% $153 $173 $193 $211 $224 $235 $237 $237 $238 $239 $240 $241 $243 $244 $246
Others 1/ 3.1% $206 $233 $260 $285 $302 $316 $319 $320 $321 $322 $324 $325 $327 $329 $331
Total Property Tax Revenues 100.0% $6,638 $7,526 $8,397 $9,191 $9,739 $10,200 $10,287 $10,321 $10,349 $10,386 $10,436 $10,496 $10,561 $10,627 $10,694
1/ Others include BART,Flood Control,Air Quality Management,Mosquito Abatement,etc.
Sources: Alameda County Auditor-Controller;and Economics Research Associates
Table III-5
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT DUBLIN CITY BUDGET: General Fund Revenues
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Input Assumptions
Current City Population(ABAG) 25,500
Number of Jobs in Dublin Sphere(ABAG) 12,210
Dublin Resident Equivalents(Pop + 1/4 Jobs) 28,553
Recommended
Budget
Revenue Item Fund 1989-90 Method of Projecting West Dublin Impacts
Property Taxes. General $3,246,000 City share of 1% of Assessed Value
Sales and Use Taxes General $5,600,000 $44.34 per person;assumes Dublin will capture 50% of CA average
per-capita sales,and Dublin gets$0.01 for each$1 in sales
Real Property Transfer Tax General $91,000 $0.55 per$1,000 of new/turnover prop.value
Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax General $100,000 8.0% of hotel room revenues
Franchise Taxes General $338,000 $11.84 /resident equivalent
Building Permits General $320,000 No Net Revenue(fees cover a portion of costs)
Other Licenses and Permits General $12,000 $0.47 /capita -
Other Court Fines General $17,000 $0.60 /resident equivalent
Use of Money and Property General $995,000 Results from Cash Flow Over Time
Intergovern.Revenue-State General $883,000 $34.63 /capita
Charges for Service General $480,400 \1 No Net Revenue(fees cover a portion of costs)
Other Revenues General $10,000 $0.35 /resident equivalent
Subtotal General Fund $12,092,400
Notes: \I $826,000 in extraordinary expenses(planning studies for East and West Dublin)were subtracted from the total.
Source: City of Dublin, "Preliminary Budget and Financial Plan: 1989-1990";and Economics Research Associates
' I ;
Table III-6
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT DUBLIN CITY BUDGET: Revenues from All Other Funds
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Recommended -
Budget
Revenue Item Fund 1989-90 Method of Projecting West Dublin Impacts
Subtotal General Fund General $12,092,400
Criminal Activities Fund Rev. Criminal $12,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Vehicle Code Fines Traffic $89,000 $3.12 /resident equivalent
State Gas Taxes Gas Tax $322,000 $12.63 /capita
Federal Block Grants CDBG $0 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Federal Aid Urban \1 Fed Aid $161,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Paratransit/Bicycle Funds TDA $135,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
State Park Bond Act Park Bond $77,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Senior Citizens Bond Act Seniors $0 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Park Dedication Fees Park Ded. $642,000 Analyzed as Part of Capital Cost/Financing
Community Parklands Act Grants Parklands $0 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Measure B Fund. B $93,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Fuel Efficient TSM Grant TSM $0 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Capital Projects Fund Cap Proj $260,000 Analyzed as Part of Capital Cost/Financing
Dublin Information,Inc. Fund DII $1,437,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Street Lighting Assessments Lighting $170,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Landscape Assessment District 11111 $59,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
San Ramon Rd.Assessments S.R.Rd. $179,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Landscape Assessment District 1!713 $78,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Measure AA Bond Grant AA $473,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Safco Grant Safco $100,000 No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Internal Service Fund ISF $157,000. No Specific Revenue due to West Dublin Development
Total Revenue-All Funds $16,536,400
Notes: \1 Does not include$350,000 in FAU money purchased with General Fund money.
Source: City of Dublin, "Preliminary Budget and Financial Plan: 1989-1990";and Economics Research Associates
•
Table III-7
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT DUBLIN CITY BUDGET: Expenditures
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Input Assumptions
Current City Population(ABAG) 25,500
Number of Jobs in Dublin Sphere(ABAG) 12,210 -
Dublin Resident Equivalents(Pop + 1/4 Jobs) 28,553
Current 14 City
Recommended Dublin Average
Expenditures Cost/ Cost/
Expenditure Category 1989-90 Resid.Eq. Resid.Ea. Method of Projecting West Dublin Impacts
General Government\1 $1,234,100 $43 $39 $41 /resident equivalent
Police $2,179,800 $76 $98 $87 /resident equivalent
Fire $2,184,700 $77 $58 $700,000 /station;95% Eden/5% Cronin
Other Public Safety $335,900 $12 $12 $0 (Costs included above)
Transportation $1,222,900 $43 $46 Costs allocated as shown below:
Public Works Administration $224,158 $8 /resident equivalent
Street Maintenance $516,800 $9,825 /road mile; no maint. until 2002\2
Street Sweeping&Tree/Landscape Maint $481,990 $9,163 /road mile; maint. starts 1996 12
Health&Welfare $22,400 $1 $46 S1 /resident equivalent
Culture&Leisure Services $1,340,500 $47 $51 $41 net/resident equivalent\3
Community Development $1,172,300 $41 $45 $22 net/resident equivalent\4
Total Operating Budget $9,692,600 $339 $395
Debt Service $1,412,700 $49 Part of Capital Cost/Financing Analysis
Capital Improvement Budget $5,764,700 $202 $93 Part of Capital Cost/Financing Analysis
Internal Service Fund Budget $206,900 $7
TOTAL EXPENDITURES-ALL FUNDS $17,076,900 $598
Less Civic Center Offsets ($2,311,000) ($81)
NET TOTAL EXPENDITURES-ALL FUNDS $14,765,900 $517 -
\1 Does not include FAU dollars purchased with General Funds,overstated lease payment on the Civic Center,or contingent reserve.
\2 Assumes 22.5 miles of roads in Eden Option 1 and 21.2 miles in Reduced Yield Option la.
\3 Assumes 16% of cost continues to be covered by recreation fees.
\4 Does not include$826,600 in E.&W.Dublin planning studies;assumes planning&building fees continue to cover 50% of costs.
Source: City of Dublin, "Preliminary Budget and Financial Plan: 1989-1990";and Economics Research Associates
Table 111-8
SPECIAL FORMULAS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year]
Special Formulas 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
[Dollars are in Constant 1990$1,000s]
Residential Population 0 0 0 0 404 850 1,678 2,277 2,875 .3,912 4,768
Total Employment to Date 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 127
Resident Equivalents in Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 27
Resident Equiv.in Other Comm./lndust.Uses 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total Resident Equivalents for West Dublin 0 0 0 0 404 855 1,683 2,282 2,880 3,917 4,800
Total Retail Space Absorbed(sq.ft.) 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,500
Retail Sales Volume at $185 /sq. ft. SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO S0 SO $10,083 .
Percentage of Project Buildout 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 19% 26% 32% 44% 53%
Source: Economics Research Associates
■
Table 11I-8(Continued)
SPECIAL FORMULAS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Special Formulas 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Residential Population 5,618 6,682 7,468 8,037 8,731 8,872 8,910 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,916
Total Employment to Date 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127
Resident Equivalents in Retail 27 27 27 27 27 , 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Resident Equiv.in Other Uses 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total Resident Equivalents 5,650 6,714 7,500 8,069 8,763 8,904 8,942 8,948 8,948 8,948 8,948 8,948 8,948 8,948 8,948
Retail Space Absorbed(1000s sq.ft.) 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500 54,500
Retail Sales Volume at$185/sq.ft. $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083 $10,083
Percentage of Project Buildout 63% 75% 84% 90% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Economics Research Associates
•
Table III-9
FISCAL CASH FLOW: City of Dublin <Eden: Option 1>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis •
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year] (In Constant 1990$1,000s)
REVENUE AND EXPENSE BALANCE Fund 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
REVENUES •
Property Taxes(Incl.Home.Relief) General $45 $45 $140 $273 $349 $541 $701 $877 $1,046 $1,211 $1,439
Sales and Use Taxes General $0 $0 $0 $0 $18 $38 $74 $101 $127 $173 $211
Real Property Transfer Tax General $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 $35 $38 $36 $36 $49 • $54"
Hotel Transient Occupancy,Tax General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Franchise Taxes General' $0 • $0 $0 $0 $5 $10 $20 $27 $34 $46 $57
Other Licenses and Permits General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2
Other Court Fines General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3
• Intergovern. Revenue-State General $0 $0 - $0 $0 $14 $29 $58 $79 $100 $135 $165.
Other Revenues General $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $2
Vehicle Code Fines Traffic $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $3 $5 $7 $9 $12 $15
State Gas Taxes . Gas Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 • $11 $21 $29 $36 $49 $60
• Federal Aid Urban Fed Aid $0 .$0 - ' $0 $0 $0 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Paratransit/Bicycle Funds TDA M M M M • M M M M M M •
Total Revenue-All Funds $45 $45 $140 $273 $434 $667 $920 $1,160 $1,392 $1,683 • $2,007
EXPENDITURES
General Government $0 $0 $0 $0 $17 $35 $69 $94 $118 $161 •$197
Police $0 $0 $0 $0 $35 $74 $147 $199 $251 . $341 $418
Fire $0 $665 $665 $665• $665 $665 $665 $665 $665 $665 $665
Other Public Safety • $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transportation . $0 $0 $0 $155 $168 $182 $199 $214 $229 $403 $421
Health&Welfare $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3 $4
Culture&Leisure Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $17 $35 $69 $94 $118 $161 - •$197- -
Community Development M0 N0 S0 N0 �9 §A X36 49 §62 184 $103
Total Operating Budget $0 $665 $665 $820 $911 $1,011 $1,187 $1,316 $1,446 $1,819 $2,006
Annual Fiscal Surplus(Deficit) $45 ($620) ($525) ($547) ($476) ($344) ($266) ($157) ($54) ($136) $1
NPV of Cash Flow: 1990-2018. 6.0% $508
Cumulative Fiscal Surplus(Deficit) $45 ($575). ($1,100) ($1,647) ($2,123) ($2,467) ($2,734) ($2,890) ($2,944) ($3,080) ($3,078)
Source: Economics Research Associates
I y H O H O H y y V b� na �
64 44 M N y 9 n N N � V e0
H H
4,
N+ o y 328
H O _H H N N HI 4, yh� H H / H
ce) en
H
49
,
N y H at
H r 2 pp � oo h M O iA N s1 p oo iT rOI � t`NI • N o H 00�44
H H N 9
hl 3289 8N :122n 0Cp T b co to ^ h VI
N � tn H O en so a H 0o I. O 49 t H H y H N
44 4 49
-
VI a pp V. 1y3 pp en CO opI�
eA N H O H O t9 •i H 491 0 p T b N 'm
N 104 H H 01 HIao0
o 69 H H 44 49 a H N H n t 4 -.f
H
H
�I co M a H H O H O H oQ p i M �1O .pp
.D n N �"
N H H 9 i en H n H H 3 H 44
4 H H 44
N H H O a H O H N H HI I 2 2 2 H a 2 gg .0� a
O O en 4; en H •.. V1 n ` O a H no N t■ so.
N H H 44 H H H
H
en
H H H H
N I11 H Cp ' Op11 r 00 en p O' 10 00 0 V1 0 N N 00' 01 00 00 00
H O H O H N �+ H t91 00 NO eq ■1O H 01 H NO OBI N O t�
OI NO a .. en H •-, V1 en n O �t n1 H_11 00 l� 01
N H H H H H H• H H H N H a
pp ��pp VV�� H H isz
p
•�• a H H O H N •�• ty b t7f a h b a.-.I 8 O0
OI �O en .. H 4. V1 to N 2 en t91 ao t� N
N N H H H H N1 H H H H N H H
H H H
II � H H O y y H ppl h +1 M H 01 H S a� % wi
oo
49 9 H a N H N
H
H H
el: O.; a H mo H VI p Si o o 00 erl O ff i gl y 4-, fO '4It v 00 O 4.
CNI VI 44 64 44 44 49 H H H v A
Q 81 O 4 10 y N V! N O O HI R
01 H H N N e+ 2 c7: P4 H� O
H O• H H H . t v.,
r-..
-Z N N H H H N H
H en
po oo 0o11 H pQ p� H v
Q OI N i�! N N H H i70 t91 cam N N i9 H p �pI f-°- N
H iN9 H H_11 y v _
8 .... 10 p O1 P1 •-, N •■• •-. 10 of oo �O O N .
VI H P H VI tel H N oppp y� tI� pp Ve/��
• al tN H f9 1D t.9 H eA V! N I ••r [� v1
esi IO
HHII N N
H v y'erg Pil �p�Dpp 01 01 H i�pp i��! ,.. H P f9 i91 N ees, N 04, tO H eon 9r tN'1 N.,� 0r0 N C3.1 4
c��
a 47, s
VI 4/1 VI
C w
C4
F to G
°
o� 1 o t c A.
a 44 e Ti s 6°3 u , to Y ti En d e co w
U w" 9 y ijiJ o py pG I4J a flit ! H
m u W .. ., J $ S J. 3a 3 �a m F' X1hflHi x WcriAel = Si88AO > v, wa W ., U Cr)
•
Table A-1
BASIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
--- Basis for Valuation Total
Average Average % with Assessed Assessed Percent
Total Unit of Base Home Golf Golf Value/Unit Value of Project
Land Use Acreage Units Analysis Value Premium Premium (Average) ($Millions) Value
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 9 Dwellings $665,000 $133,000 50% $732,000 $6.6 0.7%
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 119 Dwellings $550,000 $110,000 75% $633,000 $75.3 7.5%
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 234 Dwellings $495,000 $99,000 60% $554,000 $129.6 12.8%
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 197 Dwellings $425,000 $85,000 60% $476,000 $93.8 9.3%
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 450 Dwellings $410,000 $82,000 60% $459,000 $206.6 20.5%
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 78 Dwellings $460,000 $92,000 80% $534,000 $41.7 4.1%
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 409 Dwellings $400,000 $80,000 0% $400,000 $163.6 16.2%
Duets: 8-9 per acre 26 197 Dwellings $340,000 $68,000 0% $340,000 $67.0 6.6%
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 13 110 Dwellings $285,000 $57,000 0% $285,000 $31.4 3.1%
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 41 611 Dwellings $225,000 $45,000 0% $225,000 $137.5 13.6%
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 22 386 Dwellings $100,000 $20,000 0% $100,000 $38.6 3.8%
SUBTOTAL Residential 543 2,800 Dwellings $991.5 98.3%
Assessed
Average Value per
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES FAR Unit
Commercial/Office 4.0 43,600 Sq.Ft. 0.25 $125 $5.5 0.5%
Golf Course/Country Club 175.0 18 Holes $667,000 $12.0 1.2%
Park&Ride 1.5 $0 $0 0.0%
School 10.0 $0 $0 0.0%
Fire Station 1.5
Parks(5) 26.0 $0 $0 0.0%
Public Open Space 1850.0 $0 $0 0.0%
Private Open Space 145.0 $0 $0 0.0%
Roads 185.0
Sewage Treatment Plant 1_0 $0 $0 0.0%
TOTALS 2942.0 $1,009.0 100.0%
Sources: Eden Development Group, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
Table A-2
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GENERATION <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
---Children of School ARC--
Total Unit of People Project K-6 7-8 9-12
Land Use Units Analysis per Unit Population per DU per DU per DU l
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 9 Dwellings 3.2 29 0.300 0.150 0.200
Custom Homes: 12,000-15.000 sf 119 Dwellings 3.2 381 0.300 0.150 0.200
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 234 Dwellings 3.2 749 0.300 0.150 0.200
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 197 Dwellings 3.2 630 0.300 0.150 0.200
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 450 Dwellings 3.2 1,440 0.300 0.150 0.200
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 78 Dwellings 3.2 250 0.300 0.150 0.200
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 409 Dwellings 3.2 1,309 0.300 0.150 0.200
Duets: 8-9 per acre 197 Dwellings 3.2 630 0.300 0.150 0.200
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 110 Dwellings 2.5 275 0.100 0.050 0.070
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 611 Dwellings 2.5 1,528 0.100 0.050 0.070
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 386 Dwellings . 2.5 965 0.100 0.050 0.070
SUBTOTAL Residential 2,800 Dwellings 2.9 8,185 619 309 416
[Total Children in School]
Sq.Ft.per Project
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES Employee Employment
Commercial/Office 43,600 Sq.Ft. 510 85
Golf Course 18 Holes 20
Park&Ride
School
Fire Station
Parks(5)
Public Open Space
Private Open Space -
Roads
Sewage Treatment Plant
TOTALS 105
Sources: Eden Development Group, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
.. sonlaosst/ yalwasas 13!11Jou0a3 :331110S
SOT OZ OZ OZ OZ OZ 0 0 0 0 0 ui uzdColdw3 anpwinwnD
S9L', ZT6'£ SL8'Z LLZ'Z 8L9'1 OS8 1'01' 0 0 0 0 uopelndod anPelnwno
9ES'I L9Z'I 9Z6 LEL 8175 69Z 8ZI 0 0 0 0 shun patdn000 annelnwn3
lueld luaw1wal 1,a um2S
SPBO%
ands undo aVenud
coeds undo atlgnd
(S)shed
uonelS slid
looyaS
aPRI V 311ed .
o o 0 0 0 Si 0 0 0 0 0 sal°H 81 *mop pop
009'07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1d'bS 009'0, wt3.TO/I6t3laww0D
SHSf 2IHH.LO V'IVID113NTWOD
08Z 65E 66T 661 1,6Z 8171 SET 0 0 0 0 s8uMamCI 008'Z 11;9uaptsag-ivioiUfS
0 801 0 0 SOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 sSwllwACI 98E Oloe lad OZ-81 :sluawUedd
SS SS SS SS SS O, 0, - o o o o sgu!IIamQ 119 3108/0Z-pT :sopuo3/sawoqumoj ,
OZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sRu!IPAKI OT 1 a' /01-6 :sawoqumo 1,dznxn-1
O, OE 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sdu!IP1+Q L61 aloe lad 6-8 ManQ
OP - 017 O, 0, 0, 0£ OE 0 0 0 0 sSullla,MO 60, 3s 000'L-000'S :sawoH larsnID
01 01 01 01 OI 01 01 0 0 0 0 au!IPeKI 8L 3s 000`01 :sawoH laisnl3.
OP OS OS OS 00 O, 0, 0 0 0 0 s8u!IC A CI OS1 fs 000'L-000'9 :sawoH uopanpold
SE SZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sSI[llaMQ L6T ,Ts 00068 :sawoH uoponpold
0£ OE OE Of O£ OZ ST 0 0 0 0 sSwjla a ,£Z fs 000'01 :w°rno-twaS
ZI ZI ZT ZT ZT" 8 0 0 0 0_ 0 s211110 ACI 611 3s 000'ST-000'ZI :sawoH WOasno
1 ' Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 s5uglaIAQ 6 BPI alau-1 :sawoH worno
V3lsuaQ A9)'IdI,LNHQISMI
E00Z ZOOZ 100Z 000Z 6661 8661 L661 9661 5661 P661 £661 s� P►sT Mull
JO ltufl im°,L
(11IA Tease r jo 2utw9ag = aVIQ)nuILL"AO sMIlepi apns3 TRH dq uol$xosgd -
. sts4(leud'emu uugnQ ram
<i uogdO : WU PoonPall> S.1.3f1QOOId I.LVISH'IVai 30 NOI14110Sav QH.L3Hf0Nd
£-V aI9e.L
Table A-3(Continued)
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Land Use 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
RESIDENTIAL(by Density)
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 12 12 12 4 4 4 • 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 30 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 35 35 35 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 40 40 • 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cluster Homes: 10;000 sf 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 40 40 40 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Duets: 8-9 per acre 40 40 40 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 20 20 20 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 55 55 55 45 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 0 105 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL Residential 280 366 242 155 133 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMERCIAL&OTHER USES
Commercial/Office 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Golf Course 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Park&Ride
School
Fire Station
Parks(5)
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Roads
Saiwage Treatment Plant
Cumulative Occupied Units 1,802 2,150 2,380 2,527 2,653 2,657 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660
Cumulative Population 5,608 6,654 7,376 7,826 8,163 8,176 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185
• Cumulative Employment 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Source: Economics Research Associates
1
Table A-4
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year]
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUES(in 1990$Millions) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Land and Infrastructure $17.7 $54.5 $106.1 $135.6 $156.9 $147.9 $131.2 $119.1 $107.1 $86.2 $69.0
Residential Assessed Value $0.0 $0:0 $0.0 $0.0 $53.0 $112.4 $197.9 $275.6 $352.4 $461.5 $567.6
Commercial Assessed Values 00 p_2:2 mA m0.0 $12.0 $11.7 $11.4 $11.1 $10.9 $16.2
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE BY YEAR $17.7 $54.5 $106.1 $135.6 $209.9 $272.3 $340.7 $406.1 $470.6 $558.6 $652.8
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES(1990$1,000s) $176.5 $176.5 $545.0 $1,060.8 $1,355.5 $2,098.9 $2,723.4. $3,407.2 $4,061.1 $4,705.5 $5,585.6
(at 1% of Previous Year's Assessed Value)
TAX DISTRIBUTION(by Agency) Percent [in 1990$1,000s]
City of Dublin 25.4% $45 $45 $138 $269 $344 $533 $692 $865 $1,032 $1,195 $1,419
Alameda County General Fund 31.0% $55 $55 $169 $210 $420 $651 $844 $1,056 $1,259 $1,459. $1,732
Schools 30.0% $53 $53 $163 $203 $407 $630 $817 $1,022 $1,218 $1,412 $1,676
County Library 5.0% $9 $9 $27 $34 $68 $105 $136 $170 $203 $235 $279
E.B.R.P.D. 3.2% $6 $6 $17 $22 $43 $67 $87 $109 ' $130 $151 $179
Flood Zone 7 2.3% $4 $4 413 $16 $31 $48 $63 $78 $93 $108 $128
Others_1/ 3.1% SI ' 11 1 21 X42 165 $106 $126 146 1M
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 100.0% $177 $177 $545 $775 $1,356 $2,099 $2,723 $3,407 $4,061 $4,706 $5,586
1/ Others include BART,Flood Control,Air Quality Management,Mosquito Abatement,etc. •
Sources: Alameda County Auditor-Controller;and Economics Research Associates
•
Table A-4(Continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES Reduced: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date =Begining of Fiscal Year]
Total Assessed Value(1990$Millions 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Land and Infrastructure $52.0 $30.9 $16.3 $7.2 $0.5 $0.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Residential Assesed Value $671.6 $775.7 $859.0 $908.6 $928.1 $928.7 $931.3 $934.0 $938.2 $943.4 $949.1 $954.9 $960.9 $966.8 $972.9
Commercial Assessed Values $16.0 $15.8 $153 $15.7 $15.8 $15.9 $16.0 $16.1 $16.2 $16.4 $16.6 $16.8 $16.9 $17.1 $17.3
Total Assessed Value By Year $740 $822 $891 $932 $944 $945 $947 $950 $954 $960 $966 $972 $978 $984 $990
Total Property Tax Revenues $6,528 $7,395. $8,224 $8,910 $9,316 $9,443 $9,448 $9,472 $9,501 $9,544 $9,598 $9,657 $9,717 $9,778 $9,840
(1990$Thousands;at 1% of Previous Year's Assessed Value)
Tax Distribution(by Agency)Percent
City of Dublin 25.4% $1,658 $1,878 $2,089 $2,263 $2,366 $2,399 $2,400 $2,406 $2,413 $2,424 $2,438 $2,453 $2,468 $2,484 $2,499
Alameda County General Fu 31.0% $2,024 $2,293 $2,549 $2,762 $2,888 $2,927 $2,929 $2,936 $2,945 $2,959 $2,975 $2,994 $3,012 $3,031 $3,050
Schools 30.0% $1,958 $2,219 $2,467 $2,673 $2,795 $2,833 $2,834 $2,842 $2,850 $2,863 $2,879 $2,897 $2,915 $2,933 $2,952
County Library 5.0% $326 $370 $411 $446 $466 $472 $472 $474 $475 $477 $480 $483 $486 $489 $492
E.B.R.P.D. 3.2% $209 $237 $263 $285 $298 $302 $302 $303 $304 $305 $307 $309 $311 $313 $315
Flood Zone 7 2.3% $150 $170 $189 $205 $214 $217 $217 $218 $219 $220 $221 $222 $223 $225 $226
Others 1/ 3.1% $202 $229 $255 $276 $289 $293 $293 $294 $295 $296 $298 $299 $301 $303 $305
•Total Property Tax Revenues 100.0% $6,528 $7,395 $8,224 $8,910 $9,316 $9,443 $9,448 $9,472 $9,501 $9,544 $9,598 $9,657 $9,717 $9,778 $9,840
1/ Others include BART,Flood Control;Air Quality Management,Mosquito Abatement,etc.
Sources: Alameda County Auditor-Controller;and Economics Research Associates
Table A-S
SPECIAL FORMULAS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date =Begining of Fiscal Year]
Special Formulas 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
[Dollars are in Constant 1990$1,000s]
Residential Population 0 0 0 0 404 850 1,678 2,277 2,875 3,912 4,765
Total Employment to Date 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 105
Resident Equivalents in Retail 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 21
Resident Equiv. in Other Comm./Indust. Uses 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total Resident Equivalents for West Dublin 0 0 0 0 404 855 1,683 2,282 2,880 3,917 4,791
Total Retail Space Absorbed(sq.ft.) 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43,600
Retail Sales Volume at $185 /sq. ft. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $8,066 .
Percentage of Project Buildout 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 21% 28% 35% 48% 58%
Source: Economics Research Associates
•
Table A-5 Continued)
SPECIAL FORMULAS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS <Reduced Yield: Option la>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis -
Special Formulas 2004 2005 2006 .2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Residential Population 5,608 6,654 7,376 7,826 8,163 8,176 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185 8,185
Total Employment to Date 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Resident Equivalents in Retail 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Resident Equiv.in Other Uses 5 5 . 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total Resident Equivalents 5,635 6,680 7,402 7,852 8,189 8,202 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211 8,211
Retail Space Absorbed(1000s sq.ft.) 43,600 43,600 .43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600
Retail Sales Volume at$185/sq.R. $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066 $8,066
Percentage of Project Buildout 69% 81% 90% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Economics Research Associates
` - — .1�3 H 'y� H H 43 H '4 a. H HI au a0 V. V! a �! al� N
__ 8I �▪ N H 'H N H N O. H a. N N N N_II T O
H H H H
NNp WI e+1 00 N N V1 •� N O. ��pp •■r V1 ••. eel ..
_. O oy h 3 H a H H N H y NI�O NO �O y H MI M �p
ONI N N HNH H HHI v C�
i H v� p N v
- V9 81 Al Y.1 S A H H s 3 H HIP v1 �O H a A v-1 to
N O H N H N N H H 49 69 H " : .i al
a N H H 449
_- w
OI b 0 A a N H N O�. H H s N H HI a
H H H N Q Si H N Ot T 1 O 30 1
H � H M � O 00
00 N • H H fA
rr
64 44
N .0 ao 0 O oo e .. p 01 v1
N
H y H H r H i91 y 49 �• y H H O if;_ Q I $ N H N H y NN H
••r v N
H H
— ei I R Ig A H 2 N H N S H H N NI a l
I H N H H H� H O
n �
H N � S e+1 y �H t• HI e�v1
y
1 49
v
C to. = a y1 p a `r O r. v1 a O1 N •- ern VI Q v�,f H r-- OBI N v1
co �I A H O H H H H H H y N "H HI y .r
12 v
NO $ H H H A s A H s v H H HI $ A H ,:t. A A H1— II O I . 00
en
p — H H N N H
H v
p p po po po p p p p p o o' p p p p p p p' v
fro;Q p� A H H HH Ha H H H A H HI H H N N H H HI N p
en 3 v v
s� � st � s� s� sis� � st � � s� � s� � s� � � � N in
-I N 69
..y v v
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o p' p p p o p p p o' p
. RI VI HHH �iIHHHNis a a
-0 V• V 0 0 0S 0 0 gV d 4r F Q H
II U� U� C7 C5U� t� C5t7Ft7w �
bit
O
.Op o
Q U
2 M Q
U o tg
..9 H
I F •v w N A
c y m
Sa w y a u. `_^ c Z Q a °
W Ti 3 1 - a' u' a vs a $ ii
c� •o a 8 y d o pq v,
►� 0O 8 5 0 > S u W E a ,w, .w "ia au
o
U v) % 'g t• ..4 g uS a m ��'q w o04 •o '� O m y s k�, uj
w w F D 4 m E" ° a F ° y 0 3 '� an d
'�' o D D •:, G 1 ] I � W � � '"" EO o �,,
F M 3 W a, of a4 x w O .1 O > vi w a W O a is. O F x U U .. Z U v1
No in O,. b 4.4 H Obi 69 49 N en H N O H_491 0000 !�•1 H V�p! t�'1 �I O CO N
NI H H .H H 49 H 4, H a . v_11 N y �. I
44 pp 1e/�� pp oo, 44 p 49
� a N H ONe . H 4 N N O H HI N e0�f t�� A bp fR b H M �I O b a
Al • H H H H H H iA H 3 H H11 N a N
H pp Co Cp��H p ��pp l��44p
NI 3 y N H y H y H y _ f7! fAl 00 en H H H H e0 H e�i --�I l 3 b
H HHII N H M
H pp er y3 Cp Cp��i49 H H �"
-I h b H H CM H H 000 69 N O H e91 R g s: ' H '0 3 m H
A O et n H N H N e0 H '8 H 00
N H 49 H H H N N
N
49
`4 .• H
69
ZI 00 en Naet eV NO
e+ \0 Go H 7e V! U. Oo 49 fA CpI N
et + H N H .+ 00 0 � Go b K O Nf p 0,
en N g 44 44 9 H �N e^N N
N
H H 49 H
gct Q. eV en .01�I b H H OE H 0 H O H H1 ^ pp rs H °en HN1I O M � N
T H ei H 73 en n p
--
N H H w H 49 N I y 64
N + e� H Q a H + H O s O HI R 0 '–� Q !O H 00 N V) 8 e+1 o
0. N O I et H N � H H N H H N
0 N -
-
7,H H 64
N h pp y ey 1.2 12
N y H iif fH1 H 00 Se
H ���H H N A H ;1 y N co o
Li fol
91 N - H H H 1 y H N en H N H V� 44
00 10 VI
H 49
Q N H H H h H O HI
VI N N N H N M —!l
N
0H N H H H N V1
N '4
H 44 H !+H H
H y
nn pp yN� Q • Al g en
rml
...2:1 QI 00 y H H H H N H 49 - y C H H H a H H i91 N --
e./ v H H H VI N
Gs
H. , y H & H y AJ w iA N f9 e N N N NH H N
H H H
pI H H ' H 00M NN VI 67Q OH H 0. 3H H 1:11 �
00� H H 0 N
00 10
U
V! N N
fd, v
a H H H 44 49
H HI $ IN1 8 NN N 2 H y I ". �
H 49 44
49
N
d
OI$ 00 Oe p N 1+f e+1 N L. .••• N N a..r e0 N �+ r.5
wig V1 H e� H H H y y y H H y N i�A O
e0 ..r N
H 14 ..a N N y
H .H_. Q
U
O I.
w 'u
U d a
'w g e � F ea o
9 -• ;q �: E
��+ 3 o F 0 E co v ' e v G o
oq x u S. u ° u' E. m 6, o
o N w W • F E� C 13 •S a °� S e > g 00WM E 1 a `0 =• r
ca 2
U U .S •° en Vs * t •4 F u0 x e w $ F :° T w o 'er $ �, w
W:
Z as o
Fw3 X aHO = r•fo w w � � $ > na k o ak. Fp� S UU E.
U
Section IV
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE
COSTS: EDEN PROPERTY
•
This section presents ERA's evaluation of the capital and infrastructure costs for both
Options 1 and 1a for the Eden property. The basic descriptions of the alternatives are presented
in Table IV-1, and are given in terms of the number of residential units in each, along with the
acreage devoted to other land uses.
CAPITAL COSTS
Table IV-2 presents the capital costs for major infrastructure items estimated by the WPM
Planning Team and Economic and Planning Systems. About 45 percent of the costs are for the
basic site clearing and grading,and another 30 percent are for the provision of street and freeway
interchanges. Budgets for several other capital needs include the following:
• School construction at$5.9 million for an elementary school;
• One fire station, which may cost $1.5 to $3.0 million (we use the higher figure
here);
• A park development budget of approximately$1,080 per dwelling unit.
TYPICAL REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS IN WEST DUBLIN
As with the analysis of on-going costs and revenues,it is necessary to roughly define the
types of land uses that are likely to be built. Planning factors for the expected real estate
products in West Dublin are presented in Table IV-3. Floor-area ratios(FARs),household sizes,
and employment generation factors are consistent with those discussed in Section I1I.
Iv-'
Residential sales prices would range from $225,000 for the townhouses to $770,000 for the
large-lot custom-built homes.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The total market value of each alternative is estimated in Table IV-4 (in 1990 dollars),
and can be seen to range from$997 million to$1.1 billion. The majority of the economic value
is in the residential real estate products (99 percent of each alternative).
Total capital costs equal 13.8 percent of the projected value of real estate products in the
Eden Plan and 14.8 percent of the value of the Reduced Yield Alternative. As a rough indicator
of the cost of capital infrastructure and the load this cost will place on sales prices, we have
apportioned these costs to each unit of development based on the ratio of that unit's value to the
value of the project as a whole. This allocation, which appears in Table IV-5, is merely an
illustrative system for allocating the costs of required infrastructure among the various land uses
in each alternative. Obviously, other systems could be devised. For example, higher-value
residential uses could be expected to contribute more heavily to infrastructure than lower-value
multi-family residential uses. In no case will the costs of infrastructure appear as a separate
charge; they would merely be part of the sale price of the unit.
Under the straight-forward cost allocation system shown in Table IV-5, the average
infrastructure load on each residential unit would average roughly$49,000 per unit for the Eden
Plan and$52,000 per unit for the Reduced Yield Alternative. Costs allocated to commercial and
office uses would range from$17.20 to$18.50 per square foot of built space,or$4.30 to$4.65
per square foot of commercial land area. -
Development fees,assessment districts and other mechanisms for financing capital costs
of new developments have been increasing throughout the Bay Area in recent years. The
magnitude of the capital cost load estimated by the above analysis would not be totally
insupportable,but it would be among the highest for recent Bay Area development. Due to the
need to put proportionately more of the capital infrastructure into the project in the early years,
D/2
the initial costs per unit and per square foot will be even higher than those in Table IV-5,
creating the need for other financing mechanisms to spread some of the front end costs into the
future.
IV-3
Table IV-1
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Reduced Yield
Eden Plan Alternative
Option 1 Option la
LAND USE SUMMARY
Residential Uses(in number of units) —-
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 10 9
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 130 119
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 255 234
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 215 197
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 490 450
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 85 78
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 445 409
Duets: 8-9 per acre 215 197
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 120 110
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 665 611
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 420 386
Subtotal Residential Units 3,050 2,800
Commercial and Other Uses(in acres)
Commercial/Office 5 4
Golf Course(18 holes) 175 175
School 10 10
Parks(5) . 26 26
Roads 185 185
Public Open Space 1,850 1,850
Private Open Space 145 145
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 1
Park and Ride 1.5 1.5
Fire Station 1.5 1.5
Subtotal Commercial/Other Areas 2,942 2,942
Sources: Eden Development Group, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
5
•
Table ry-2
ESTIMATES OF MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
_ (In Thousands of 1990 Dollars)
Reduced Yield
Eden Plan Alternative
Option 1 Option la
3,050 DUs 2,800 DUs
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Streets and Highways
Frontage Road $1,163 $1,163
Boulevard 6,394 6,394
Other Roads 23,924 21,963
Bridges 750 750
Shaefer Ranch Rd/I-580 Interchange 12,450 12,450
Eden Canyon Rd/I-580 Interchange 350 350
Subtotal Streets and Highways $45,031 $43,070
i
Water and Sewer -
Water Supply Facilities $10,000 $10,000
Sanitary Sewer,Onsite Facilities 10,500 10,500
Sanitary Sewer,Offsite Facilities 211 211
Subtotal Water and Sewer $20,711 $20,711
Public Buildings and Parks
Fire Station and Equipment $3,000 $3,000
Elementary School 5,905 5,905
Parks 3,294 • 3,024
Subtotal Public Buildings and Parks $12,199 $11,929
Other Site Improvements
Clearing and Grading $60,000 $60,000
Golf Course Development 8,000 8,000
Subtotal Other Improvements $68,000 $68,000
Contingency $3,779 $3,667
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $149,720 $147,378
NOTE: There is no contingency on grading or golf;a 3% contingency on schools,and 5% on all other items.
- - Sources: WPM Planning Team, Economic and Planning Systems, and Economics Research Associates
Table IV-3
DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT TYPES
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Basis for Valuation ---
Average Average % with Assessed
LAND USE SUMMARY People Base Home Golf Golf Value/Unit
Per Unit Value Premium Premium f Average)
Residential Uses
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots 3.2 $665,000 $133,000 50% $732,000
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 3.2 $550,000 $110,000 75% $633,000
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 3.2 $495,000 $99,000 60% $554,000
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 3.2 $425,000 $85,000 60% $476,000
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 3.2 $410,000 $82,000 60% $459,000
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 3.2 $460,000 $92,000 80% $534,000
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 3.2 $400,000 $80,000 0% $400,000
Duets: 8-9 per acre 3.2 $340,000 $68,000 0% $340,000
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 2.5 $285,000 $57,000 0% $285,000
Townhomea/Condos: 14-20/acre 2.5 $225,000 $45;000 0% $225,000
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 2.5 $100,000 $20,000 0% $100,000
Assessed
Unit of Sq.Ft.per Average Value per
Units Analysis Employee FAR Unit
Commercial and Other Uses
Commercial/Office 54,500 Sq. Ft. 510 0.25 $125
Source: Economics Research Associates
_f
•
Table IV-4
ASSESSED VALUE, BY LAND USE
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
(In Millions of 1990 Dollars)
Reduced Yield
Eden Plan Alternative
Option 1 Option la
3,050 DUs 2,800 DUs
MARKET VALUE
Residential Uses
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots $7.3 $6.6
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 sf 82.3 75.3
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 141.3 129.6
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 102.3 93.8
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 224.9 206.6
Cluster Homes: 10,000 sf 45.4 41.7
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 178.0 163.6
Duets: 8-9 per acre 73.1 67.0
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 34.2 31.4
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 149.6 137.5
i Apartments: 18-20 per acre 42.0 38.6
Subtotal Residential Uses $1,080.4 $991.5
Commercial Uses
Commercial/Office 6.8 5.4
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE $1,087.3 $997.0
CAPITAL COSTS(Table IV-2) $149.7 $147.4
Capital Costs as a Percentage of
Total Assessed Value 13.8% 14.8%
Source: Economics Research Associates
Table 1V-5
ILLUSTRATIVE COST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Reduced Yield
Eden Plan Alternative
Option 1 Option la
3.050 DUs 2,800 DUs
Costs Allocated to Uses
Residential Cost in S/Unit '-
Custom Homes: 1-acre lots $100,800 $108,208
Custom Homes: 12,000-15,000 of 87,167 93,573
Semi-Custom: 10,000 sf 76,289 81,895
Production Homes: 8,000 sf 65,548 70,365
Production Homes: 6,000-7,000 sf 63,207 67,852
Cluster Homes: 10,000 of 73,535 78,938
Cluster Homes: 5,000-7,000 sf 55,082 59,130
Duets: 8-9 per acre 46,820 50,260.
Luxury Townhomes: 9-10/acre 39,246 42,130
Townhomes/Condos: 14-20/acre 30,984 33,261
Apartments: 18-20 per acre 13,771 14,782
Average Per Residential Unit $48,781 $52,347
Commercial/Office
S/Sq.Ft. of Built Space $17.21 $18.48
S/Sq.Ft. of Land Area $4.30 $4.62
TOTAL COSTS COVERED($Millions) $149.7 $147.4
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Section V
ANALYSIS OF CRONIN PARCEL
This section of the report documents the results of ERA's analysis of both the
ongoing fiscal impacts and the capital cost burden of the plans for the Cronin parcel.
Descriptions of the method for conducting this research are found in Sections III and IV
and are not repeated here. Milestone Development's plan (Option A) for this parcel
includes 125 custom homes on lots with a minimum size of 7,000 square feet. The
Reduced Development Alternative (Option B) includes 11 custom homes on similar-sized
lots in addition to 5 luxury estate lots of 8,000 to 12,000 square feet that will abut
substantial amounts of open space. Tables V-1 through V-4 and V-6 through V-9 describe
in more detail the size and projected value of these lots; the expected rate of absorption;
and the amount and distribution of their property tax revenues.
OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES
Tables V-5 and V-10 show the results of the fiscal impact analysis; these tables
have the same structure as Table III-9.presented in Section III. After a few years of
negative balances, the Milestone Plan shows a positive annual fiscal balance. As with the
plans for the Eden property, the need to fully staff the fire station' very early (upon the
start of construction) creates high fixed costs that cannot be offset by substantial property
tax revenues until home sales start. The net present value of this alternative is $62,000.
4
The Reduced Yield Alternative has initially positive cash flows, but these turn
negative when it becomes necessary to start routine maintenance of the access roads.
Negative annual fiscal balances could probably be avoided if the roads were maintained
privately. Over the 29-year analysis period, the net present value of this option is $46,000,
but note that negative balances in future years indicates a trend toward a continued drain
on the Dublin budget.
1/Note that Option A is allocated 5 percent of the costs of staffing the fire station, based
on the ratio of its population to the population in the entire West Dublin area. By the same
rationale, Option B is allocated only 0.5 percent of the cost of staffing the fire station.
V1
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
The need to develop substantial infrastructure on the Cronin parcel, as well as repair
existing landslides, will place a heavy cost burden on the residential units. Infrastructure
costs are shown in Table V-11; they are substantially different for the two plans because
of the different scale of development. Table V-12 shows the projected assessed value for _
the two plans for the Cronin parcel, and it also demonstrates that infrastructure costs would
represent 26 to 40 percent of the market value of the units. Average per-unit costs would
be $119,000 in the Milestone Plan and $224,000 in the Reduced Development Alternative
(Table V-13). This infrastructure burden would probably not be supportable in the market.
Although ERA's estimates of market value have been conservative throughout this analysis,
it would be necessary to achieve sales prices double those shown in order for these units
to support extremely heavy infrastructure requirements on a difficult site.
V-2
•
Table V-1
BASIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION <Cronin Option A: Milestone Plan>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Total
Assessed Assessed Percent
Total Unit of Basis for Valuation Value/Unit Value of Project
Land Use Units Analysis Lot Size(Sq. Ft.) (Average) ($Millions) Value
Custom Homes: premium view lots 13 Dwellings 7,000 - 17,000 $480,000 $6.2 11.0%
Custom Homes: creel(frontage lots 22 Dwellings 7,000 - 18,000 $460,000 $10.1 17.9%
Custom Homes: open space lots 59 Dwellings 7,000 - 20,000 $450,000 $26.6 46.9%
Custom Homes: interior lots 31 Dwellings 7,000 - 37,000 $440,000 $13.6 24.1%
I
TOTAL Residential Units 125 Dwellings $56.6 100.0%
Sources: Milestone Development, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
•
Table V-2
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GENERATION <Cronin Option A: Milestone Plan>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
---Children of School Age---
Total Unit of People Project K-6 7-8 9-12
Land Use Units Analysis per Unit Population per DU per DU per DU
Premium view lots 13 Dwellings 3.2 42 0.300 0.150 0.200
Creek frontage lots 22 Dwellings 3.2 70 0.300 0.150 0.200
Open space lots 59 Dwellings 3.2 189 0.300 0.150 0.200
Interior lots 31 Dwellings 3.2 99 0.300 0.150 0.200
SUBTOTAL Residential 125 Dwellings 3.2 400 38 19 25
[Total Children in School]
Sources: Milestone Development, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
Table V-3
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Cronin Option A: Milestone Platy
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Total Unit of
Land Use Units Analysis 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Custom Homes: Premium View Lots 13 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Custom Homes: Creek Frontage Lots 22 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 0
Custom Homes: Open Space Lots 59 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 6 8 10 10 10 6 5
Custom Homes: Interior Lots 31 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 1
SUBTOTAL Residential 125 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 17 19 21 21 21 15 7
Cumulative Occupied Units 0 0 0 0 16 34 54 74 94 108 115
Cumulative Population 0 0 0 0 54 115 182 250 317 365 387
Cumulative Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source Economics Research Associates
Table V-3(Continued)
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Cronin Option A: Milestone Plan>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Land Use 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Custom Homes: Premium View Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Creek Frontage Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Open Space Lots 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Interior Lots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL Residential 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumulative Occupied Units 117 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119
Cumulative Population 394 397 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
' Cumulative Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Economics Research Associates
■
• Table V-4
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES <Cronin Option A: Milestone Plan>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
[Date = Begining of Fiscal Year]
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUES(in 1990$Millions] 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Land and Infrastructure $4.8 $8.5 $13.7 $16.7 $17.0 $14.0 $10.7 $7.4 $4.1 $1.7 $0.6
Residential Assessed Value $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.7 $16.1 $25.2 $34.1 $42.9 $49.0 $51.6
Commercial Assessed Values 0 OVA OVA OA OVA $0.0 (1 0 $0.0 $0.0 0P.0 $0.0
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE BY YEAR $4.8 $8.5 $13.7 $16.7 $24.7 $30.1 $35.9 $41.5 $47.0 $50.8 $52.2
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES(1990$1,000s) $48.0 $48.0 $85.2 $137.2 $166.9 $246.9 $301.0 $358.9 $415.1 $470.3 $507.6
(at 1% of Previous Year's Assessed Value)
TAX DISTRIBUTION(by Agency) Percent [in 1990$1,000s]
City of Dublin 25.4% $12 $12 $22 $35 $42 $63 $76 $91 $105 $119 $129
Alameda County General Fund 31.0% $15 $15 $26 $26 $52 $77 $93 $111 $129 $146 $157
Schools 30.0% $14 $14 $26 $25 $50 $74 $90 $108 $125 $141 $152
County Library 5.0% $2 $2 $4 $4 $8 $12 $15 $18 $21 $24 $25
E.B.R.P.D. 3.2% $2 $2 $3 $3 $5 $8 $10 $11 $13 $15 $16
Flood Zone 7 2.3% S1 $1 $2 $2 $4 $6 $7 S8 $10 $11 $12
Others 1/ 3.1% E Si 13 ,13 §5 11 13 ll 5.16
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 100.0% $48 $48 $85 $97 $167 $247 $301 $359 $415 $470 $508
1/ Others include BART,Flood Control, Air Quality Management,Mosquito Abatement,etc.
Sources: Alameda County Auditor-Controller;and Economics Research Associates
00 O en rn I h 00 VI N �\
iN00 N 1 S H fy H H H H H H YN ' V"1
NIOe! O N' VD - NNN00mN ,O
N e� H H H H H H H H H H
H
.CIO ‘OQ0 O IyN� 4NSN00M. N.r N VI
N S al H H H H H H H H V1
fl OOp N o0I en eT O 0 m N 00 m N. a
NI H
art i9� y H 4R H H H f9 H
•
H p� ii99
.I.. O at O ya 1 FA `O 3 N e� N1 's .O
el y HHD H H H H H fA
,-.1 H
1 CIO `D Hl 4 00 m NN. N
N yTj� H H H H H H H
w
w
ON
S O N G M VD 10 H H H H en
OA Q V, y�
A
N ^ a H H H H H
*
II -+ pOp al CO� ,O "O "O - N N NN. "O
OI H hl 49 H H yN��
A N H H H H ,n
•
O O ,O O m
NI H ai H p
NN N
441 •42 N . 44•: H H H H /
H H H
.1 ppap�� O eh O e+f y�� V1 O� �O N N �O O —
= NI a i fA H H H H H H H t+V11
2
V
00 O O O rl 00 A 3 00 •'O N N :0 00 w
NI a sl y H
CV 111 H H H H H H H VNf
H 1 -
81 8N O 00 O c� yN A Z3 As N N N '0 � 3
.1
NI
Vl NI N H H H H H H H VN1 Q
H O ...
A V =,... of '1 VN� C VI N NN.-- N C
d1 NI h H H H H H H H H H V1 ai
fa
, ; > H to ra
7
v1I.N N of N ,N el VD VI NN. N NO. N �, W
Cp N FA V! H H H H
N y 44 N 1 i9 H H
0' O OI N N f0 en N N 10 N N E N a i.
p N pl y� yN� 4O 4 N N '� �
E-+ N 'a -I H , H H H H H H H V1
!A y
00 O '
rye m aft tR ZR tR !R tit tit bit b O
p C
�i O •> v�� O O.O N M .r O p T
Q+ g 2 N N e+1 Rj v1 e+f N es.; O VpQV y
a .� H d D G p 7 ry Q
MI wit > >, 8 " d �? > F� e
.. .. '� CA Q y c
c F o c3
.S r
1 8. F .. ; U re La c S
o o w
w A i Q 9 3N °r AI A X4 us E g 0
n w F a U K o1 CCI n F 0 3 F F U a en U W L O e
m O„ P
H H H Q O R1 H H V1 O Ol r_.4 D v1 Q O sO a01 ao M en
H y .."1 H gt H HI
H H 601 y 49
N H
H
H S H � � A O N HNH3S4HHAHy H � HH �
8 H
v1 t+1 p �} p p •"� pO pp�� oo en S N S f9l N N 000
-- OI .. H f9 G9 f9 fA (9 H fA f9l H 49 H H H .. H v ..
a O H
0%
H H H H H 81" H H pp H'� H O 8I y H H H H H -csi 9 co N
e
.. pp�� po pp pp oo po op'� pO pp
I N f�9 H fA H H f9 H f�9 H H �H f9I y H N y H i9 i49 H
ed a K H H H 9 S A H H f1 • H NH H • iv K N H H
1
o p p p ot
o 00 r.1
�Iwff� Hf9ii9iNA (9f9HiAV9IH � f� yf4iyaH � v en so
in
.5
fii
a '. pp
— 41
N H H H H H H H H H H HI yN H H H H H H HI y
N H iN9
2
pp H H H pp pp OO H oo H pp OO1 - S pp H H S 0 0o1
n I N N e v
N../
n
84 pppOpppppoppppppppOOppp�� ppppppOOppppppoo11oo
•"� Q�I iN~9 H H H f9 N H H f9 H i9 fA f9I i9 H H f9 H H b9 f91 i9 H H
V
A
•a o u u u u o u u u w F
'I
7 � � tg � . wH w t7
tik
O
Ii
a II`H.. 3 " � w A � cc
w , >e m . a 3 w a a ; ; E. 2
__, x
o
F' . m '3 O U 5 a c .2 .- g Le
yw w F om a ; g > a ' A � °▪ k U n a O p p -00 , 51 ..., o 0C.) 1 4, oza a
X d ^ a r o f w flJ.10 CA JitflHP w C7 a iz' FxUU
•
•
tr. A x I ! IIIUII T1 O C y ' o I 2 e g 5 co g o E x c
tturj.
v •C7 y
a •
4 4 f� V 4. {� f� N—
A IoD O. �' �O O' H ' O� toil �' O' `n' Cj' A O' G `n' O �' a tel I§
R
__ R
N .
4A VI it
La Ig w wIT v. 8 b. twvwio ! ! !
INN rj� . •N N 81{t2 a H W O tA tw1 ; a I8 O t2 H O .7: O y it,' O O 7. w
1.•in in '
cr, H 4 H W W H �VI Ot IT '7' H y Ig
w to to 01 :l 10 0 t 8A 880 0 OA
p
••
�, H N 69 H H H H H H H H
• a
-- H H .... H / {{/[►1 {/ H H H H 1l/ C H {/ (/ V-88 in p
b W v. 12 a `O' P _ twit twit a1 Zi0) IS `C' tt', t' `O' O' O' oo LA Io
H H
N W I0
FP 110 O. O 4 O LA"' tA w C ∎73 1 O O I H O A O O V O O 'a; 61
413 H
Ft% W� 6Hs yt�1 6+ I6� 6+ y tr► 6�► t� {� �+ sn
. O. A IT C. O A o N twit O� O 10 o Viy o A O O VI o O ~ w IO
OD J N
w 10 O VHO O O O O ~ OD- VI a IS 7 O A O v, lA O. OD OD w
A vT O I•D A O A O tw w1 7 N 18 V .HO A O O VO O Ow
D to
H H
H N H I� H �� � LAC W188Vy8A88 � 887. � VI
H N H O.• H H HH H H H H I kJ ..•OD PN ItD ; O A O v, n A 10 8y t' O A H O 6y O 7 t O.
� 4, , .N H H H H H Ip
• t t atD O. O A p tw lw a PI 18 O t,' H H A O O t,' O O 7 N 7
--
•
Table V-6
BASIC ANALYSIS OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION <Cronin Option B: Reduced Development>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Total
Assessed Assessed Percent
Total Unit of Basis for Valuation Value/Unit Value of Project
Land Use Units Analysis Lot Size(So. Ft.) (Avera&eI ($Millions) Value
Custom Homes: Premium View Lots 5 Dwellings 8,000 - 11,000 $530,000 $2.7 29.2%
Custom Homes: Luxury Estate Lots /1 5 Dwellings 8,000 - 12,000 $700,000 $3.5 38.5%
Custom Homes: Open Space Lots 3 Dwellings 8,000 - 11,000 $495,000 $1.5 16.3%
Custom Homes: Interior Lots 3 Dwellings 8,000. - 11,000 $485,000 $1.5 16.0%
TOTAL Residential Units 16 Dwellings $9.1 100.0%
TOTAL Acreage 160
Note: /1 Although the lots are less than 1/4-acre,each one adjoins substantial amounts of open space.
Sources: Milestone Development, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
Table V-7 -
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GENERATION <Cronin Option B: Reduced Development> _
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
---Children of School Age---
Total Unit of People Project K-6 7-8 9-12
Land Use Units Analysis per Unit Population per DU per DU per DU
Premium View Lots 5 Dwellings 3.2 16 0.300 0.150 0.200
Luxury Estate Lots 5 Dwellings 3.2 16 0.300 . 0.150 0.200 -
Open Space Lots 3 Dwellings 3.2 10 0.300 0.150 0.200
Interior Lots 3 Dwellings 3.2 10 0.300 0.150 0.200
TOTAL Residential 16 Dwellings 3.2 51 5 2 3
[Total Children in School]
•
Sources: Milestone Development, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
is I
. 1 1
Table V-8
PROJECTED ABSORPTION OF REAL ESTATE PRODUCTS <Cronin Option B: Reduced Development>
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Absorption by Real Estate Markets Over Time(Date = Begining of Fiscal Year)
Total Unit of
Land Use Units Analysis 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Custom Homes: Premium View Lots 5 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Luxury Estate Lots 5 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Open Space Lots 3 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Custom Homes: Interior Lots 3 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL Residential 16 Dwellings 0 0 0 0 6 6 4 0 0 0 0
Cumulative Occupied Units 0 0 0 0 6 11 15 15 15 15 15
Cumulative Population 0 0 0 0 19 38 51 51 51 51 51
Cumulative Employment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
Source: Economics Research Associates
-
r ' �
saWtaossd yaiaasali satwouoag :aainos
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 waw,(ojdwg anpeinwno
•
I IS 1 IS IS IS I IS IS TS IS IS TS i5 IS uopeindod anpeinwn3
SI SI ST ST ST SI SI ST SI SI SI SI SI Si SI sRun patdnmO angeinwn0
O 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iepuaP1sa1T 1V.LO1
O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 go'I zouarini :sawoH wo$n0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9101=WS uad° csawoH woasn0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 ageauo13 42a10 :sawoH worno
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 )131 hi*TA wnrwaid :sawoH wo1sn0
8I0Z LTOZ 910Z SIOZ 1710Z £IOZ ZIOZ I 10 OIOZ 600Z 800Z LOOZ 900Z SOOZ tiO0Z "fl Pus'I
(itraA Polar 8uim8ag =oTha))aunt'zaAo simImIN amsa Teals rtq uopdzosgy
srApluv pragu uggnQ vram
NBid sqW :v WOO u!uo_D> S.LOf1UOOId 3.Lti.LS3'INM 3O NOI LAIIOSaV Q3.L3 IfOOId
•
(ponu!1uo0)8-A am,
c C H O 111 A A .. ■•1 H A 70 H -
m ,b -- o C. CO 0 t`A o "d C - y "q 7d UD 1:0 A o ?°„ b O to•s7 5 W < tff H G� .C3 C y y
CC o °1 ,� d x
g H i
z "4 y < < g< e < L 'TJ
ii !i S. Cyr1
on o ° ` § r<
1t . .. o DI
o O W N W u, O '4 u lg
H• 0o O W IJ O 0 0 ? ?
*1 2F1 2R IR 214 2 .CA
{{�� yy q y A
• o A � H H H H H H E.' P O ? A c 1•• r N N . tJt N F. 10 O F. IW I• '--
E.O O
!yn ly is R
OEO 1,2 .H.. N N A t~J. N G L., 10 C A C • -
7
r. ���HHH y
� H H H V IS O i l'i�p
3 IN . N W.:i 00 A G O O O O lu, .-
44 P
A H H H
tl44� H H H $ v I O v Iii
I
v IN N N ? W ? D V 10 A N IS .g.
H H H H E. N H H H 17,....
1�� O. 00 re 01 N
✓ Ilia N w a N b Oo �O 10 00 •.• co Oa
O 00
• {{ r� �1iv! �p S.
NNo 1W N w . V 00 W .4'. ko 'co lb Co O lvD .. -
F.
CA EA 44 EA N
16.� y Oro OHO OHO N .
O00 1 W N 1..1 A v N W 01 10 O\ O IO -
V H H NN cr, co 64 64 44 44 . F° g to g 1� N w y a v N W in 0 LA O
■
Vii• it N w.a. u a N ;D lb �A CIN
A IW N w A to a .N• O ? 10 A O Iw - -
•
to •C y . p ll9 A H A y H 0 [ IL b b III
9 = 7d n
c M C c ° o 2 K 5 5' xi
a $, ,p.. W N ", 3 0
G ('� 8 W N W u, O .W- �n 0 E icl
F) IR ZRIRWIIR �RVRIR 'o' o°m y
.. o o, pyp {�f N 95 '�Vf y 8 „�
mo A W N W A un a N W 10 ? CIA
M
4 �p y N �p V► V� pN S
.� A W N W A V� a A Oo ib ? Olin g
8
ca
q
o A w N w r to Ch ' v A o0 10 O I� A
{/� y N .
-- r 4-u bf N' {� 00 O 8 p
t , W N W A In N Vii 1,00 0 VI C I∎7 .
fii
3 ‘01 W N W A CT 011 N - 151 b O� O I00
o MI
A
a, N
H H H 8
[ .
-_ W'N W a v N la 1100 lb X'0% C 10
•
N
a W NV N• W N A ON a 1H0 10 O Is.
V W f," W ON v N V W 10 O IO II
_ • y 4, y N I
v W N W A a J N v W It in C IN O
M R.OWO 44 H H H Op O I8.
W N W A ON V N OOo - 1H0 O Co C W Q<
£i
Vf H H lb IQ .
00W W J J N H y
--• co N A 00 10 ;D O A
.. .
.
bf 8 N
*/* V► t!!.fA N N N OHO H C O -
10
10 W N WP ti VD W 1D 1D 10 O O V1
•
•
N
oyf _ is sr
`..` O• W N w A v ONO w O 1H0 10 O O Ia
_ 4,4 q 1H C
G
8 W N W ft, J NW I OO p b O I
►" H � S -
� W N W y v ON {iN rte,. 1.2 O — C Io
•
OI • H H H H H H H oo p H H ppI
N ct a a H y H ai
v N H N
8I N H H H H H H fA N H N H �h a a H y H a al y v H
N
c g . .
` o op O I O H H H H a H H • H H,�N H N
a.
01
T
UI C.4 to9
V/ • VI 49 • feel c
PC
I.v pp pp pp po pp pp pp p� �e{� pp pp
I�I NHHHHHHNHHHHHIh H3HHHH ci, HIS ; 3
•C
C
1
d
cg NHAHAHo HHp S' H3 H re S tel e N H y • �, C
1
C w
_ 4r \ H H r H H o p p H P o p K o' N w •H. H 3 S H S H Sly:, H 0 ai m
0
.S S
p p p p p p p p p p p O'
- - �,,0 O1 H H H H H A H H H H H S SI� pp po pp 3 pp oo o'H s
&I HH HHHHHI _ H 2
QI � H H H H H p N p sp HI y H H S 3 H S H S HI
3 N 'O
p
o
a S388535 IEl 9358 � 5SSIM I • a • H I
O
-- F."1 p o K p H N H H H o o HI y H fai!Li O � p Hp O p HIH d
V
V
4
C C C Q O eV O R Y C ww F� a Q 3
I I Cg7' C� g g'1 C7 C� UY' g g Et' g 1 2 —
aQ
0
46 y
A
y
0
E
{A g .. l„ w .0
o L
W o F °g v1 .. HI v w e w oC
'•T" O a . O S > 5 �Wvy� a 4' ` y •o ° Il
$ a
Fl w z 8 F. E.' . a aQ S u $ is. v $ u 8 oG S `, w ' u eo y iz m o
cU .S W WE B mF' [ t 0 8BF .b,j > H > u -2 I 1 i I- w
D O o o d U a a CUP 3 AI -ii L. U
> �ay. z z5 E.. s :aU oa 9 z 4. Hi ego i F x I U Z of
l '
c b I1UIIUU Piz P 'g ui<• C Z1 r M Oo M A 1'j1 P�• 'r1 O x7 A C °. Q�}o y a ee pp"ppj t=1 .�i'r'1 C"" p C." C XI rh A 1 y "a•1' n o 5 o 8 `" „to ay c vCi
7
a i O n 5 4 n�fy Q7 I.
x % 9t7
c
ti
.
y n O v .0 It? N O O■ O A y N J is O t O 8 N.O y 4' O O N N+ 8
E 5'
R
N W N I8
ON. O {{��• IS H OOy A v 1 O y O y N y q ri H O N r••v 1A
A
MINN
v 1�• N O V O r A N I8 O r2 O O N 8 O t O O N N
1.
. 8 NN
i
O q ::e. ▪ N O J q yy qq N v 1� O y y N q s O y N N Q
.
.
._. LA
IO O ? t 10 O O O O O yO O N Ig IL •
___ v W N O V y ? N J IS 8 O O N O O ” p O N N I§ y
. EA N II. r � N ! yy N N N Ir• O qq yy v {{� yy teO O N y y y y y O
G
N
_ IN r i�▪ N y V 8r ? N N yy yy y y O N N y .Nqq yy N N'
• y� H {� y {� q y y y {� y y N
_� tU' t�N r I•-• N O J O A ? N CI 18 O r O O N O O O O N N IN
N yy 10 N L'2 I�w O q q V NO I8 O ▪ O O N O O O O N N w 4/4
10 N teNO w • Ir N O O • r ONp • p O s O . O O N A
IN
• V v w N H N W• i N 8 Z7 O A ? OO 10 O O 8 N O O H O O lA
ILA N N W I • N O Zl O A e N• O p r p O N O s t p O N OC
N
_ __, N N rte Ir. N O v O A V N ON Id O te▪ O O N O O y O O N W l
.:
._--. N
q
v W N' O 1►• N O V 8 ? A . 10 O y O O N O O y+ O O N W IOO
.
Table V-11
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, Cronin Parcel
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
Option A Option B
Milestone Reduced Devel.
125 DUs 16 DUs
LAND USE SUMMARY
Residential Uses(in number of units)
Custom Homes: premium view lots 13 5
Custom Homes: creek frontage lots 22 0
Custom Homes: open space lots 59 3
Custom Homes: interior lots 31 3
Custom Homes: luxury estate lots 0 5
Total Residential Units 125 16
Average Assessed Value Per Unit
People Milestone WPM
REAL ESTATE VALUATION Per Unit 125 DUs 16 DUs
Residential Uses
Custom Homes: premium view lots 3.2 $480,000 $530,000
Custom Homes: creek frontage lots 3.2 $460,000 ---
Custom Homes: open space lots 3.2 $450,000 $495,000
Custom Homes: interior lots 3.2 $440,000 $485,000
Custom Homes: luxury estate lots 3.2 --- $700,000
Sources: Milestone Development, WPM Planning Team, and Economics Research Associates
Table V-12
ESTIMATES OF MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS, Cronin Parcel
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
(In Thousands of 1990 Dollars)
Option A Option B
Milestone Reduced Devel.
125 DUs 16 DUs
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Streets -
- Local Streets,In-Tract $451 $1,130
Collector Streets,In-Tract,Full Utilities 1,648 0
Collector Streets,In-Tract,Ltd. Utilities 50 0
Collector Streets,Off-Tract,Full Utilities 470 0
Collector Streets,Off-Tract,Ltd. Utilities 326 0
Hydroseeding and Erosion Control _ 28 0
Subtotal Streets $2,972 $1,130
Water and Sewer
Bridge at Creek $200 $0
Storm Drain at Creek 250 0
Drainage Detention Ponds 50 0
Subtotal Water and Sewer $500 $0
Parks and Landscaping
Open Space Landscaping $1,290 $0
Park-like Landscaping 510 0
Paved Trail 80 80
Subtotal Parka and Landscaping $1,880 $80
Grading
Slide Repair $3,484 $1,568
Earthwork 3,058 94
Subtotal Grading $6,542 $1,662
Contingency @ 25% $2.974 $718
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $14,868 $3,590
SOURCE Stedman&Associates,McGill Martin Self,and Economics Research Associates
Table V-13
ASSESSED VALUE, BY LAND USE, Cronin Parcel
West Dublin Fiscal Analysis
(In Millions of 1990 Dollars)
Option A Option B
Milestone Reduced Devel.
125 DUs 16 DUs
MARKET VALUE
Residential Uses
Custom Homes: premium view lots $6.2 $2.7
Custom Homes: creek frontage lots 10.1 0.0
Custom Homes: open space lots 26.6 1.5
Custom Homes: interior lots 13.6 1.5
Custom Homes: luxury estate lots 0.0 3.5
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE $56.6 $9.1
CAPITAL COSTS(Table V-12) $14.9 $3.6
Capital Costs as a Percentage of
Total Assessed Value 26.3% 39.5%
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
Table V-14
ILLUSTRATIVE COST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
Option A Option B
Milestone Reduced Devel.
125 DUs 16 DUs
Costs Allocated to Uses
Residential Cost in S/Unit
Custom Homes: premium view lots $126,198 $209,306
Custom Homes: creek frontage lots 120,940 --
Custom Homes: open space lots 118,311 195,484
Custom Homes: interior lots 115,682 191,535
Custom Homes: luxury estate lots --- 276,442
Average Per Residential Unit $118,942 $224,363
TOTAL COSTS COVERED($Millions) $14.9 $3.6
SOURCE: Economics Research Associates
APPENDIX G
TEXT OF SELECTED
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
APPENDIX G
TEXT OF SELECTED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following policies are relevant to basic land use issues in the West Dublin Study Area. Other policies
dealing with more detailed design issues will be reviewed in the Specific Plan for West Dublin.The policy
number and General Plan page are indicated for each policy.
Land Use Element
2.1.1 Neighborhood Diversity
Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects. (2.1.2.B,page 7)
2.1.4 Extended Planning Area
Consider residential development proposals(including support facilities such as neighborhood
shopping centers,schools,and parks)on moderate slopes,with multi-family densities typically
considered on flatter land and next to business park areas. (2.1.4.A,page 11)
Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will require determination that:
-- Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban standards without financial
burden to Dublin residents and businesses.
-- Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands.
- -- Timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural
operations on adjoining lands.
-- The fiscal impact of new residential development in the extended planning area supports itself
and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the city.
(2.1.4.C,pages 11-12)
Parks and Open Space Element
3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources and for Public Health and Safety
Preserve oak woodlands,riparian vegetation,and natural creeks as open space for their natural
resource value.(3.1.A,page 15)
Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent(disregarding minor surface humps or hollows)as
permanent open space for public health and safety. (3.1.B,page 15)
Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of
subdivision map approval. (3.1.C,page 15)
3.2 Agricultural Open Space
Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as rangeland,provided that
specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be considered
not sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. (3.2.A,page 15)
G-1 •
3.3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation
Expand park area to serve new development.(3.3.A,page 16) -
Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines. (3.3.B,page 16)
Use subdivision and site design review process to preserve or enhance ridgelines that form the
skyline as viewed from freeways(I-580 or I-680)or major arterial streets(Dublin Blvd.,Amador
Valley Blvd.,San Ramon Road,Village Parkway,Dougherty Road). (3.3.F,page 16)
Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
5.1 Trafficways
Improve freeway access. (5.1.A,page 19) __
Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to
accommodate projected traffic with the least friction.Strive to phase development and road
improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating level of service
(LOS)of major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D.(5.1D,page 19,as
amended 1989)
5.4 Bicycle Routes
Provide safe bike routes along major arterial streets. (5.4.A,page 22) '
5.6 Scenic Highways
I-580,I-680,San Ramon Road,and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda
County in 1966.These are the routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their
impression of the city; so it is important that the quality of views be protected.
Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General Plan and work to enhance a positive
image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.(5.6.A,pages 22-23) -
Housing Element
6.3 City Housing Goals
Encourage housing of varied types,sizes and prices to meet current and future.needs of all Dublin
residents.(6.3.A,page 25)
Ensure that housing in Dublin will have adequate public services and will be accessible to public
facilities and employment and commercial centers. (6.3.B,page 25) '
1
G-2
I ,,
Conservation Element
7.1 Riparian Vegetation
Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and
aesthetic resource. (7.1.A,page 28)
Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation,improve access,
and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams. (7.1.D,page 29)
7.2 Erosion and Siltation Control
Maintain natural hydrologic systems. (7.2.A,page 29)
Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. (7.2.B,page 29)
Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. (7.2.F,page 29)
7.3 Oak Woodlands
Require preservation of oak woodlands.Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be
graded and developed,permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of the site.
Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review process.
(7.3.B,page 29)
Seismic Safety and Safety Element
8.1 Seismic Safety
Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in
order to preserve life,protect property,and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin
_ and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection
Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development approval in the western hills
outside the primary planning area. (8.2.2.A,page 34)
8.2.3 Flooding
Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian
vegetation.Retain creek channels with ample right of way for maintenance and for maximum
anticipated flow. (8.2.3.A,page 35)
Require dedication of broad steam corridors as a condition of subdivision approval.
(8.2.3.B,page 35)
Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands.Removal of an individual oak tree
may be considered through the project review process. (8.2.3.C,page 35)
G-3