HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 38-22 Considering a CEQA Addendum and Adopting the 2022 Parks And Recreation Master Plan
Reso. No. 38-22, Item 8.2, Adopted 04/19/2022 Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 38 – 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CONSIDERING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND
ADOPTING THE 2022 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, in July 1994 the City Council adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
which established goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the City of Dublin in the
acquisition, development and management of Dublin's park and recreation facilities; .and
WHEREAS, the most recent updates to the Master Plan were adopted by the City Council on
March 16, 2004, August 1, 2006, and May 19, 2015; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to prepare an update to the Master Plan every five to 10 years to
address changing conditions in the development of the City; and
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed development proposals, population projections, and their
impacts on parks and recreation facility demand; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan reflects the most current planning and population data available
to the City; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Master Plan includes an adopted Negative
Declaration for the 2004 Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted on March 16, 2004 (via
Resolution No. 48-04); Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR, 2013 (SCH 2012062009); Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2011 (SCH 2010022005); and Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015)
Addendum and Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, in order to assess whether any further environmental review is required, an Initial
Study was completed; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Initial Study analysis prepared for the project determined that, pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required, and an
Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Commission did review and consider the
2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan at a meeting on February 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Update on April 19, 2022.
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Initial Study and CEQA Addendum,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, and all above-referenced reports,
to evaluate the project.
Reso. No. 38-22, Item 8.2, Adopted 04/19/2022 Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
adopt the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, attached as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hu, Josey, Kumagai, McCorriston and Mayor Hernandez
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
5092856.1
2022
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Exhibit A
Page | ii
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Page | iii
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Acknowledgements
City Council
Melissa Hernandez, Mayor
Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
Sherry Hu, Councilmember
Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember
Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
Parks and Community Services Commission
Kristen Speck, Chairperson
Sameer Hakim, Vice Chairperson
Mathew Giller, Commissioner
Vimal Pannala, Commissioner
Joe Washington, Commissioner
Daniel Colley, Alternate
Richard Thornbury, Alternate
Pratyush Rallapally, Student Representative
Staff
Linda Smith, City Manager
Colleen Tribby, Assistant City Manager
La Shawn Butler, Parks and Community Services Director
Andrew Russell, Public Works Director
Bridget Amaya, Asst. Parks and Community Services Director
Judy Miller, Management Analyst II
Consultant Team
GreenPlay, LLC
LandDesign
RRC Associates
For more information about this document,
contact City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568,
Telephone: 925-556-4500 Email:
parksandcommunityservices@dublin.ca.gov
Page | iv
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 1
City of Dublin History ................................................................................................................................ 2
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Dublin’s Parks and Recreation Overview .................................................................................................. 3
Methodology and Planning Process .......................................................................................................... 5
Background and Trends ................................................................................................................................ 6
Parks and Recreation Standards ............................................................................................................... 6
Existing Reports......................................................................................................................................... 8
Existing Parks Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 10
Dublin Public Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 13
Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................................... 14
Park and Recreation Influencing Trends ............................................................................................ 23
Parks and Recreation Trends Relevant to Dublin ................................................................................... 25
Community and Stakeholder Input ...................................................................................................... 29
Community Needs Assessment Survey................................................................................................ 31
Analyses ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Recreation Programming and Services ................................................................................................ 35
Key Level of Service (LOS) Findings ......................................................................................................... 37
Comparative Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 46
Funding ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................................ 51
Recommendations and Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 53
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX A: Survey Report ..................................................................................................................63
APPENDIX B: Existing Parks Assessment .........................................................................................113
APPENDIX C: 2015 Facilities Standards ...........................................................................................125
Page | v
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Dublin Demographic Overview ............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2: Dublin Population Annual Growth Rates (2010-2018) ........................................................................ 15
Figure 3: Projected Population Trends from 2000-2028 .................................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Median Age of Dublin between 2010 and 2026 .................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Age Distribution in Dublin from 2010 to 2023 ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: 2018 Racial/Ethnic Diversity of Dublin ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 7: 2018 Median Household Income Distribution in Dublin ..................................................................... 18
Figure 8: Employment Overview in Dublin, California ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 9: County Health Ranking Model ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 10: California Health Ranking Overview .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 11: Modifying Preventative Public Health through Systems Thinking ..................................................... 22
Figure 12: Adult Participation in Fitness Activities ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 13: Adult Participation in Outdoor Activities ........................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Adult Participation in Sports Activities .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 15 : "Splash pad" (Google Trends) ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 16: Example of A Splash Pad .................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 17: Interest and Participation in Pickleball .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 18: Trends in Outdoor Recreation by Ethnicity........................................................................................ 30
Figure 19: Key Findings from the Community Needs Assessment Survey .......................................................... 31
Figure 20: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 21: Increase Usage of Facilities ................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 22: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities - Random Sample Respondents ...................................... 33
Figure 23: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities - Open Link Respondents ................................................ 34
Figure 24: Satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services ................................................................................... 35
Figure 25: Existing and Future Facility Map ........................................................................................................ 41
Figure 26: Existing and Future Facilities - GAP Analysis ...................................................................................... 42
Figure 27: Park Classifications per ½ Mile and ¼ Mile Buffer ............................................................................. 43
Figure 28: Park Classifications Map Displaying Unserved Areas......................................................................... 44
Figure 29: Future Planned Parks for Dublin ........................................................................................................ 45
Figure 30: Neighboring agencies with similar populations ................................................................................. 46
Figure 31: Five-Year Operating Expense-Revenue Analysis ................................................................................ 48
Figure 32: The Pyramid Methodology ................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 33: GreenPlay LLC's Service Assessment Matrix ...................................................................................... 50
Figure 34: Summary of Key Issues Matrix ........................................................................................................... 52
Table 1: Inventory of existing facilities within the Dublin parks system ............................................................ 11
Table 2: Inventory of Dublin future parks ........................................................................................................... 12
Table 3: Dublin Gender Distribution Compared to State and National Averages .............................................. 16
Table 4: Dublin Educational Attainment Compared to State and National Averages ........................................ 17
Table 5: Current Dublin Facility Supply as Compared to NRPA and City Metrics ................................................ 39
Table 6: Future 2028 Dublin Facility Supply as Compared to NRPA and City Metrics ......................................... 40
Table 7: City of Dublin Acreage Guidelines ......................................................................................................... 40
Table 8: 2021 Jurisdiction Comparisons by General Recreation and Park Components ..................................... 47
Table 9: Park Acreage Comparison ..................................................................................................................... 47
Table 10: Parks and Community Services Five-Year Cost Recovery Analysis* .................................................... 48
Page | vi
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Page | 1
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Introduction
Overview
Historically, parks have played a major role in the formation of a successful city. Since the early 20th
Century, parks have held a variety of meanings to different groups of people at different times. To some,
parks are primarily meant for children, with an emphasis on playgrounds and ball fields. To other
groups, parks address the cultural needs of the community, providing theaters, museums, art exhibits,
and conference facilities. And to others, the park system preserves and enhances the natural
environment, providing opportunities to interact with nature in a more passive, non-structured setting.
A successful park system should incorporate all these components and more.
The City of Dublin has
placed great emphasis on
parks and recreation
programming to serve the
large number of families
that call Dublin home. Since
the 2015 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan was
adopted, several new areas
of the community have
been developed, and the
City has seen changes in the
types of recreational
programs and park
amenities being sought by the residents. In February 2019 the City retained the consulting services of
GreenPlay LLC (GreenPlay) to update the 2015 Parks Master Plan through community input. The 2022
Parks and Recreation Master Plan not only focuses on the evaluation of existing facilities, programs, and
services, but goes further to assess the community’s changing needs and to provide recommendations
to improve the service offerings to residents. The community played a significant role in the
development of the 2022 Plan, and the recommendations offered herein are reflective of their input in
the process. The 2022 Plan establishes prioritized recommendations regarding facility improvements,
park development, recreation programming, as well as identifying needed resources and funding
associated with each action.
Grand Opening of Clover & Sunrise Park
Page | 2
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
City of Dublin History
As a formerly rural community founded by Mexican and Irish settlers, Dublin’s history is long and
storied; but its physical transformation has been most significant over the last 60 years. During the
1960’s, the area was transformed into a suburb when the first housing tracts were built in western
Dublin. The City grew steadily from then onward and developed as both a residential and retail center.
Upon its incorporation in February 1982, the City of Dublin consisted of 3.54 square miles with
approximately 4,428 housing units and an estimated household population of 13,700. In 1986, the Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) was annexed into Dublin, adding 4.24 square miles to the
City. By 1991, after a series of smaller annexations on the west side of Dublin, the City grew to 8.46
square miles and had approximately 6,904 housing units and an estimated household population of
19,755. In 1995, Dublin started growing eastward with the annexation of 2.4 square miles. Over the next
15 years, the City would grow to 14.62 square miles; and by 2010, Dublin had approximately 15,782
housing units and an estimated household population of 40,262.
In 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 209-00, establishing an Urban Limit Line within the
Western Extended Planning Area to protect land from development for a period of 30 years. In 2014,
the City Council adopted the Dublin Open Space Initiative, removing the 30-year sunset clause for the
Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area and establishing an additional Urban Limit Line
along the eastern edge of the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
The population of Dublin grew roughly 57% since 2010. The population increased from 46,063, from the
2010 census to the current level of 72,589 from the 2020 census. In 2013, Dublin was the second
fastest-growing city in the state of California, behind only Santa Clarita. In 2019, census data showed
Dublin as one of the fastest-growing cities in the country.
In 2020 Dublin started to see a shift in the growth rates which is consistent with a decrease in
development. By 2028, the annual growth rate is expected to be around 1%. The City’s General Plan has
a current build-out population estimate of 79,726. This will likely be adjusted following an update to the
Housing Element of the General Plan, which is required by end of 2022 and 2023, respectively.
Participants at
Live N Rec Play
Page | 3
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Purpose
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update is to establish goals, standards, guiding
policies, and an action plan to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development, and
management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin's park and recreation facilities through the
ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan.
The 2022 Master Plan update was developed to respond to the City’s growth and changing
demographics. The Plan contains specific standards that guide the City's actions, as well as provides
direction to other agencies and private developers regarding the framework under which Dublin is
developing, maintaining, and operating its park and recreation system. Policies and programs from the
2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan are included for reference and to provide a baseline from which
changes are being made.
The Dublin climate allows for almost year-round use of park facilities. That fact, combined with the
active, recreation-oriented lifestyle of the population, places a significant emphasis on the provision of
high-quality amenities and ample recreational opportunities for the community. In the past five years,
the City has experienced noticeable growth in sports and fitness activities taking place in parks and
facilities. Sports seasons are becoming longer and new sports, such as cricket, futsal, and pickleball, are
becoming popular with residents. Nationally recognized standards for park and recreation facilities
establish thresholds that often do not reflect the recreational demands of a specific community. The
standards and policies set forth in the 2022 Master Plan, while recognizing national and peer community
standards, are unique to Dublin. They reflect the City's commitment to providing facilities and amenities
that support a high quality of life for the community.
Dublin’s Parks and Recreation Overview
The City of Dublin currently provides 24 parks, totaling 237.04 acres. Dublin also maintains over 26.26
miles of greenways and trails. The series of routes stretches throughout the city and ranges from
recreational trails to shared-use paths.
In the last few years, Dublin added to its plentiful park
system with the development of three new
neighborhood parks, Jordan Ranch Park, Butterfly
Knoll Park, and Sean Diamond Park. These are in
addition to the Clover Park neighborhood square and
adjacent Sunrise Park nature area. The City also
completed the second phase of Fallon Sports Park in
2018, featuring two new soccer fields, a new 90-foot
baseball diamond, four bocce courts, an adventure
playground, and a public art piece, “Elatus.”
Construction of Fallon Sports Park - Phase 3 started in
2021 and is near completion.
Fallon Sports Park Soccer
Page | 4
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
The Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, also known as The Wave, is a state-of-the-art
aquatics facility that opened in May 2017. In addition to its seasonal waterpark facility, The Wave is
open year-round for fitness classes, swim lessons, and recreational swimming.
The Emerald Glen Park Amphitheater opened at the same time as The Wave, offering opportunities for
concerts, Dublin Farmers’ Market, and other community performances.
The adopted 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the City’s next major community
parks. The Don Biddle Community Park, which is currently under construction, is centrally located just
east of the Iron Horse Trail along Dublin Boulevard. The Wallis Ranch Development will be an 8.75-acre
park adjacent to the Wallis Ranch Community. The City Council approved the conceptual design to
include lighted tennis courts, pickleball courts, and basketball courts. In addition, there will be a play
structure, dog park, and public restrooms. The recreational amenities will span across three parcels of
land along Rutherford Drive, bisected by Tassajara Creek. Lastly, with a recent grant award of just over 2
million dollars, the conceptual planning and design phase for the Iron Horse Nature Park has begun.
The CIP also incorporates Fallon Sports Park - Phase 3, providing for the completion of the final 14 acres
of the community’s 60-acre Fallon Sports Park. The final phase is under construction and includes a
cricket field, a five-bay batting cage, a playground, and four sand volleyball courts.
Page | 5
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Methodology and Planning Process
A project team consisting of City Staff, and members of the Parks and Community Services Commission
was formed. This team provided input to the GreenPlay consulting team at key points throughout the
planning process. As such, this plan leverages the consultant's expertise and incorporates the local
knowledge and background which is only experienced when community and staff members are
involved.
The project consisted of the following tasks:
•Review and consideration of existing reports, Master Plans, and budgets
•Comparative analysis with similar agencies
•Community/stakeholder engagement and community survey
•Facility inventory and existing condition assessment
•Trends and demographic analysis
•Cost recovery workshop
•Organizational review and analysis
•Recommendations: goals, objectives, and action plan
Page | 6
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Background and Trends
Parks and Recreation Standards
The City of Dublin offers a wide variety of recreational and cultural
opportunities to the residents of Dublin. The City’s inventory of
facilities generally meets the minimum service standards established
by the Master Plan.
This Master Plan update addresses the program and facility needs of
the anticipated future population growth. The development standards
for new parks and facilities will provide for quality parks, trails, sports
fields and recreation and cultural facilities needed at build-out in a
manner that is fiscally sustainable to operate and maintain.
Two new categories of parks were included in the 2015 Master Plan,
natural community park and downtown plaza.
Neighborhood Parks: Typically, a neighborhood park ranges from 4-9 acres in size and serves as a main
center for the immediate surrounding community. These parks are uniquely tailored to the
neighborhoods they serve and provide active recreation and a balance of amenities that appeals to a
broad range of individuals.
Neighborhood Square: A smaller version of the neighborhood park, the neighborhood square reflects
similar amenities catering to a focused group of users within high density areas. Averaging two acres,
the squares offer unique features that foster communal gathering and social equity.
Downtown Plaza: Public gathering spaces with a range of 0.5-1.5 acres, these urban plazas take up a
central location and are easily accessible while linking to the rest of the downtown area. Showcasing
amenities such as seating areas, public art, small scale play structures, etc., downtown plazas provide a
main social gathering space. The Dublin City Council adopted a Preferred Vision for Downtown Dublin
which encompasses a Town Square. This one-acre park and plaza will serve as a gathering place
designed with open space for activation and will concentrate on activities to possibly include a Farmer’s
market, Yoga in the Park, play and water features.
Active Community Park: Generally, 10-60 acres, active community parks provide various amenities for a
range of age groups meeting a wide range of community recreation and social needs. These parks,
acting as social hubs, include large open space areas, sports fields and courts, aquatics facilities, a
community center, multiple bicycling and hiking trails, and other natural and cultural facilities.
Natural Community Park: Natural community parks are
considerably larger in scale depending on location and
adjacencies. Having a more natural appearance and
unprogrammed, the intent of these parks is to focus on both
passive and active recreation. The purpose of a natural
community park is to bring people together to recreate and
socialize within a low-intensity space. Amenities may include
those similar to a neighborhood park, as well as a nature
Page | 7
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
interpretive area, outdoor classrooms, group picnicking sites, trails, and community and/or children’s
garden.
Community Facilities: Community facilities with multi-purpose space to hold numerous programs; this
main social hub accommodates organized gatherings.
Indoor Recreation Center: Multi-purpose recreation centers offer a variety of activities and facilities
catering to an active population. Programs aim to be inclusive of all-ages and encourage fitness and
exercise.
Senior Center: Supplying a designated space for the mature adult population (65 years and older),
Dublin's Senior Center provides a facility where the senior population can use, engage, and socialize with
fellow community members.
Aquatic Facility: With both an outdoor and indoor recreational pool,
water playground, water slides, rental space, and administrative offices,
Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex (The Wave) meets the
programmatic needs for those looking for water exercise and fitness
programs. With the various amenities, the modern-day water complex
provides unique active opportunities.
Cultural Arts Center: Supplying opportunities for cultural, educational,
and social events, these multi-use facilities are available to the entire
community. Serving as a major public destination, the facility contains
multi-purpose spaces including classrooms to support various year-
round programming. A Cultural Arts Center is currently planned and
included in the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. This
13,500 square foot center will serve as a multi-use facility that affords
cultural, educational, and social opportunities for the community.
Regional Park/Open Space and Trails: Regional parks are not typically provided by cities as they serve
multiple cities, cross political jurisdictions, and exceed 100 acres in size. The purpose of the regional park
is to preserve natural resources, remnant landscapes, and open space. These parks often include nature-
based experiences, such as trails, hiking and nature-viewing, and may contain active recreation areas,
gardens, picnic facilities, and other special use areas. There are currently no existing regional parks
owned or maintained by the City of Dublin, but thousands of acres nearby are available for use by
residents.
•Dougherty Hills Open Space, owned by the City of Dublin, is currently not included within Dublin’s
park inventory or acreage. It provides approximately 100 acres of open space and a 1.1-mile hiking
trail just north of Dougherty Hills Dog Park.
•The City has the following open space trails:
◊Alamo Canal Trail
◊Alamo Creek Trail
◊Donlon Canyon Trail and Loop
◊Dougherty Road Multi-Use Trail
◊Iron Horse Trail
◊Martin Canyon Creek Trail
◊Tassajara Creek Trail
Page | 8
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
•The East Bay Regional Park District also provides valuable nature-based regional parks and trails for
residents:
◊Calaveras Ridge Regional Trail
◊Dublin Hills Regional Park
◊Iron Horse Regional Trail
◊Tassajara Creek Regional Park
The Parks and Recreation Facility Standards from the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2015
can be found in Appendix C.
Existing Reports
As part of the 2022 Master Plan preparation, GreenPlay reviewed existing plans guiding the actions of
the City. Some of the highlights and accomplishments of the existing plans are included below.
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
Every other year, the City Council adopts a five-year CIP, which includes a section on parks development.
Much of the parks development activity in Dublin is funded through development impact fees as defined
in the Public Facility Fee Program. Each project is detailed in the CIP and includes detailed expenditures
in the areas of improvements, other fees, and staffing costs.
The following major capital improvement projects were completed since the 2015 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan was approved:
•Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatics Complex
This project provides for the design and construction of the first phase of a Recreation and Aquatic
Complex in Emerald Glen Park. The project is known as The Wave. Design was completed in
December 2014 and construction began in April 2015. The Wave opened in May 2017.
The Wave includes a 31,940 square-foot facility with a community room; an indoor pool for lessons,
and lap swimming; an outdoor competitive pool for water polo and swimming; a children’s play pool
with slide and sprays, and a slide tower with high-speed slides and loop slides. This project also
includes additional park acreage, a plaza and an amphitheater. A separate project, consisting of a
Concession Building, was completed and operational for the 2018 Summer Season.
•Imagine Playground at Dublin Sports Grounds
The Imagine Playground at Dublin Sports Grounds project provided for the rehabilitation of the
existing playground into an all-abilities playground at Dublin Sports Grounds, located at Dublin
Boulevard and Civic Plaza. This rehabilitation included the design and construction of an all-abilities
playground, an all-inclusive picnic area, upgraded landscape, parking facilities, and pathways to
improve accessibility and connectivity to other park features including the sports fields, and a new
ADA-compliant restroom facility. This project was completed in March 2021.
•Fallon Sports Park – Phase II
Fallon Sports Park is a 60-acre community park bordered by Fallon Road, Central Parkway, Lockhart
Street and Gleason Drive. Phase I of the park was dedicated in July 2010. The 19.85-acre lower
terrace consists of two synthetic turf soccer fields, a 90-foot lighted baseball diamond, restroom and
concession building, adventure playground, group picnic area, parking, and landscape and street
Page | 9
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
frontage improvements along Central Parkway and Fallon Road. This project was completed in
Spring 2018.
•Sean Diamond Park
This 5.03-acre neighborhood park, located in the Positano development, includes a central gathering
point with a public art focal point, playgrounds for ages 2-5 and 5-12, tennis court, picnic area, grass
volleyball court, informal lawn area, restroom building, and pathways. This part was open to the
public in spring 2018.
•Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park
This 4.9-acre neighborhood park, located in the Jordan Ranch Development, includes a shaded
playground with areas for ages 2-5 and 5-12; a group picnic area with tables and barbecues; an open
space meadow for informal sports, games, and passive activities; basketball court; volleyball court;
and a walking path with trail access. The land for the park was dedicated by the developer and was
constructed by the developer. This park opened in February 2018.
•Clover and Sunrise Park
Clover and Sunrise Park is a combination of a 10.75-acre nature community park and 2.0-acre
neighborhood square in the Irongate Development, bordered by Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard,
Lockhart Street, and Fallon Road. The land for the park was dedicated by the developer and was
constructed by the developer.
•Butterfly Knoll Park
The 1.08-acre neighborhood square in the Tassajara Hills Development (formerly Moller Ranch),
offers visitors sweeping views of the surrounding hills and Tassajara Creek, themed playground,
group picnic area, an amphitheater seating area, and more. The Park features a mural painted into
the grand entry staircase, designed by Gates and Associates, and painted with the assistance of
volunteers in the community. This park opened in January 2022.
•Heritage Park and Pioneer Cemetery Renovation
The City has initiated a renovation of the Pioneer Cemetery. In Fall 2020, the City Council approved
plans for the project in the Dublin Heritage Park along Donlon Way. While the Dublin Pioneer
Cemetery is currently an active cemetery, there are no plots available for purchase. With the
upcoming renovation of the cemetery, residents will have the opportunity to memorialize loved
ones with a monument in their honor. This project was completed in Spring 2022.
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan is a comprehensive policy document expressing the community’s long-
term vision and provides a framework for future decision-making. The General Plan contains 12
elements addressing many aspects of the community including land use, housing, parks and open space,
community design, infrastructure, safety, sustainability, and conservation of resources. The General Plan
is the City’s overarching development policy document. All city policies and ordinances related to
development must be consistent with the General Plan.
Chapter 3 of the City of Dublin General Plan is the Land Use & Circulation: Parks & Open Space Element.
Government Code sec. 65302(a) requires land use elements to designate open space for recreation,
Page | 10
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
agriculture, visual enjoyment, and natural resources. Government Code sec. 65560 defines the following
six categories of open space lands:
1.Open space for the preservation of natural resources.
2.Open space for the managed production of resources.
3.Open space for outdoor recreation.
4.Open space for public health and safety.
5.Open space in support of the mission of military installations.
6.Open space for the protection of Native American historical, cultural, and sacred sites.
Government Code sec. 65564 requires local open space plans to include action programs with specific
programs to implement open space policies. Public Resources Code sec. 5076 requires demand for trail-
oriented recreational uses be considered when developing the open space programs. It further requires
the open space plan to consider integrating local trails with the state trails system. Policies and programs
to provide open space both within and apart from development projects are included in this Parks and
Open Space Element. Related provisions to protect specific natural resources through open space
planning are included in the Conservation Element (Chapter 7 of the City of Dublin General Plan).
Existing Parks Inventory
Dublin takes great pride in its parks, trails, and open space. These spaces provide opportunities for all
residents to take part in social interactions and physical activities and contribute to the quality of life
within the community.
The City of Dublin provides 24 parks, which include 18 neighborhood parks/square, five community
parks, and one nature park totaling a combined 237.04 acres. These parks range from passive to active
and are a mix of small neighborhood parks to a large aquatic complex.
In addition to these facilities, Dublin maintains over 26.26 miles of greenways and trails. The series of
trails sprawls throughout the City ranging from recreational trails to shared use paths. The shared paths
help connect the community of Dublin to some of the existing parks within the system. Moreover, some
of these greenways and trails will help connect some of the parks planned for the future.
Inventory of Existing Facilities Within the Dublin Parks System:
The inventory of parks for the City of Dublin lists existing facilities found in every park (Table 3). Typical
facilities within the Dublin Parks include, but are not limited to playgrounds, benches, grill stations/
BBQs, multipurpose lawn areas, planting beds, and tree canopies. The data for the asset inventory was
collected by LandDesign and GreenPlay and this information was supplemented with GIS data from the
City and additional site inventory visits.
Page | 11 Total Acreage: 237.04
Table 1: Inventory of Existing Facilities Within the Dublin Parks System
Page | 12
Table 2: Inventory of Dublin Future Parks
Page | 13
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Dublin Public Facilities
Active Community Parks (5)
1.Dublin Heritage Park & Museums - 1
2.Dublin Sports Grounds – 1
3.Emerald Glen Park – 1
4.Fallon Sports Park – 1
5.Shannon Park – 1
Amphitheater (3)
1.Butterfly Knoll – 1
2.Emerald Glen Park – 1
3.Heritage Park – 1
Baseball/Softball Fields (18)
1.Dublin Sports Grounds – 7
2.Emerald Glen Park – 3
3.Fallon Sports Park – 7
4.Ted Fairfield Park – 1
Basketball Courts (13)
1.Alamo Creek Park – 1
2.Bray Commons – 1
3.Dolan Park – 1
4.Emerald Glen Park – 2
5.Fallon Sports Park – 4
6.Jordan Ranch Park – 1
7.Positano Hills Park – 1
8.Schaefer Ranch Park – 1
9.Ted Fairfield Park – 1
BMX Course (1)
1.Fallon Sports Park – 1
Community Centers (4)
1.Shannon Community Center – 1
2.Sunday School Barn – 1
3.Old St. Raymond Church – 1
4.Senior Center
Cricket Fields (2)
1.Emerald Glen Park – 1
2.Fallon Sports Park – 1
Dog Run/Dog Park (2)
1.Bray Commons – 1
2.Dougherty Hills Dog Park – 1
Neighborhood Parks/Squares (19)
1.Alamo Creek Park
2.Bray Commons
3.Butterfly Knoll
4.Clover Park
5.Cottonwood Park & School
6. Devany Square
7.Dolan Park
8.Dougherty Hills Dog Park
9.Jordan Ranch Park
10.Kolb Park
11.Mape Memorial Park
12.Passatempo Park
13.Piazza Sorrento
14.Positano Hills Park
15.Schaefer Ranch Park
16.Sean Diamond Park
17.Stagecoach Park
18.Sunrise Park
19.Ted Fairfield Park
Playgrounds (25)
1.Alamo Creek Park – 1
2.Bray Commons – 1
3.Butterfly Knoll Park – 1
4.Clover & Sunrise Park – 1
5.Devany Square – 1
6.Dolan Park - 1
7.Dublin Sports Grounds – 1
8.Emerald Glen Park – 1
9.Fallon Sports Park – 1
10.Jordan Ranch Park - 1
11.Kolb Park – 1
12.Mape Memorial Park – 2
13.Passatempo Park – 1
14.Piazza Sorrento – 1
15.Positano Hills Park – 1
16.Schaefer Ranch Park – 2
17.Sean Diamond Park – 3
18.Shannon Park – 2
19.Stagecoach Park – 1
20.Ted Fairfield Park - 1
Page | 14
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Demographic Profile
To establish realistic and justifiable recommendations, an assessment of several influencing and relevant
factors was conducted to identify unmet needs. This assessment included:
•Reviewing Dublin's demographic profile (current and predicted)
•Understanding the community's needs and interests regarding current and potential future
facilities, amenities, programs, and services
•Determining and considering relevant trends
•Conducting a community needs assessment survey to validate desires and interests
•Reviewing and analyzing existing operational functions of the Department
By analyzing population data, trends emerge that can inform decision-making and resource allocation
strategies for the provision of parks, recreation, and open space management. This demographic profile
was compiled in December 2021 from a combination of sources including the Esri Business Analyst,
American Community Survey, and the 2020 U.S. Census. The following topics will be covered in detail in
this report:
Gender & Age
Distribution
Population
Summary
Race/Ethnic
Character
Educational
Attainment
Household
Data
Employment
Health
Rankings
White Collar
Figure 1: Dublin Demographic Overview
2.7%
Page | 15
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Population
Growth rates can be a strong comparative indicator of an area's potential for economic development.
From 2010 to 2018, the population of Dublin grew about 4% annually. According to Esri Business
Analyst, Dublin’s annual growth rate is expected to be double that of the United States through 2023,
which is projected to grow at a rate of 1%.
Figure 2: Dublin Population Annual Growth Rates (2010-2018)
Source: Esri Business Analyst
From 2018 to 2023, the growth rate slowed to an estimated 3.6 % annually. From 2023-2028, growth is
estimated at around 1%. The City of Dublin’s General Plan currently estimates the build-out population
to be 79,726 with minimal growth in future years.
Source: 2018 Esri Business Analyst,
City of Dublin General Plan
Figure 3: Projected Population Trends from 2000-2028
Page | 16
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Age & Gender Distribution
Dublin has an even distribution in gender, with slightly more females (50.7%) than males (49.3%). A
comparison of state and national gender breakdown is shown below.
Table 3: Dublin Gender Distribution Compared to State and National Averages
Dublin California USA
2020 Female Population (%) 50.7% 50.3% 50.8%
2020 Male Population (%) 49.3% 49.7% 49.2%
Source: 2021 Esri Business Analyst
The median age in Dublin in 2010 was 35.3 years, which was similar to California’s median age of 35.2
years. The current median age is 36.7 and is projected to decrease slightly to 36.0 years in 2026;
California's median age will increase to 37.6 years.
Source: 2021 Esri Business Analyst
Looking at the population age breakdown by five-year increments in the figure below, there are a few
key conclusions.
•The age distribution is expected to stay relatively the same from 2010 through 2026 The major
changes expected are only within two percentage points.
•The number of people in the 25-to-39 age group, which is currently the largest age cohort, is all
projected to decrease slightly between 2010 and 2023.
•Age groups that are expected to increase in number include those between 10 and 19 years old, and
between 55 and 79 years old.
2010
35.3
2020
36.7
2026
36.0
Source: 2018 Esri Business Analyst
Figure 4: Median Age of Dublin between 2010 and 2026
Figure 5: Age Distribution in Dublin from 2010 to 2023
Page | 17
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Race/Ethnic Character
In the United States, communities are generally becoming more diverse. Before comparing this data, it is
important to note how the U.S. Census classifies and counts individuals who identify as Hispanic. The
census notes Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth of the
person or the person’s parents or ancestors before arrival in the United States. In the U.S. Census,
people who identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish are included in all of the race categories. Figure 6
reflects the approximate racial/ethnic population distribution.
Educational Attainment
Analysis of the levels of educational attainment indicate Dublin has a higher percentage of
graduate/professional degree holders (22%) than California (13%) and the United States (12%). In all,
less than 10% of the population had not completed high school.
Table 4: Dublin Educational Attainment Compared to State and National Averages
Level of Education Dublin, CA California USA
Graduate/Professional Degree 22.13% 12.55% 12.18%
Bachelor's Degree 34.00% 20.85% 19.60%
Associate Degree 6.28% 7.72% 8.45%
Some College/No Degree 14.41% 21.13% 20.52%
GED/Alternative Credential 2.65% 2.33% 3.96%
High School Diploma 11.03% 18.04% 23.00%
9th-12th Grade/No Diploma 5.24% 7.76% 7.07%
Less than 9th Grade 4.25% 9.60% 5.22%
Figure 6: 2018 Racial/Ethnic Diversity of Dublin
Page | 18
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Household Data
•The median household size is 2.96 in Dublin, compared to 2.95 in the state of California and 2.62 in
the United States.
•According to Esri Business Analyst, less than 13% of residents live with some sort of hearing difficulty,
vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and/or independent
living difficulty.
•According to 2020 U.S. Census, the median home value in Dublin is $882,200, which is higher than
the median home value of California overall ($505,000) and more than four times the value of the
average home in the United States ($217,500).
•According to 2020 U.S. Census, there are 4% persons in poverty, while the rate in California is 11.5%.
•Dublin households bring in a median income of $160,577 a year compared to the state of California
at $75,235 and the United States at $62,843.
•Over a quarter of the population makes a household income of $200,000 or more. Almost 68% of all
residents earn $100,000 or more.
Figure 7: 2018 Median Household Income Distribution in Dublin 2021 Esri Business Analyst
U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census
Residents enjoy concerts in the park
Page | 19
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Employment
•Roughly 87% of the population is employed in white collar positions, which typically perform in
managerial, technical, administrative, and/or professional capacities. Only 8% were employed by
blue collar positions, such as construction, maintenance, etc. In 2021, 4.1% of the population was
unemployed (lower than California) and similar when compared to the United States at 4.2%.
•In terms of commuting, only 19% of workers spend seven and one-half or more hours commuting per
week, and 67.3% of commuters drive alone in a car to work.
Source: 2021 Esri Business Analyst; Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure 8: Employment Overview in Dublin, California
Page | 20
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Health Rankings
Understanding the status of the community's health can help inform policies related to recreation and
fitness. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's County Health Rankings and Roadmaps provide annual
insight on the general health of national, state, and county populations. The 2020 Rankings model shown
in Figure 9 highlights the topic areas reviewed by the Foundation.
The health ranking gauged the public health of the population based on "how long people live and how
healthy people feel while alive,” coupled with ranking factors including healthy behaviors, clinical care,
social and economic, and physical environment factors.
Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, County Health Rankings 2020
Figure 9: County Health Ranking Model
Page | 21
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
In 2021, the County Health Rankings Annual Report ranked Alameda County as the 14th healthiest
county for health outcomes and 6th for health factors. The health rankings consider and weigh social and
environmental factors that tend to directly impact the overall health of
populations as illustrated in Figure 9. In 2021, the United Health
Foundation’s America’s Health Rankings Annual Report did not provide
an overall rank for California as in past years. California ranked 12th in
2018 and 2019. An overview of strengths, challenges, and highlights are
shown in Figure 10.
Source: United Health Foundation's America's Health Rankings Annual Report 2021
Figure 10: California Health Ranking Overview
Page | 22
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Positioning Parks and Recreation as Preventive Public Health
In recent years, there has been a strong movement to identify and position parks and recreation
agencies as preventive public health providers. Figure 11 provides a graphic that identifies key health
factors (nutrition, physical activity, social engagement, transportation and access, and perceptions of
safety) that can be modified by parks and agency strategies, working in tandem with a variety of
community "actors" - other providers, governmental agencies, and partners.
Figure 11: Modifying Preventative Public Health through Systems Thinking
Page | 23
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 12: Adult Participation in Fitness Activities
Park and Recreation Influencing Trends
The changing pace of today's world requires analyzing recreation trends from both a local and national
level. Understanding the participation levels of the city residents using data from the U.S. Census
Bureau, combined with research of relevant national recreation trends, provides critical insights to help
plan for the future of parks and recreation. These new shifts of participation in outdoor recreation,
sports, and cultural programs are an important component of understanding and serving the
community.
Part I: Recreation Behavior and Expenditures of Dublin Households
Adult participation in recreation activities was provided by the U.S. Census for 2018, with an outline of
the main highlights below:
•Walking for exercise was the most popular fitness activity at 27% adult participation in Dublin.
•Dublin had a higher percentage of yoga participation (11%) than the state of California overall (9%).
•Jogging/running (18%) and hiking (15%) were the most popular outdoor activities. Participation in
those activities were higher than what was seen in California in 2018.
•Approximately 12% of the adult population participated in road cycling, and 11% participated in golf
- making these sports the next most popular outdoor activities.
•Basketball (9%), soccer (5%), and tennis (5%) were the most popular sports for adults in Dublin which
garnered strong participation.
Page | 24
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 13: Adult Participation in Outdoor Activities
Figure 14: Adult Participation in Sports Activities
Page | 25
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Parks and Recreation Trends Relevant to Dublin
Administrative Trends for Recreation and Parks
The role of parks and recreation management has shifted beyond traditional facility oversight and
activity programming. The ability to evaluate and interpret data is a critical component of strategic
decision making. In an article in the Parks and Recreation magazine from February 2019, there are
several strategies identified that allow agencies to keep up with administrative trends and become an
agent of change.
1.Develop a digital transformation strategy - how will your agency innovate and adapt to technology?
2.Anticipate needs of the community through data - what information from your facilities, programs,
and services can be collected and utilized for decision making?
3.Continuous education - How can you educate yourself and your team to have more knowledge and
skills as technology evolves?
4.Focus on efficiency - in what ways can your operations be streamlined?
5.Embrace change as a leader - how can you help your staff to see the value in new systems and
processes?
6.Reach out digitally - be sure the public knows how to find you and ways they can be involved.
Aquatics and Water Recreation Trends
According to the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA), swimming ranked second nationwide in
terms of participation in 2018. Nationally, there is an increasing trend toward indoor leisure and
therapeutic pools. Swimming for fitness is the top aspirational activity for "inactives" in all age groups,
according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)
2016 "Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline
Participation Report," representing a significant opportunity
to engage inactive populations.
Additional indoor and outdoor amenities like spray pads,
splash parks, and interactive fountains are becoming
increasingly popular as well. Communities are also concerned
about water quality as well as conservation. Interactive
fountains are a popular alternative because they are ADA-
compliant and low maintenance. Trends in architectural
design for splash parks can be found in Recreation
Management articles in 2014 and 2015.
Page | 26
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Splashpads
Splash pads, or spray grounds, have seen enormous growth in popularity over the past decade. Simply
looking at search terms over time (from 2004 to present) on Google Trends show more people are
searching for this amenity.
The popularity of splash pads is geographical and more common in the Western United States.
According to a feature article from June 2016 titled "A Look at Trends in Aquatic Facilities," splash play
areas were least common in the Northeast; only 31.9% of responding agencies had this amenity,
compared to 55.8% of those in the West. Urban areas are more likely to have splash play areas than
rural areas. This shift is most likely due to the benefits of splash play areas.
Compared to a traditional
aquatic facility, splash pads
typically incur lower
maintenance costs, less
programming, and lower
staffing costs. Over a third of
responding agencies said they
plan to add splash pads to
their list of features.
Figure 15 : "Splash pad" (Google Trends)
Figure 16: Example of A Splash Pad
Page | 27
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Conservation
One of the key pillars of parks and recreation is the role it plays in conservation. Managing and
protecting open space, providing opportunities for people to connect with nature, and educating
communities about conservation are all incredibly important. One key component of conservation is
addressing climate change. Local parks and recreation departments can help by building climate resilient
communities through water management, green infrastructure, and sustainability. A report by NRPA in
2017 titled "Park and Recreation Sustainability Practices" surveyed over 400 parks and recreation
agencies and found the top five ways local departments are taking action on conservation and climate
change:
•Alternative Transportation - 77% reduce carbon footprint through offering transportation
alternatives
•Watershed Management - 70% adopt protective measures for watershed management
•Air Quality - 53% plant and manage tree canopies that improves air quality
•Sustainable Education - 52% educate the public about sustainability practices
•Stormwater Management - 51% proactivity reduce stormwater through green infrastructure
Cricket
Nearly 140 years before there was baseball, there was cricket. This sport, largely based on tradition,
involves hitting a ball with a flat wooden bat and running back and forth on the field. It is most popular
in New York, Florida, and California but has spread to all 50 states. According to an ESPN Cricket Editor
Peter Della Penna, cricket is the country's fastest-growing sport "with 15 million fans and an estimated
200,000 players." Future plans and aspirations for the sport involve organized youth leagues, installation
of proper cricket fields, a U.S. based professional league, and the creation of a U.S. National Cricket
Team. According to NRPA's 2019 field report, 9.2% of agencies have a proper cricket field.
Futsal
Futsal is a small-sided soccer game that is generally played indoors on a basketball-sized court with five
players on each team. Futsal is unique from soccer because it allows opportunities for players to gain
technical skills by consistently touching the ball and actively engaging each player. With only five players
on the field, there are more opportunities to dribble, pass, and score. Another primary difference
between futsal and soccer is that futsal is a great introductory sport for beginners; the sport does not
have some of the more complicated rules such as off-sides like soccer, nor does it have the intimidating
full-length fields that require more endurance. In 2018, it was estimated that there are more than 12
million futsal players across 100 countries.
Pickleball
Pickleball continues to be a fast-growing sport throughout the United States. Considered a mix between
tennis, ping pong, and badminton, the sport initially grew in popularity with older adults. However, now
the sport is being taught in schools across the country. Pickleball will continue to grow, judging by its
growth in the last several years. From 2016 to 2017, pickleball grew 12.3% to 2.815 million players.
Dedicated pickleball courts are desired by avid players, rather than playing on striped tennis courts.
Page | 28
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 17: Interest and Participation in Pickleball
Page | 29
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Community and Stakeholder Input
Focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and a public forum were conducted April 9 - 11, 2019. Over the
course of the three days, GreenPlay hosted 12 meetings and spoke with 117 community members and
stakeholders. These meetings were held throughout the City. The goal of these sessions was to gather
information that would guide the development of the community recreation needs assessment survey.
Participants included:
•Users/Community Members
•City Staff
•Stakeholders
•Commissioners
•Youth and Teens
Key recurring themes identified during this portion of the planning process include:
•Develop Non-Traditional Athletic Spaces (Cricket, Pickleball, Badminton)
•Increased Programs for 12 to 25-Year-Olds
•Outdoor Gathering/Social Spaces (Downtown, Dog Parks, Outdoor Fitness)
•Connectivity, Safe Ways to Bike/Walk Across Town
•Non-traditional Recreation Programming (Pop-up Activities, Traveling Art)
•Desire for an Indoor Multi-use Facility
•Need for a Cultural Arts Center
•Improved Communication, Marketing, and Advertising
•Incorporate Existing Plans and Projects
•More Multi-Generational, Arts, and Cultural Programs
•Public Art is Valued by the Community
•Better Utilization of Facilities and Spaces
•Review “Cost Recovery” Policy and Philosophy
•Connect East and West Dublin
Emerald Glen Park Playground
Page | 30
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Recreation Preferences among Ethnic/Racial Groups
Figure 18: Trends in Outdoor Recreation by Ethnicity
Ethnicity Participation Rate 2016 5-year AverageAnnual Growth
White 50% -.09%
Black 33% .04%
Hispanic 48% 1.8%
Asian 51% 1.2%
•Participation among Asians has increased by 1.2% over the past five years while Caucasian
participation has declined by 0.9%
•Black and Hispanic participants went on the most average outings per participant
•Running was the most popular outdoor activity for almost all ethnicities; however, white
participants participated in fishing at a higher rate than running
Trail Recreation and Cycling Trend
In many surveys and studies on participation in recreational activities, walking, running,
jogging, and cycling are nearly universally rated as the most popular activities among
youths and adults. Walking, jogging, and running are often the most highly participated
in recreational activity and cycling often ranks as the second or third most popular
activity.
According to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), the economic benefits of bicycling
and walking include:
•Bicycling and walking projects create 8 to 12 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just seven jobs
created per $1 million spent on highway projects.
•Cost benefit analyses show up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in bicycling
and walking.
Page | 31
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Community Needs Assessment Survey
As part of the project, a statistically valid survey was conducted to assess the opinions, desires, and
needs of residents in Dublin. The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1) a mailed survey
to 3,500 households in Dublin, 2) an online, password-protected, random sample website, and 3) an
open link survey for all other residents who were not included in the random sample. Random sample
respondents were given a unique password to participate through the online survey. Approximately two
weeks after the mailed surveys began arriving in mailboxes, the open link survey was made available to
all residents who did not receive the random sample survey. Results are kept separate to maintain the
statistical validity of the random sample. The random sample contains 324 completed surveys (margin of
error: 5.4%) with the open link closing with 119 completed surveys.
After reviewing all data received through the survey the consultant team summarized key findings from
the survey which are below in Figure 19. These findings present a quick overview of the survey
outcomes. The full survey report can be found in Appendix A. The purpose of the community needs
assessment study was to gather community feedback on Dublin Parks and Community Services facilities,
services, programs, amenities, future planning, communication, and more.
Dublin respondents highlighted community/neighborhood parks,
the Dublin Public Library, and trails and bikeways as most important
to their household.
Satisfaction is generally high in most parks and recreation
categories for random sample respondents. Open link respondents
are slightly less satisfied, but more respondents are positive about
all categories.
Adult recreation programs, special events, aquatic facilities and
programs, and heritage and cultural arts programs are the four
facilities/services identified by the matrix for improvements.
For the new Cultural Arts Center, respondents identified art
classrooms, and performance and event space as the two most
desired additions for the facility.
Open-ended comments praised Dublin for what it provides and
offers for the community. Specific park-improvements were
suggested along with additions for programs and new facilities.
Figure 19: Key Findings from the Community Needs Assessment Survey
Page | 32
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Other findings from the survey are listed on the following pages. The findings were integrated to
develop recommendations and actions for the 2022 Master Plan update.
Usage of current facilities and amenities
The Dublin Public Library (70%), Emerald Glen Park (68%), and a variety of "other" neighborhood/
community parks (54%) are used most frequently in Dublin by random sample respondents. The Wave
at Emerald Glen Park (39%), Fallon Sports Park (37%), and Shannon Community Center (33%) follow in
usage. Respondents from the open link are more likely to participate/use nearly all facilities in the
community, especially Fallon Sports Park.
Increase usage of facilities
Random sample respondents would use recreation facilities more often if more programs/community
events (39%) were held, more or improved restrooms (31%) were utilized, if there was better condition/
maintenance of facilities (28%), and lower pricing/user fees (27%) were addressed. Open link
respondents were more apt to say they desired lower pricing/user fees (34%) and more facilities (28%)
than invite respondents.
Figure 22: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities
Figure 25: Increase Usage of Facilities
Page | 33
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Greatest Needs in Dublin
Random sample respondents indicated on a scale of 1 - 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being
very important, the greatest needs in Dublin over the next 5 to 10 years could be: City parks and open
space (4.4), trail and pathway connectivity (4.4), and improved amenities (4.1). A second tier of
importance included youth and teen programs (3.8), indoor multi-use facility (3.8), athletic fields and
courts (3.8), and cultural activities and events (3.8).
Figure 28: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities - Random Sample Respondents
Page | 34
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Open link respondents indicated the greatest needs in Dublin over the next 5 to 10 years to be: City
parks and open space (4.1), trail and pathway connectivity (4.1), improved amenities (4.0), and youth and
teen programs (4.0). A second tier of importance included indoor multi-use facility (3.8) and athletic
fields and courts (3.7).
Figure 31: Usage of Current Facilities and Amenities - Open Link Respondents
Page | 35
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Analyses
Recreation Programming and Services
The Department provides a variety of programs and services to the community. These include:
•Aquatic Programs
•Community Events and Festivals
•Cultural and Special Events
•Family Programs
•Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs
•Preschool Programs
•Recreational Activities
•Senior Programs
•Sport Programs
The Department also operates a number of facilities that provide programs and are also available for
rentals. These include:
•Dublin Civic Center
•Dublin Heritage Park and Museums
•Dublin Public Library
•Dublin Senior Center
•Shannon Community Center
•Stager Gymnasium
•Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatics Complex (The Wave)
In general, random sample respondents from the survey are quite satisfied with parks, recreation
facilities, events, and programs/services. Parks received the highest average rating (4.3 out of 5.0) with
facilities (4.1) following. Events and programs were reported with the lowest satisfaction (4.0), but the
average is still moderately high with few respondents stating negative opinions. Open link respondents
were similar in rankings, but slightly less satisfied in all categories.
Figure 34: Satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services
Page | 36
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Program Development
Defining and prioritizing core services in the delivery of parks and recreation programs will allow the City
of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department to improve these areas while developing strategies
to assist in the delivery of secondary services. The basis of determining core services should come from
the vision and mission developed by the City and what brings the greatest community benefit in balance
with the competencies of the department, current trends, and the market.
The Department should pursue program development around the priorities identified by customer
feedback, program evaluation process, research, and should proactively seek offerings to represent the
diverse cultures and ethnicities of Dublin. The following criteria should be examined when developing
new programs:
•Need: outgrowth of a current popular program, or enough demonstrated demand to successfully
support a minimal start (one class for instance)
•Budget: accounting for all costs and anticipated (conservative) revenues should meet cost
recovery target established by the Department
•Location: appropriate, available, and within budget
•Instructor: qualified, available, and within budget
•Materials and supplies: available and within budget
•Marketing effort: adequate and timely opportunity to reach intended market, within budget
(either existing marketing budget or as part of new program budget)
Research into the types of programming desired by the community needs to be conducted regularly.
Successful programs utilize continuous creative assessments, research, and planning. The Department
has a process to evaluate the outcomes of current program offerings and a criterion to determine if new
program ideas should be implemented, or if changes should be made to current programs. Staff should
ensure this process is used frequently to maintain successful programming.
Moreover, new leisure and recreation trends may drive different needs. It is very easy to focus on
programs that have worked for a number of years, especially if they are still drawing enough interested
Page | 37
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
participants to justify the programs continuation. Starting new programs based on community demand
and/or trends can be risky due to the inability to predict their success. If the program interest seems
high, as with those identified in the citizen survey, then the programs should be expanded. Availability
of space may hinder new or expanded opportunities in some cases.
Using historical participation levels to determine program popularity and participant feedback can be
helpful in deciding if programs should be continued. In addition, utilizing citizen surveys and participant
feedback, and researching trends in park and recreational programming are useful tools in determining
future programming needs and desires. Sources for trends information include:
•State Parks and Recreation Associations and Conferences
•National Recreation and Parks Association
•Parks and Recreation Trade Publications
Key Level of Service (LOS) Findings
This section describes the process and findings used to provide an inventory and level of service analysis
for the City of Dublin. The inventory was conducted in May 2019. It is synthesized into numerous
sections that provide a breakdown for Dublin's existing parks and recreation system. The goal is to
provide future recommendations for park and facility development.
The process for outlining and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the existing parks and
recreation system includes:
1.A description of existing park classification types along with an accompanying inventory.
2.A level of service analysis which analyzes Dublin's existing inventory and compares to a national
metric. This level of service analysis also measures the existing facility inventory to Dublin's
standards set by the 2015 Master Plan.
3.A gap analysis showing the existing geographic areas of Dublin currently underserved by the
existing parks system.
4.An existing park/facility evaluation. This evaluation is a rating with respect to safety, condition,
and maintenance for the facility. An evaluation was made by LandDesign for each of the existing
parks within Dublin’s system.
The full Inventory and Level of Service Report can be found in
Appendix B.
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
LOS analysis is a commonly used method to examine how well
a community's park and recreation needs are being met
through a comparison to metrics of the nation, the state, and
comparable municipalities. The LOS analysis is used in
conjunction with other types of information gathered in the
Master Planning process, such as staff and public input,
demographic analysis, trends, and observations to provide a
clearer understanding of each community's needs.
Page | 38
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Population size can be an important factor for
assessing park and recreational needs.
Traditionally, park and recreation analyses have
been based on the ratio of parkland provided to
population (i.e. 5 acres/1,000 people). Dublin’s
2015 Master Plan establishes a goal of five acres
of parkland per 1,000 residents for the purposes
of assessing its public facility fee for parkland
acquisition and improvement. Based on the
Dublin parks and recreation system analysis,
Dublin's population is expected to grow to 79,726
residents by 2028. For comparison, Dublin is in a
category of other cities with populations between 50,000 to 99,000 residents.
Referencing the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA) data benchmarking, on average,
similarly sized jurisdictions often have 8.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Currently, Dublin ranks
below the lower quartile in comparable cities according to available NRPA resources. If all proposed
parks are built by the year 2028, Dublin will still rank significantly lower than the lower quartile for a
population of 79,726 residents. The City currently has 24 improved parks that total 237.04 acres,
representing approximately 3.27 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Capacity analysis benchmarking
indicates there is a need for more parkland now and for the future as the City's population continues to
grow. It is important to note these numbers do not include all the open space residents have access to,
such as school parks and regional parks, which are provided by others.
Page | 39
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
LOS for Park Facilities - National and Dublin
Another level of service assessment compares the availability of facilities (i.e. playgrounds and fields) to
national (NRPA) and other cities with similar populations. In the LOS Facility Chart below (Table 5), it is
apparent Dublin exceeds the standards for baseball and softball fields. Facilities that fall below the
metrics include soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts and other sports fields. As future parks
within development areas come online, the facility type and composition for each park should be
reviewed to ensure the needs of the community are being and will be met (see Table 6).
Table 5: Current Dublin Facility Supply as Compared to NRPA and City Metrics
CURRENT
DUBLIN FACILITY SUPPLY AS COMPARED TO NRPA AND CITY METRICS
CITY OF DUBLIN GUIDELINES *Based on the 2015 Master Plan Standards/Current Population
FACILITY TYPE CURRENT SUPPLY
(Number of Facilities)
RECOMMENDED # FACILITIES/
RESIDENTS PER CITY OF DUBLIN
METRICS
CURRENT SURPLUS /DEFICIT
(Number of Facilities)
Soccer Field 16 1 per 3,500 -4.74
Baseball/Softball Field 18 1 per 9,350 10.24
Tennis Court 20 1 per 2,700 -6.88
Basketball Court 13 1 per 4,300 -3.88
Cricket Field 2 1 per 40,000 0.19
Volleyball Court 9 1 per 17,000 4.73
NRPA GUIDELINES *Based on the current population
FACILITY TYPE CURRENT SUPPLY
(Number of Facilities)
RECOMMENDED # FACILITIES/
RESIDENTS PER NRPA
METRICS
CURRENT SURPLUS /DEFICIT
(Number of Facilities)
Soccer Field 16 1 per 19,000 12.18
Baseball/Softball Field 18 1 per 7,500 8.32
Tennis Court 20 1 per 5,500 6.80
Basketball Court 13 1 per 8,570 4.53
Volleyball Court 9 1 per 19,800 5.33
Trails – All Classes *26.26 miles *11 miles/jurisdiction *15.26 miles
Playgrounds 25 1 per 4,000 6.85
Swimming Pools 2 1 per 50,800 0.57
Community Centers 4 1 per 50,600 2.57
Senior Centers 1 1 per 69,100 -0.05
Recreation Centers 2 1 per 44,300 0.36
Amphitheater 3 1 per 62,600 1.84
Skate/BMX Park 2 1 per 62,300 0.83
Dog Parks 2 1 per 24,500 -0.96
Historic Cemetery 1 N/A N/A
The chart above compares the number of facilities currently within the Dublin parks and recreation
system. These tables also compare the number of facilities currently within the Dublin parks and
recreation system to national averages determined by the NRPA for a jurisdiction with a population
between 50,000 and 99,999.
Page | 40
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Table 6: Future 2028 Dublin Facility Supply as Compared to NRPA and City Metrics
2028
DUBLIN FACILITY SUPPLY AS COMPARED TO NRPA AND CITY METRICS
CITY OF DUBLIN GUIDELINES *Based on the 2015 Master Plan Based on Build Out Population (79,726)
FACILITY TYPE CURRENT
SUPPLY
(# of Facilities)
FACILITIES
CURRENTLY
PLANNED
FUTURE
TOTAL
RECOMMENDED # FACILITIES/
RESIDENTS PER CITY OF
DUBLIN METRICS
2028 SURPLUS
/DEFICIT
(# of Facilities)
Soccer Field 16 3 19 1 per 3,500 -3.78
Baseball/Softball Field 18 0 18 1 per 9,350 9.47
Tennis Court 20 8 28 1 per 2,700 -1.53
Basketball Court 13 5 18 1 per 4,300 -0.54
Cricket Field 2 0 2 1 per 40,000 0.01
Volleyball Court 9 0 9 1 per 17,000 4.31
NRPA GUIDELINES *Based on Build Out Population (79,726)
FACILITY TYPE CURRENT
SUPPLY
(# of Facilities)
FACILITIES
CURRENTLY
PLANNED
FUTURE
TOTAL
RECOMMENDED # FACILITIES/
RESIDENTS PER NRPA
METRICS
2028 SURPLUS
/DEFICIT
(# of Facilities)
Soccer Field 16 3 19 1 per 19,000 14.80
Baseball/Softball Field 18 0 18 1 per 7,500 7.37
Tennis Court 20 8 28 1 per 5,500 13.50
Basketball Court 13 5 18 1 per 8,570 8.70
Volleyball Court 9 0 9 1 per 19,800 4.97
Trails – All Classes *26.26 miles *11 miles/jurisdiction *15.26 miles
Playgrounds 25 7 32 1 per 4,000 12.07
Swimming Pools 2 0 2 1 per 50,800 0.43
Community Centers 4 1 5 1 per 50,600 3.42
Senior Centers 1 0 1 1 per 69,100 -0.15
Recreation Centers 2 1 3 1 per 44,300 1.20
Amphitheater 3 1 4 1 per 62,600 2.73
Skate/BMX Park 2 0 2 1 per 62,300 0.72
Dog Parks 2 2 4 1 per 24,500 0.75
Historic Cemetery 1 0 1 N/A N/A
The chart above compares the number of facilities currently within the Dublin parks and recreation
system. Additionally, this table compares the number of facilities currently within the Dublin parks and
recreation system to national averages determined by the NRPA for a jurisdiction with a population
between 50,000 and 99,999. Dublin’s population is expected to grow to 79,726 people by 2028.
Table 7: City of Dublin Acreage Guidelines
DUBLIN FACILITY SUPPLY AS COMPARED TO CITY METRICS
CITY OF DUBLIN GUIDELINES *Based on the 2015 Master Plan Guideline of 5 Acres/1,000 Persons
CURRENT PARK
SUPPLY*
FUTURE
PARKS**
SCHOOL PARKS* OPEN
SPACE*
TOTAL***
Acres 237.04 116.84 113.24 121.00 588.12
Acres/1,000 Residents 3.27 1.47 1.56 1.67 7.38
*Current park supply was calculated through GIS inventory and is a summation of Table 1. Park supply table was populated
using the 2020 population of 72,589.
**Future park and total supply were calculated by the 79,726-population projection for Dublin’s build-out.
***Total acreage/1,000 residents calculated using Dublin’s full-buildout population of 79,726.
Page | 41
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
GAP/ LOS ANALYSIS:
The Existing and Future Facility Map illustrates the gaps in service and park access. Parks are considered accessible if they lie within the level of service area,
an area overlaying a quarter-mile buffer around each of the existing parks and trails within Dublin's system (Figure 25). In this way, populations not served
by the existing system could be illuminated. Through this analysis, GreenPlay found the current underserved communities are predominantly in the
peripheral areas of Dublin. Many of these gaps are made smaller because of the joint use facilities and trails, and new park development and opportunities
should be sought in areas of high population growth and/with service gaps areas.
Figure 37: Existing and Future Facility Map
Page | 42
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 40: Existing and Future Facilities - GAP Analysis
Page | 43
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 43: Park Classifications per ½ Mile and ¼ Mile Buffer
Page | 44
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Future Planned Parks Analysis Map (Figure 29) illustrates that many planned parks will begin to resolve some of the gaps in the currently underserved areas
of Dublin.
Figure 46: Park Classifications Map Displaying Unserved Areas
Page | 45
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Figure 49: Future Planned Parks for Dublin
Page | 46
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Comparative Analysis
Comparative analysis (benchmarking) is an important tool that allows for comparison of certain
attributes of the Department's assets and facilities. This process creates a deeper understanding of
facilities provided to the community, Dublin's place in the market, and varying amenities and facilities,
which may be used to enhance and improve the service delivery of parks and recreation. It is very
difficult to find exact comparable communities because each has its own unique identity, ways of
conducting business, and differences in the populations that it serves. The political, social, economic,
and physical characteristics of each community make the policies and practices of each park and
community services agency unique.
Additionally, agencies do not typically define the expenditures of parks, trails, facilities, and
maintenance the same way. Agencies also vary in terms of how they organize their budget information,
and it may be difficult to assess whether the past year's expenses are typical for the community.
Therefore, it is important to take all data in a benchmarking comparison within context, realizing while
benchmarking can be a great comparative tool; it doesn't lend itself into being a decision-making tool.
For the purposes of this study, a regional approach was taken to benchmark neighboring agencies with
similar populations. Figure 30 shows the locations of these agencies:
1.Dublin
2.Danville
3.Pleasanton
4.San Ramon
2
4
1
3
Figure 52: Neighboring agencies with similar populations
Page | 47
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Table 8: 2021 Jurisdiction Comparisons by General Recreation and Park Components
Benchmarking Areas Dublin Danville Pleasanton San Ramon
Population 72,589 43,582 81,717 84,605
Total Number of Parks 24 13 49 57
Number of Swimming Pools 2 2 1 2
Total Mileage of Trails 26.26 27.2 23.86** 18.0
Number of Community Centers 3 3 2 4
Total Parkland Acreage 237.04 278 1,437 377
* Population data for other agencies was provided by Dublin from the 2020 Census.
**For purposes of this comparison, we have deleted the golf course.
The agencies ranged in population from approximately 43,582 to 84,605 residents. Dublin, at 72,589
people, had the second lowest population out of those compared. San Ramon was the most populous at
84,605.
Table 9: Park Acreage Comparison
Benchmarking Areas Dublin Danville Pleasanton San Ramon
Total Number of Parks 24 13 49 57
Total Parkland Acreage 237.04 278 1,437 377
Total Park Acres/1,000 Residents 3.27 6.38 17.59 4.46
Summary of Benchmarking
•Dublin, at 72,589 people, had the second lowest population.
•Dublin has the second lowest number of parks.
•Dublin has the lowest acreage for parks.
•Dublin has the second highest total miles of trails.
Page | 48
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Funding
Current Circumstances
Review of the Parks and Community Services Departments budgets over the last five years reveal
significant fluctuation in revenues and expenses. These fluctuations are due to the opening of The Wave
in May 2017, and then subsequent impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic. As the Parks and Community
Services Department continues to adapt and adjust due to prolonged budgetary impacts related to
Covid-19, an emphasis should be placed on minimizing the ongoing general fund subsidy and meeting or
exceeding budgeted revenues and expense goals.
Cost Recovery
The Department currently has an approved pricing policy of 65% cost recovery (expenses to revenue) as
adopted by the City Council. A more detailed cost recovery strategy would allow the Department to
address long-term fiscal sustainability. Implementing a more robust cost recovery philosophy and policy
also allows agencies to demonstrate they are accountable for, and are responsible with, resources.
Sustainable financial positions can be developed using cost recovery methods. Information can be used
to make data-based decisions and allow for an organization to keep tax dollars in place to support
mission-based services and programs. Additionally, during the master planning process, GreenPlay
conducted a cost recovery workshop using the Pyramid Methodology. This is a state-of-the-industry
process for establishing the benefit of programs and services provided by the department. The
methodology then allows the department to establish cost recovery goals based on benefit provided
and not revenue generated. A sample of the Pyramid is shown in Figure 32.
Table 10: Parks and Community Services Five-Year Cost Recovery Analysis*
Fiscal Year 2016-17
Actual
2017-18
Actual
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Actual
2020-21
Actual
2021-22
Adopted
Cost Recovery 47% 64% 69% 49% 25% 39%
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
2016-17 Actuals 2017-18 Actuals 2018-19 Actuals 2019-20 Actuals 2020-21 Actuals 2021-22 Adopted
Expenses Revenues GF Subsidy
Figure 55: Five-Year Operating Expense-Revenue Analysis
Page | 49
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
The City calculates cost recovery based on Parks and Community Services costs including programs,
classes, events, and administration. The chart above does not include budgets for Human Services,
Library Services, or Public Art. Over the five-year review, these budgets have changed between
inclusion in the Parks and Community Services Department and non-departmental. Since City Council
February 2018 adoption of the Fiscal Sustainability Task Force recommendation of a 65% cost recovery
goal, the Parks and Community Services Department came close, achieved, or was on track to meet
the stated cost recovery goal. This goal, along with a more robust cost recovery policy and long-term
fiscal sustainability, should be at the forefront of the Department’s budget planning. This is especially
important related to the Covid-19 pandemic and budget impacts that began in Fiscal Year 2019-20 and
are carrying through Fiscal Year 2021-22 and possibly beyond.
Figure 32: The Pyramid Methodology
Page | 50
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Services Assessment
Currently, the department uses an informal process for evaluating the delivery of programs and services
to the public. By formalizing the process by which the department regularly evaluates those services it
provides during a given year, more effective use of resources can be achieved. Figure 33 below
illustrates how four criteria - Fit, Tax Support, Market Position, and Alternative Coverage - can help
determine whether a program or service should be continued, modified, or divested from by the
Department.
Figure 33: GreenPlay LLC's Service Assessment Matrix
Page | 51
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Summary of Key Findings
Generally, findings from the public input process consistently identified an appreciation of existing
facilities, programs, and services being offered by the City of Dublin.
Key issues were identified using several tools including review of existing plans and documents, focus
groups, stakeholder meetings, a community survey, inventory, and level of service analysis. The
information gathered from these sources was evaluated and recommendations were developed that
address these key issues and recurring themes:
•Develop Non-Traditional Athletic Spaces (Cricket, Pickleball, Badminton)
•Increased Programs for 12- to 25-Year-Olds
•Physically connect East and West Dublin
•Enhanced Utilization of Facilities and Spaces
•Develop Non-traditional Recreation Programming (Pop-up Activities, Traveling Art)
•Increase Indoor Multi-Use Facility
•Need for Cultural Arts Center
•Improved Communication, Marketing, and Advertising
•Incorporate Existing Plans and Projects
•More Multi-Generational, Arts, and Cultural Programs
•Connectivity, Safe Ways to Bike/Walk Across Town
•Benchmark Facility Rental Process and Rates
•Public Art is Valued by the Community
•Review Cost Recovery Policy and Philosophy
•Need for more Outdoor Gathering / Social Spaces (Dog Parks, Outdoor Fitness)
A Summary Key Issues Matrix was provided as a staff resource document and is shown in Figure 34 on
page 51.
Page | 52
Figure 34: Summary of Key Issues Matrix
Page | 53
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Recommendations and Action Plan
Residents and community leaders are increasingly recognizing parks and recreation facilities, programs,
and services are essential to creating and maintaining communities where people want to live, work,
play, socialize, recreate, learn, and visit. These amenities should be investments in the long- term vitality
and economic sustainability of any active and desirable community. The City of Dublin Parks and
Community Services Department is committed to providing comprehensive, high-quality parks,
programs, facilities, and services to the community.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the entirety of the Master Plan study, which was
inclusive of members of the community. The public was given many opportunities to participate through
focus groups, stakeholder meetings, public meetings, an invitation needs assessment survey, and an
open link needs assessment survey. A Level of Service (LOS) analysis and funding analysis were also
conducted.
This section describes ways to enhance the level of service and the quality of life with implementable
actions through improved parks, services, facilities, programs, amenities, a dedication to customer
service, improved programming and service delivery, organizational efficiencies, and increased financial
opportunities.
Recommendations, including specific goals and objectives, have been categorized into the four focus
areas:
•Focus Area #1 - Facilities and Amenities
•Focus Area #2 - Program and Service Delivery
•Focus Area #3 - Organizational Efficiency
•Focus Area #4 - Finance
The primary focus is maintaining, sustaining, and improving the City of Dublin’s parks, facilities,
programs, and services. Funding availability and political and community support will play significant
roles in future planning efforts.
Timeframe to complete is designated as:
•Short-term (up to 3 years)
•Mid-term (4-6 years)
•Long-term (7-10 years)
•Ongoing (occurs on a continuous basis)
Page | 54
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
GOAL 1: Add New and Improve Existing Infrastructure and Amenities
Objective 1.1: Continue to maintain and improve existing facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces.
Maintenance of facilities and amenities should be a priority. The Department should continue to
work with Public Works to monitor the condition of existing parks, trails and pathways, and facilities,
as these facilities have been identified by residents as being of high importance. Maintenance projects
and annual maintenance needs should be funded on a regular schedule to address the aging
infrastructure. Priorities for future maintenance projects for these areas should be developed and
reviewed regularly.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.1.a Develop capital improvement plans, costs,
and phasing recommendations and
implementation plans based on annual
inspection reports.
Staff time Staff Time Short-Term
1.1.b Develop a Deferred Maintenance plan
using the inventory from the 2022 Parks
and Recreation Master Plan, and
evaluation of amenities, to fix items
needing immediate attention in parks.
(FY 2023-24).
Varies based
on existing
budget and
new projects
Staff time -
working with
Public Works
Short-Term
1.1.c As parks are renovated and new parks
are built, utilize drought tolerant plants
and ground cover to limit the need for
irrigation.
Varies based
on budget
allocation
Staff time -
working with
Public Works
Mid-Term
1.1.d Implement monthly inspections of all
facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces. N/A Staff time Ongoing
Objective 1.2: Explore improving/adding bike paths and walking trails.
Walking and biking connectivity were identified as a high priority during the engagement process.
Based on trends and demand, the City should look for opportunities to improve/add bike paths and
walking trails. The City should invest in continuing to acquire lands in and around Camp Parks that
could provide a northern connection between east and west Dublin. Utilize the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan for additional recommendations.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.2.a Work with the Planning and Public Works
Departments to implement Bicycle and
Pedestrian paths, based on the Bike/Ped
Plan, as road improvements occur.
(FY2022-2027)
Costs are
outlined in the
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Master Plan
Staff Time Long-term
1.2.b Ensure all capital construction roadway
and corridor projects use a Complete
Streets methodology to guarantee bicycle
and pedestrian mobility.
TBD Staff Time Long-Term
Page | 55
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
1.2.c Continue to work with partners to
improve existing trails and increase
parkland (Iron Horse Nature Park and
Open Space).
Costs are
established in
the CIP
Staff Time Short-Term
Objective 1.3: Explore adding parks, open spaces, and natural areas.
The Department should continue to look for opportunities to add open spaces and work to
preserve natural areas. Access and use should focus on environmental protection and education,
as well as passive recreation.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.3.a Continue to look for opportunities to add
open space and work to preserve natural
areas. Include “preserved (natural) open
space” in the park inventory and GIS
database.
TBD Additional
Staff Time Ongoing
1.3.b Continue to develop park space as new
development occurs to maintain the City’s
minimum 5 acres/1,000 residents
standard.
TBD Additional
Staff Time Ongoing
Objective 1.4: Develop additional or repurpose existing indoor recreational facilities and
amenities.
An existing priority for Dublin residents, expressed during this study, is the need for additional
indoor facilities and amenities. Both the focus group participants and stakeholder interviews
indicated a lack of space to expand programming, that existing spaces were too general to conduct
diverse programs, and there was a perceived lack of rental space for private functions.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.4.a Explore opportunities to add indoor
programming space by reviewing current
program schedules and determining if
additional time is available based on
usage and availability.
TBD Staff Time Ongoing
1.4.b Explore opportunities to renovate existing
indoor spaces to accommodate more
specialized programs and activities. TBD Staff Time Ongoing
1.4.c Once the Cultural Arts Center is complete,
utilize classroom space in the new center
for programming. Staff Time Staff Time Mid-Term
Page | 56
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Objective 1.5: Develop additional outdoor recreational facilities and amenities.
Continue to explore renovation and repurposing of existing facility spaces to meet demand and
increase outdoor programming opportunities. A desire for creating gathering spaces in the
community was expressed by the public. Focus group participants and survey respondents
indicated the installation of shade structures would increase their usage of outdoor facilities.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.5.a Continue to look for opportunities to
renovate or repurpose existing outdoor
space to meet the demand for non-
traditional athletics (cricket, pickleball,
futsal, and badminton).
Estimates:
Futsal - $25K
Cricket - $10K
Staff Time Ongoing
1.5.b Create outdoor gathering spaces to
bring the community together.
Examples
include Downtown Square, dog parks,
and outdoor fitness/exercise areas.
Costs will vary
based on
project and
location
Staff Time Mid-Term
1.5.c Look for opportunities to add shade
structures at existing and future
playgrounds and gathering spaces.
Costs will vary
based on
project and
location
Staff Time Ongoing
1.5.d Develop non-traditional sports facilities
such as cricket, pickleball and futsal.
Costs are
established in
the CIP
Staff time Short-Term
1.5.e Add outdoor fitness equipment in one or
more locations.
Estimate $5K
per piece - 8
piece station
$40K
Staff Time Mid-Term
Objective 1.6: Develop the planned, new Cultural Arts Center.
The City has begun the process of converting the existing Police Services Building into a Cultural
Arts Center. Utilizing existing needs assessment and feasibility studies, A Cultural Arts Center has
been designed to meet the needs of survey respondents. Survey respondents indicated their
priorities for use of the space would be a performance and event space, art classrooms, music
classrooms, and an art gallery space. The new Cultural Arts Center is scheduled to open in 2023.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.6.a Renovate the Police Services Building into
a Cultural Arts Center. Funding currently
exists in the FY 2020-25 CIP.
$11,797,035
based on
current CIP
Staff Time Short-Term
Objective 1.7: Continue adding Public Art in parks and recreational facilities.
The Department currently has a Public Art Program. Along with the update of the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, the Public Art Master Plan was also updated as part of this process and
approved in June 2020. Most survey respondents (87%) supported continuing the Public Art
Program.
Page | 57
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
1.7.a Continue to look for opportunities to add
Public Art in parks and public spaces.
Consider parks on the west side of Dublin
where public art is currently lacking. The
Public Art Master Plan provides guidance
for selection and implementation.
Costs will vary
based on
specific project
and location.
Staff Time Short-Term
GOAL 2: Continue to Improve Programs, Service Delivery, and Affordability
Objective 2.1: Continue to monitor the participation and usage of programs, facilities, and
services and make appropriate adjustments based on collected data.
The Department should continue to conduct regular facility and participation counts for programs,
facilities, and services to determine usage by residents and non-residents. Evaluate the feasibility
of continuing current programs or changing program offerings to better utilize available resources.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.1.a Track attendance and participation
numbers to determine the impact of the
facilities and programs. N/A Staff Time Ongoing
2.1.b Conduct program evaluations at the end
of each session to determine
participants' level of satisfaction and
direct appropriate programming changes
or adjustments.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
2.2.c Proactively recruit instructors and
intentionally seek class offerings that
represent the diverse cultures and
ethnicities in Dublin.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Objective 2.2: Enhance special event programming.
As identified by focus groups and survey respondents, expanding opportunities, and enhancing
special event programming was identified as a priority. The Department should continue to look
for opportunities to expand community events and cultural activities based on community demand
and trends.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.2.a The Department should work with other
service providers to explore new special
events, possibly themed by the
community or season of the year.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Page | 58
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Objective 2.3: Explore opportunities to increase programming and service delivery based on
community demand and trends.
Focus group participants and survey respondents expressed a desire to increase recreational
programming and services. They identified youth, teens, seniors, and specifically participants
between the ages of 12 and 25.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.3.a Use the Parks and Community Services
Commission, and the Youth and Senior
Advisory Committees, to continue to
evaluate the current level of
programming.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
2.3.b Expand program opportunities for
multi-generational, arts and culture,
fitness/wellness, outdoor recreation, and
environmental programs.
N/A Staff Time Short-Term
2.3.c Consider alternative ways to bring
programming to the community such as
pop-up and mobile recreation. N/A Staff Time Ongoing
2.3.d As new programs and services are
developed and implemented, continue to
create a balance between passive and
active recreation.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Objective 2.4: Continue to monitor affordability of programs and services.
As the popularity of program offerings and activities increase, the Department should look for
opportunities to expand and enhance programs and services that are affordable to the community.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
2.4.a Monitor resource allocation, spending,
and cost recovery associated with
program and services.
Annually perform a detailed study of the
costs associated with each program and
service.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Page | 59
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
GOAL 3: Continue to Improve Organizational Efficiencies
Objective 3.1: Improve departmental marketing and communication and grow the identity of
Department programs and events.
The City has adopted a brand as the New American Backyard. The Department should continue to
promote and grow the New American Backyard brand. Increase the avenues used to promote the
New American Backyard brand through expanded social media postings, additional giveaways, and
increased signage.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget
Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
3.1.a Continue to evaluate the Department's
Marketing Plan to improve awareness
and communication with the community
by using a mixed methods approach to
reach diverse users.
N/A Staff Time Short-Term
Objective 3.2: Enhance and improve external communication regarding Department activities,
programs, and services to increase community awareness.
The Department utilizes several effective marketing tools and strategies actively promoting
parks and recreation services in the community. These tools include, but are not limited to,
Activity Guide, Newsletters, posters/flyers, City website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and
email. Focus group attendees expressed concerns about the facility rental process.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
3.2.a Continue to evaluate and refine
marketing strategies to reach diverse
users based on target markets and
consider investment in technology and
social media.
N/A Staff Time Short-Term
3.2.b Continue to monitor new facility
reservation module. Seek further input
from users to improve the process and
make easier to utilize.
N/A Staff Time Short-Term
3.2.c Enhance efforts to inform Dublin
residents how to submit requests for
additional classes that are reflective of
the City’s diversity.
N/A Staff Time Short- Term
Page | 60
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
GOAL 4: Increase Financial Opportunities
Objective 4.1: Explore additional funding options.
As the City considers funding responsibilities for parkland acquisition, development and
maintenance, several funding opportunities are available to the City of Dublin, such as State and
Federal grants.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.1.a Review annual grant opportunities from
Land and Water Conservation Funds, the
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
Program, Safe Routes to Schools, and
other County, State, and Federal Grant
programs and apply accordingly.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
4.1.b Continue to seek alternative funding from
donations. Set annual donation goals and
bring awareness of goals to the
community.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Objective 4.2: Review current program and rental fees.
The Department should review current program and rental fees to ensure they are equitable, and
the fees are resulting in the appropriate cost recovery. A further refined cost recovery philosophy
and policy would provide a model to set fees and appropriately allocate resources.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.2.a Develop and utilize a tiered cost recovery
model that creates financial sustainability
and the framework for developing
program budgets.
N/A Staff Time Short-Term
4.2.b Continue to monitor revenues and
expenses for programs and rental fees to
ensure the department is meeting goals
set by the City Council adopted Master
Fee Schedule.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
4.2.c Develop and set rental fees based on
amenities, facility size, and user group
definition. N/A Staff Time Short-Term
Page | 61
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Objective 4.3: Explore capital funding opportunities and implement existing plans.
Funds have been allocated for capital improvements for various park and recreation facility
upgrades, renovations, and developments through the 2020 – 2025 Capital Improvement Program.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.3.a Pursue funding opportunities that were
identified by the consultant for long
range implementation.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
4.3.b Capital funds for FY2020-2025 have been
identified and appropriated for current
needs identified in this Master Plan. These
identified projects should be
accomplished in their scheduled time
frame.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Objective 4.4: Explore opportunities to increase sponsorships.
The Department should continue to explore additional sponsorship arrangements for special
events and activities.
Actions Capital Cost
Estimate
Operational
Budget Impact
Timeframe to
Complete
4.4.a Develop an annual sponsorship campaign
that targets large corporations with like
values. N/A Staff Time Ongoing
4.4.b Communicate regularly with existing
sponsors and donors to partnerships and
accurately portray all benefits with signed
sponsorship agreements.
N/A Staff Time Ongoing
Page | 62
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Page | 63
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX A:
Survey Report
City of Dublin 2019 Parks and Recreation
Survey
Final Report
Page | 64
INTRO, METHODOLOGY & KEY FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CURRENT PARTICIPATION
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND PROGRAMS
COMMUNICATION AND VISION
SUGGESTIONS
VALUES AND VISION
Page | 65
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was
to gather community feedback
on the City of Dublin’s facilities,
programs, trails, future
planning, public art,
communication, and more.
This survey research effort and
subsequent analysis were
designed to assist the City of
Dublin in developing a plan to
reflect the community’s needs
and desires.
3
Page | 66
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1) a mailed survey to 3,500
households in Dublin, 2) an online, password protected invitation website, 3) an
open link survey for all other residents who were not included in invitation sample.
Invitation respondents were given a unique password to participate through the
online survey. Approximately two weeks after arriving at mailboxes, the open link
survey was made available to all residents who did not receive an invitation survey.
Results are kept separate to maintain the statistical validity of the invitation
sample. The invitation sample contains 324 completed surveys (margin of error:
5.4%) with the open link closing with 119 completed surveys.
For the analysis herein, the results will primarily focus on the invitation sample. The
results for the open link sample are provided and compared throughout the report;
however, the results for the invitation survey are only results considered
statistically-valid.
4
Page | 67
WEIGHTING THE DATA
The underlying data from the
invitation data were weighted by
age to ensure appropriate
representation of Dublin residents
across different demographic
cohorts in the sample.
Using U.S. Census Data, the age
distributions in the sample were
adjusted to more closely match the
population profile of Dublin.
Due to variable response rates by
some segments of the population,
the underlying results, while
weighted to best match the overall
demographics of residents, may not
be completely representative of
some sub-groups of the Dublin
population.
5
Page | 68
KEY FINDINGS
Dublin respondents highlighted community/neighborhood parks, the Dublin
Public Library, and trails and bikeways as most important to their household.
•Respondents keyed in on these three facilities as most important in both the invite and open link
samples; solidifying their importance across the larger spectrum of the overall community.
Satisfaction is generally high in most parks and recreation categories for
invitation respondents. Open link respondents are slightly less satisfied, but
more respondents are positive about all categories.
•Satisfaction for parks, facilities, programs, and events for invite respondents is quite high with all
categories receiving an average rating of at least 4.0. Open link respondents are slightly less
satisfied, but that finding is common in parks and recreation research.
Adult recreation programs, special events, aquatics facilities and programs,
and heritage and cultural arts programs are the four facilities/services that
are identified by the matrix for improvements.
•The above four facilities/programs are perceived as being higher than average importance, but
lower than average needs met. These could be areas of opportunities for Dublin to expand
and/or improve on in the future.
6
Page | 69
KEY FINDINGS
More programs/community events for recreation facilities and more shaded
areas for parks were identified to increase participation rates.
•Respondents identified these two top improvements that could be made for increasing their
participation rates of facilities and parks, respectively. Also highlighted were more/improved
restrooms for facilities and safer biking/walking connections for parks.
For the new Cultural Arts Center, respondents identified art classrooms, and
performance and event space as the two most desired additions for the
facility.
•Respondents also identified music classrooms and dance studios as top needs for the new
facility.
Open-ended comments praised Dublin for what it provides and offers for the
community. Specific park-improvements were suggested along with
additions for programs and new facilities.
•Overall, respondents commented on how impressed they were with Dublin’s ability to provide
high quality services and facilities. However, there are some areas of improvement indicated by
the open-ended comments.
7
Page | 70
DEMOGRAPHICS
Page | 71
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
9
Respondents are nearly split in identifying as male (46%) and female (54%). Of invitation respondent nearly
55% of households state they have kids in the home. Age, a weighted variable, displays a representation
equal to that of the U.S. Census estimates for Dublin. Results indicate the sample consists of a wide cross-
section of respondents from Dublin.
Page | 72
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
10
A portion of random sample and open link respondents identify as Hispanic / Latino / Spanish
origin (7% and 8%, respectively). The majority of random sample respondents identify as White
(45%) with Asian (44%), Black or African American (4%), and another race (7%) following in
selection (small sample size for open link respondents). Annual income skews high for random
and open link respondents.
Page | 73
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
11
Most invite respondents own their own home (81%) and 6% have a need for ADA-accessible
facilities and services. Approximately 41% of invite respondents have lived in Dublin for more
than 10 years, with 31% living in town between 4 –10 years. Open link results trend similar.
Page | 74
CURRENT PARTICIPATION
Page | 75
FAMILIARITY WITH PARKS AND RECREATION
13
Dublin invite respondents are moderately-to-mostly familiar (rating 3 or 4) with parks and
recreation facilities and services. About 54% of respondents rated their familiarity either a 4
or 5 (“very familiar), while 33% rated their familiarity 3 out of 5. Only 13% rated either a 1 or
2 out of 5. Open link respondents are more familiar than invite respondents overall.
Page | 76
FAMILIARITY BY AGE
14
By age, familiarity is strongest for those aged 45-54 with 39% rating their familiarity a 5 out of
5 (using both invite and open link samples). Those under 35 are least familiar with Dublin’s
parks and recreation services, with those 75 and older less familiar too. Households most
likely to be aged in the range to have children are more familiar than most other age ranges.
Page | 77
FAMILIARITY BY LENGTH OF TIME IN DUBLIN
15
When cross-tabbed by length of time in Dublin, respondents who have lived longer in the
community are more familiar with the parks and recreation services offered, a likely trend.
However, there may be room to further promote and on -board new residents to what is
offered in Dublin for parks and recreation activities and services. Those who have lived in
Dublin less than three years are much less likely to know what is offered.
Page | 78
USAGE OF FACILITIES/AMENITIES
16
The Dublin Public Library (70%), Emerald Glen Park (68%), and a variety of “other”
neighborhood / community parks (54%) are used most frequently in Dublin by invite
respondents. The Wave at Emerald Glen Park (39%), Fallon Sports Park (37%), and Shannon
Community Center (33%) follow in usage. Respondents from the open link are more likely to
participate/use nearly all facilities in the community, especially Fallon Sports Park.
Page | 79
MOST FREQUENT USAGE
17
When asked to choose the facility respondents use the most, Emerald Glen Park (25%) and
“Other” neighborhood / community parks (19%) rise to the top for invite respondents. Dublin
Public Library (15%) and Fallon Sports Park (15%) are close behind as the next two most used
facility/amenity for invite respondents. Open link respondents are much more likely to cite
the Fallon Sports Park (28%) as one their most commonly used facility.
Page | 80
INCREASING USAGE OF FACILITIES
18
Invite respondents would use recreation facilities more often if more programs/community
events (39%) were held, more or improved restrooms (31%) were utilized, better
condition/maintenance of facilities (28%), and lower pricing/user fees (27%) was addressed.
Open link respondents were more apt to say they desired lower pricing/user fees (34%) and
more facilities (28%) than invite respondents.
Page | 81
INCREASING USAGE OF PARKS
19
Invite respondents would use parks more frequently if there were more shaded areas (52%),
safer biking and walking routes/connections (35%), and more programs in parks (35%). Open
link respondents were similar, but had a higher response for increased/improved lighting (32%)
to encourage higher participation rates in parks.
Page | 82
CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES
Page | 83
SATISFACTION
21
In general, invite respondents are quite satisfied with parks, recreation facilities, events, and
programs/services. Parks received the highest average rating (4.3 out of 5.0) with facilities (4.1) following.
Events and programs were reported with the lowest satisfaction (4.0), but the average is still moderately
high with few respondents stating negative opinions. Open link respondents were similar in rankings, but
slightly less satisfied in all categories.
Page | 84
SATISFACTION BY AGE
22
By age, satisfaction tends to increase in older age ranges. The least satisfied age grouping are those aged
35-44 who reported lower ratings in nearly every category compared to other age groups. Those 65-74 had
the highest average satisfaction ratings compared to other groups. It appears that those who are most likely
to have young children may be the most critical in their satisfaction, which is commonly seen in other parks
and recreation studies too.
Page | 85
MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT OFFERINGS -INVITE
23
The most important facilities/services to invite respondents are neighborhood/community parks
(4.5) and the Dublin Public Library (4.4). Trails and bikeways (4.2) are a close third in terms of
importance. These three options are of much higher in importance for invite respondents.
Page | 86
MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT OFFERINGS –OPEN LINK
24
The most important facilities/services to open link respondents are neighborhood/community
parks (4.5) and the Dublin Public Library (4.3). Trails and bikeways (4.1) are a close third in
terms of importance for this group as well. Youth and teen programs are considerably more
important for open link respondents when compared to invite. The overall trend is similar
though.
Page | 87
NEEDS MET OF CURRENT OFFERINGS -INVITE
25
When asked how well these facilities are meeting the needs of Dublin, the Dublin Public Library (4.2),
Dublin Senior Center (4.1), and three tied at 4.0 (athletic fields, Shannon Community Center, and
Neighborhood/community parks) are best meeting the needs of Dublin for invite respondents. The facilities
that are least meeting the needs of invite respondents are non-traditional athletic fields and Stager Gym.
Page | 88
NEEDS MET OF CURRENT OFFERINGS –OPEN LINK
26
For open link respondents, the Dublin Public Library (4.2), athletic fields (3.9),
neighborhood/community parks (3.8), and Shannon Community Center (3.8) are most meeting
their needs. Senior programs (3.2) are least meeting the needs of this group, but they are also
not that important overall to open link respondents.
Page | 89
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX
27
High importance/
Low needs met High importance/
High needs met
Low importance/
Low needs met
Low importance/
High needs met
These amenities are important to most
respondents and should be maintained
in the future, but are less of a priority for
improvements as needs are currently
being adequately met.
These are key areas for potential
improvements. Improving these
facilities/programs would likely
positively affect the degree to which
community needs are met overall.
Current levels of support appear to be
adequate. Future discussions evaluating
whether the resources supporting these
facilities/programs outweigh the benefits
may be constructive.
These “niche” facilities/programs have a
small but passionate following, so
measuring participation when planning
for future improvements may prove to
be valuable.
Survey results from the previous questions are combined in a graphic illustration that shows the “importance” of
facilities on the Y-axis and the “needs met” ratings on the X-axis. As described below, these matrices provide a means
to evaluate potential priorities based on survey data.
Page | 90
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX (INVITE)
28
High importance / Low needs met
High importance / High needs met
Low importance / Low needs met Low importance / High needs met
Page | 91
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX (OPEN LINK)
29
High importance / Low needs met
High importance / High needs met
Low importance / Low needs met Low importance / High needs met
Page | 92
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES,
& PROGRAMS
Page | 93
31
GREATEST NEEDS IN DUBLIN -INVITE
Invite respondents
indicated the greatest
needs in Dublin over
the next 5 to 10 years
to be; City parks and
open space (4.4), trail
and pathway
connectivity (4.4) and
improved amenities
(4.1). A second tier of
importance included
youth and teen
programs (3.8), indoor
multi-use facility (3.8),
athletic fields and
courts (3.8), and
cultural activities and
events (3.8).
Page | 94
32
GREATEST NEEDS IN DUBLIN –OPEN LINK
Open link respondents
indicated the greatest
needs in Dublin over the
next 5 to 10 years to be;
City parks and open
space (4.1), trail and
pathway connectivity
(4.1) and improved
amenities (4.0), and
youth and teen
programs (4.0). A second
tier of importance
included indoor multi-
use facility (3.8) and
athletic fields and
courts (3.7).
Page | 95
FAMILIARITY WITH PUBLIC ART
33
Familiarity with public art in Dublin is split for both invite and open link respondents. About 49% of invite
respondents and 34% of open link respondents are “not at all familiar” or unfamiliar (rated 1 or 2), 24% of
invite and 31% of open link are somewhat familiar (rated 3 out of 5) and 24% of invite and 34% of open link
are familiar to very familiar (rated 4 or 5). Overall, familiarity is not as strong for public art as it is for
general parks and recreation facilities and services.
Page | 96
AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC/CULTURAL ART
34
Respondents were asked to state their agreement with four statements about public art in
Dublin. In general, invite respondents were positive for cultural and performance art. In all
categories, many more respondents were positive than negative on public art’s influence and
place within Dublin. Open link respondents had less overall support, but still had more
respondents agreeing than disagreeing with the statements on public art.
Page | 97
SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC ART
35
Despite individuals not being completely aware of public art, a majority of invite respondents
would support additional areas to display it in Dublin. About 57% of invite rated their support
either a 4 or 5, while 42% of open link said the same. Overall, open link respondents are
slightly more likely to not support public art, but they still represent a smaller share than those
that would support more areas.
Page | 98
SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC ART BY AGE
36
Support for public art varies slightly by age. In particular, younger age groups reported stronger
support than those older. Those under 45 years old had the strongest levels of support while
those 75 and older had the least support. Overall, more respondents in each age group
supported the idea than did not support it.
Page | 99
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER ACTIVITIES
37
When asked what
respondents would
like to see in the new
Cultural Arts Center,
invite and open link
respondents trended
similar. Art classrooms
(68% invite),
performance and
event space (66%
invite), and music
classrooms (59%
invite) were the top
three choices for both
groups.
Page | 100
COMMUNICATION
Page | 101
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS
39
Communication effectiveness was rated moderately high by both invite and open link
respondents. About 54% of invite and 51% of open link rated Dublin’s communication
effectiveness either a 4 or 5 out of 5. Only 19% of invite and 22% of open link rated the
communication as “ineffective” (1 or 2 out of 5).
Page | 102
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS BY AGE
40
When examined by age, those under 35 had the lowest rating of effectiveness overall with 33%
rating either 1 or 2 out of 5. Those 65-74 had the highest rating with 77% rating the
effectiveness either a 4 or 5. There may be opportunities to improve communication of parks
and recreation offerings with new/younger generations within the community.
Page | 103
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS
41
When asked which method of communication is best for the respondent, both the invite and
open link cited the activity guide/brochure (68% invite, 67% open link) and E -mail from the
City (58% invite, 73% open link) as the top two options. Open link respondents were more apt
to desire parks and recreation information via social media (54%) while newsletters were more
common for invite respondents (46%).
Page | 104
VALUES AND VISION
Page | 105
VALUES AND VISION
43
$
Invite respondents see Dublin’s parks and recreation providing the following top benefits for the community:
recreational experiences (82%), promoting health and wellness (75%), and strengthening community
image/sense of place (64%). Open link results were similar for most benefits/purposes of parks and
recreation.
Page | 106
SUGGESTIONS
Page | 107
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments about
parks and recreation facilities and programs, needs, and opportunities in Dublin. Prominent themes include
praise for what Dublin offers, a need to continue maintenance, specific individual park improvements, and a
need for more facilities/parks. Random selections of verbatim responses from all open-ended questions related
to each theme are shown in the slides to follow. A full listing of responses is provided in the appendix.
45
Do you have any further comments regarding facilities, activities, or services
provided by the Dublin Parks and Recreation Department?
Page | 108
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
PRAISE FOR CURRENT OFFERINGS
46
Thanks to the leadership for making Dublin a wonderful place. I
would recommend to please review the current ecological
situation before allowing any other houses construction.
We as a family are fond of parks & public spaces
that Dublin offers. We are in favor of green
Dublin city which is walkable, cyclable &
promotes beautification of city through local
businesses and artists. We heart Dublin
Dublin does a nice job of promoting their parks and rec
facilities.
Our use of many of Dublin's fine facilities are limited now that
our children are grown and live in other cities with their
children. We appreciate the efforts Dublin has made to have
parks in so many communities in our City.
Overall I think Dublin does good with their parks, recreation,
and programs. I wish they would have more shade at parks and
restrooms available. Dublin parks are a great place for kids.
Thank you for providing such fantastic
amenities already! The city clearly cares and
works hard to have accessible facilities and
programs. It is really impressive. I really look
forward to more outdoor space and think
partnerships with EBRPD and others would
be beneficial. Keep up the great work, and
thank you for making Dublin a special place
to live.
Page | 109
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
PARK-SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS
47
Please cut grass shorter and more often at all parks. Enforce
dogs on leashes. I can't say it enough. Thank you for asking the
people of Dublin for their opinion. It is greatly appreciated.
I would love to see a dog park on the east side
so we don't have to drive to Dougherty Hill dog
park.
Several parks don't have adequately clean public restroom. Also
these are few indoor facilities or shade areas for people during
summer. Availability for birthday party events is also limited.
The grass put in at Dougherty Dog park already
dead in some areas. It was a waste of money.
needs to be different ground cover. Also
maintenance has to be kept up.
I think we need an inexpensive family swim option -not all the bells and whistles of the Wave -still upset about
the closure of the city pool near DHS. I have to go to San Ramon for private swim lessons/family swimming. My
husband would like more tennis court options in W. Dublin.
Dublin has an abundance of parks to explore. We are looking forward to the updates and improvements at the City
Sports Park with the All Inclusion Park. We hope that is a grand addition and that many more renovations and
improvements are made to that area overall. We would like to see many more small child friendly facilities at the
Dublin Library. We'd also like to see more fun activities in general on the calendar at the library. It's a bit off putting
and disturbing that we see more Restraining Order Clinics than creative and fun activities for children. Page | 110
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES
48
We need to improve our soccer facilities to
encompass more fields and also Futsal courts.
Athletic courts in sport park are not balanced. Too many
softball courts and under used, while tennis courts are too
crowded!!
During the summer it's hot in Dublin during sunlight hours.
Suggest adding lights and offering after dark hours to same
parks like dog parks and kids parks
Please work harder to keep the Pioneer Cemetery cleaned &
maintained also Kolb house & surrounding buildings are in
need of better maintenance / repair.
Please finish developing the neighborhood
park close to Wallis Ranch (across the street
from Quarry Lane school). The “future
neighborhood park” sign has been up for 3
years already. would love to be able to use it!
Thank you!
I would want cleaner bathrooms at public parks and add more
charging stations for electric cars.
Page | 111
Page | 112
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Page | 113
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX B:
Existing P arks
Assessment
EXISTING DUBLIN PARKS
ASSESSMENT
The parks assessment was completed in 2019. Butterfly Knoll Park and Clover & Sunrise Parks
were not complete at the time of the assessment and are not included.
*Each park assessment lists opportunities, that if addressed, could improve the park. Many of
those items have been completed and are identified with an asterisk.
Page | 114
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
ALAMO CREEK PARK
5.3 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
7601 SHADY CREEK ROAD
INVENTORY:
Large informal field
•Public art
•Trail connection
•Basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
KEY FINDINGS:
Actively used park with various activities for all ages, picnic
OPPORTUNITIES:
I · Maintain or replace picnic tables due to graffiti*
area with three barbecue grills and picnic tables that seat •consider adding additional shaded seating areas
people under nice shady tree canopies. One advantage of this
park is that it serves as a trailhead to the Dublin trail system.
KEY FINDINGS:
BRAY COMMONS
4.8 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3300 FINNIAN WAY
INVENTORY:
•Dog run(20lbs.or unde0
•Volleyball court (grass)
•Multi-purpose field
•Excellent treesI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • Play equipment has sun damage
•Replace dried out ground cover planting
Plethora of shady trees along pathways and large central lawn
space with various amenities including a grassy volleyball
court embody this parks character. In addition to the park's
other amenities, Bray Commons also features various game
tables, including chess and checkers table tops. Dog run
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: playgrounds
for dogs 20 lbs. or under and various seating opportunities
peppered throughout the park add to the experience.
10/25/19 EXISTING CONDITIONS .l.......J Page | 115
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CA LIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Park services surrounding neighborhood and includes
a labyrinth and a water play area. Nice large trees along
pathways and ample space for children's play area are a nice
addition to this park. A lack of restroom facilities may present
an opportunity for enhancement.
KEY FINDINGS:
Excellent walking trail with break out fitness stations and
signage engage users within this park. Separate play areas
targeting different age groups, and large shade structure with
numerous picnic tables creates respite from the sun.
10/25/19
DEVANY SQUARE
2.0 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
4405 CHANCERY LANE
INVENTORY:
Large flexible space
Children's play area
Children's water play area
I OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Replace or maintain sun damaged playground equipment
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: unlit sports courts, and
additional non-competitive sports fields
DOLAN PARK
4.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
11651 PADRE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Shaded picnic shelter
•Hilly -not a lot of flat space for informal field
Large public art installation; 12' high x 14' long steel "arm"
Basketball court with lights
•Fitness equipment stationsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Outdoor fitness stations need attention
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: open multi-use areas
EXISTING CONDITIONS L....J Page | 116
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
One of two dog parks in Dublin, servicing both large and small
dog breeds in separate contained areas. Doggie drinking
fountain placed in either dog run and benches scattered
throughout provide a nice amenity for users.
KEY FINDINGS:
Large multi-functional park with historic buildings, lawns, a
historic cemetery, picnic areas, and various amenities embody
the character of this park. The vibrant landscape palette is
open to the public during daylight hours with a variety of
native planting and impressive trees. This park serves as the
home to classes, camps, events, and tours.
10/25/19
DOUGHERTY HILLS DOG PARK
1.4 ACRES
NEIGH BORHOOD PARK
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Large open lawn for dog exercise and interaction with
fencing for safety
•Recent public art installation
•Minimal plant variety
Doggie fountains in either dog runI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Lawn worn and dry, ensure irrigation reaches these areas
•Consider adding agility equipment, boulders, or mounds for
exercise variation
•Consider restroom facility for dog owners/ attendees as
funds become available
DUBLIN HERITAGE PARK &
MUSEUMS
10.0 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
6600 DONLON WAY
INVENTORY:
Planting in planters thriving, variety of ornamentals, nice
repetition of allee trees and grasses
•Shady areas abundant
•Picnic area seats 80
2 barbecue grillsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Trees in picnic area need to be considered for replacement;
splitting bark and tree trunks, irrigation in the roots
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: additional unlit sports courts, and
additional non-competitive sports fields
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2........J Page | 117
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS
22.8 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
6700 DUBLIN BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Concession stand
• 1 Lighted baseball diamond, 2 lighted softball diamonds, 2
lighted soccer fields
•Walkways and trails
•Children's play area heavily used
KEY FINDINGS:
=:;.;:;,__,-"'--"-"' I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Situated in a prime, central location, Dublin Sports Grounds
accommodates several athletics. With several lit ball fields
and soccer fields, for games and practices, and children's play
area, there is something for everyone to be active and enjoy.
KEY FINDINGS:
Community park with various programming elements ranging
from athletic fields to Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic
Complex, plethora of seating opportunities and well planted
landscape areas. Plenty of flexible space, walking trails, and
connections to the Dublin trail system make this park a true
gem within the overall system.
10/25/19
• Replace older, sun damaged, playground equipment;
consider expanding playground to be adequate size for usage
ie. adding swings at playground for variety*
•Trash receptacles not consistent, styles vary*
•Consider adding shade structures near seating areas*
•Consider any additional facility needs this community park
may require, (i.e. community parks may additionally include
aquatic amenities)*
EMERALD GLEN PARK
49.0 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
4201 CENTRAL PARKWAY
INVENTORY:
•Bio-retention planters thriving
•Copious amount of space for flexible programming
•Aquatics center, skate park, basketball courts, baseball
diamonds, bocce courts, soccer fields, tennis courts, picnicareas
•Water play areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • Cricket pitch with evident worn turf, replace*
•Trash receptacles sun damaged and not consistent style*
•Consider any additional facility needs this community park
may require, (i.e. community parks may additionally include
lighting on remaining sports fields)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page | 118
Page | 119
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Large park for multi-purpose use. Seating areas covered by
tree canopies for shade. Separate play equipment areas for
different kids age groups.
KOLB PARK
4.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
8020 BRISTOL ROAD
KEY FINDINGS:
•Fitness equipment
•Play equipment for different age groups
•Tennis courts (lighted)
•Pedestrian walkway
•Picnic area seats 48, 2 barbecue grillsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Bathroom restoration
•Improve accent plant palette variety
•Update or replace sun damaged kids play equipment
•Outdoor activity stations needs updating
•Multi-purpose field unleveled, maintain for activity use
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
MAPE MEMORIAL PARK
2.6 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
11711 MAPE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Grassy areas, large shade trees, and planting bed
Large informal field/lawn
•Sand volleyball court
KEY FINDINGS:
--=----...JI I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.6 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Mape Park was named for Commander John Jack Clement
Mape USN, who was Dublin's first casualty of the Vietnam
War. Adjacent to school with basketball courts and
playground, park offers plenty of flexible lawn space.
10/25/19
I • Update aged kids play equipment*
•Update plant palette to include more ornamental shrubs*
•Update site furnishings including seating areas
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally reflect
neighborhood character
EXISTING CONDITIONS §........J
Page | 120
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Lush and verdant landscape palette. Age-inclusive kids play
equipment includes a playground for tots and a separate
playground for older children. This park offers unique
amenities including an interactive sundial, a small vineyard,
seasonal garden, grilling stations, restrooms, and windy
walkway a large multi-purpose field surrounded by a walking
path.
KEY FINDINGS:
Park features an expansive meadow offering opportunity for
flexible programming, a play area, and shaded picnic area. A
serene tree lined pedestrian walkway emphasizes this facility.
10/25/19
PASSATEMPO PARK
5.1 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3200 PALERMO WAY
KEY FINDINGS:
•Lush landscape
•Multi-purpose field
•Well kept play equipment
•Pedestrian walkways and trails
•Picnic areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks include additional
spaces for relaxation
PIAZZA SORRENTO
2.0 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3600 PALERMO WAY
INVENTORY:
Large open field on slight slope
Pleasant ornamental trees varieties
•Shaded seating areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Play equipment sun damaged, consider updating and
replacing
•Seating area can use upgraded furnishings
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
EXISTING CONDITIONS z........i Page | 121
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
This park offers opportunity for play to all ages including fun
interactive nature-themed play areas for children and an
outdoor basketball court. Various seating areas can be found
throughout the park along the windy pedestrian path while
the lush landscape compliments adjacent Tri-Valley views.
KEY FINDINGS:
Landscape palette very verdant. Informal field offers flexible
use. Covered picnic structure with tables offers respite from
the sun. Other amenities the park offers include a "tot lot"
for 2-to 5-year olds, an apparatus play area for 5-to 13-year
olds, a basketball court, a tennis court, and a pair of game
tables for checkers or chess. Dogs are permitted on a leash.
10/25/19
POSITANO HILLS PARK
4.6 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
2301 VALENTANO DRIVE
INVENTORY:
•Flat flexible lawn
Unique playground equipment placement
•Various seating elements
•Excellent views of the Tri-Valley
Basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
SCHAEFER RANCH PARK
6.3 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
9595 DUBLIN BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Large informal field
•Beautiful ornamental trees
•Apparent of safety features
• Tennis court, basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Playground may need additional shade elements
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation
EXISTING CONDITIONS �
Page | 122
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Dublin's 20th park to open, names for former Dublin resident
Army Staff Sergeant Sean Diamond, who was killed in action
in Iraq in 2009. The park being fairly recently opened shows
little signs of wear and tear. Contains two play areas with
unique play features including a 90' long zip line, large shade
canopy, and large open meadow for informal programming.
KEY FINDINGS:
This park had much to offer; public art, lush planting beds,
and a variety of frees. A natural creek meanders its way
through the park and is a great place for exploring nature.
Water feature and solar panels add unique touches to the
park. Dogs are permitted on a leash.
10/25/19
SEAN DIAMOND PARK
5.03 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
4801 LA STRADA DRIVE
INVENTORY:
Volleyball court (grass), tennis court
Shade structure provides sun respite seating area
•Many verdant grasses, overall landscape vibrant
•Unique play equipment (ie. zip line)I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • No visible public art*
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation, and practice fields
SHANNON PARK
9.6 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
11600 SHANNON AVE
INVENTORY:
•Water Play Area
•Adjacent community center and preschool accessible bybridges
Informal sports fields
•EV charging stationsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
• Incorporate ADA paths at seating under solar panels
• If appropriate, consider any facility needs this community
park may require, (i.e. community parks may also include
lighted sports fields)
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-.......J Page | 123
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Ample seating with no shade coverage is the highlight of this
park. Covered kids play structure in good condition and has
unique interactive climbing elements. Park features an art
installation, commissioned by the City of Dublin in 1996.
KEY FINDINGS:
Park features various athletic fields including a basketball
court and soccer fields surrounded by pathways. Various
areas for seating under shady tree canopies. Public art
installation gives the park a fun and colorful identity.
10/25/19
STAGECOACH PARK
0.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
7550 STAGECOACH ROAD
INVENTORY:
•Public art installation
•Rubber turf ground and shade structure over kids play area
•Lush native landscape
I OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Increase shade around seating area
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation, informal multi-purpose
lawn space, as well as sport practice courts and fields
TED FAIRFIELD PARK
6.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3400 ANTONE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Variety of athletic fields including baseball diamond, sand
volleyball court, basketball court
•Large public art tile mosaic
•Picnic tables
•Pedestrian walkway and trailsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.6 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Play structure needs to be updated
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional informal multi-purpose lawn space.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page | 124
Page | 125
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX C:
2015 F acilities
Standards
PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITY STANDARD
2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Page | 126
ACTIVE COMMUNITY PARK STANDARDS
Active Community Parks should offer a variety of recreational opportunities that attract a wide range of local
age groups and interests. Active Community Parks should feature large open space areas, unique natural,
historic, and/ or cultural areas as well as group picnic areas, bicycling and hiking trails, sports facilities, dog runs,
community facilities, and other unique features or facilities.
Size: Approximately 10 to 60 acres
Service Area: Preferably centralized within the City of Dublin.
Access/Location: Highly visible and easily accessible. These Community Parks should be utilized to
create a central focus for the Dublin community.
Park Design: Active Community Parks should create a memorable social hub and landmark public
destination.
Facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all residents.
Provide a mixture of facilities to attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Provide a sense of connection linking the uses on the site to the surrounding retail,
residential or recreational facilities.
Play Area: High quality and innovative play structures.
Larger than neighborhood parks.
Separate facilities for tots from those for older children. Provide parents seating area.
Potential Sports Facilities: Diamond ball fields (60-foot, 80-foot and 90-foot), graded and maintained for
Picnic Facilities:
Natural Areas:
practice and competitive baseball or softball. Spectator amenities.
Regulation soccer fields with a combination of natural and synthetic turf.
Practice soccer fields (may overlap ball fields). Cricket Pitch.
Football field.
Futsal court (may overlap with basketball). Outdoor basketball courts.
Outdoor volleyball courts. Lighted tennis courts.
Pickleball courts. Frisbee golf.
Exercise equipment.
Shaded and secluded picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people located throughout
the park providing areas for spontaneous picnic use. Must also include a
minimum of two group picnic facilities to accommodate group reservations with
dedicated shade structures/sails and BBQ's.
Open meadow zones that provide soft, green use areas for picnics, informal
sports as well as passive group and individual uses.
Provide pedestrian trails to link with regional trail and transit systems.
Potential Special Features: Dog parks
Multi-Purpose Room Buildings for classes and camps.
Cultural and Performing Arts spaces. Public Art for visual impact.
Community garden. Maintenance yard for the park.
Additional unique features may include an education center or museum, outdoor
amphitheater, rose gardens, or outdoor wedding facilities.
Restrooms: Permanent restroom structure.
Parking: Sufficient parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods.
Page | 127
NATURAL COMMUNITY PARK STANDARDS
Natural Community Parks should offer a variety of passive recreational opportunities that attract a
range of age groups of people looking for a more serene park experience. Natural Community Parks
should feature areas that are primarily un-programmed and more natural in appearance, often
including features that have historically existed on the site, such as hills, creek or wetland features, or
man-made structures such as bridges or small buildings.
Size: Varies depending on location and adjacencies.
Service Area: Future Natural Community Parks should be located in the Western and/or
Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Access/Location: Dependent on the location of the natural features to be enhanced and/or
retained.
Park Design: Natural Community Parks should create a space for quiet, passive
enjoyment of the natural landscape primarily with low intensity uses and a
few active nodes. Uses that may be appropriate for inclusion in a Natural
Community Park include:
•Trails and sitting areas.
•Wildlife viewing platforms.
•Outdoor educational spaces.
•Nature interpretive areas with signage.
•Shaded and secluded picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people
located throughout the park providing available areas for small-scale
picnic use.
•Community and/or children’s garden.
•Par course style exercise.
•Open meadow zones that provide soft, green use areas for
informal sports as well as passive group and individual uses.
•Public restrooms.
•Parking area.
•High quality and innovative natural play features built into the
landscape may be appropriate in limited areas.
•Ample pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby
residential areas.
•Other appropriate facilities that maximize the recreational and
leisure experience of all residents.
Page | 128
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK STANDARDS
The neighborhood park can be the visual and social center for the local community. In addition to meeting the
local residents’ recreational needs, the neighborhood park is also a “village green.” These parks should be
designed to reflect the unique character of each neighborhood.
Neighborhood parks are developed to provide space for relaxation, play and informal recreation activities in a
specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units. The park improvements are oriented toward the individual
recreational needs of the neighborhood in which it is located. Facilities should be designed to include practice
fields and not for competitive use, which traditionally bring more traffic into a neighborhood.
Development Criteria: Approximately 4 to 9 net acres.
Service Area: Service area defined by major arterials or topography.
Adjacent to neighborhood boundaries or open space area, visible from
neighborhood entry.
Site Characteristics: Major percentage of the site should be level to accommodate active recreation
uses.
Natural or visual qualities to enhance the character.
Access/Location: Minimum of two public street frontages.
On collector or residential streets; not major arterials.
Park Design: Central green/social center for neighborhood. Reflect character of setting—natural
features or architectural style of homes.
Play Area: Tot lot for children 2 - 4 years.
Playground for youth 5 - 12 years.
Parent’s seating area.
Potential Sports Facilities:
Picnic Facilities:
Turf fields graded and maintained for practice.
Softball/baseball (minimum 250' outfield) and soccer (minimum 180') fields.
Tennis courts and volleyball courts.
Outdoor basketball courts.
Pickleball courts.
Walking track.
Exercise/Par-Course Equipment.
Tables and secluded space for informal family picnics up to 6 - 8 people. Must also
include a minimum of one group picnic facility to accommondate group
reservations with dedicated shade structure/sails and BBQ's.
Open space meadow for informal sports, games and passive activities.
Two unisex restrooms.
Natural Areas:
Restrooms:
Parking: Sufficient off-street parking where minimum street frontages are not provided.
Lockable parking for 6 - 10 bicycles.
Lighting: Provide lighting for security purposes not for night-use activities. Avoid penetration
of unwanted light into adjacent neighborhood.
Page | 129
NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE STANDARDS
Neighborhood Squares provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or
special interest group such as young children or senior citizens. The Neighborhood Square is a scaled-
down version of the Neighborhood Park, with an average size of 2-acres and located in high density
residential urban areas where a green pocket is the central focus of the neighborhood.
Site Characteristics:
Access/Location:
Park Design:
Play Area:
Sports Facilities:
Picnic Facilities:
Natural Areas:
Restrooms:
Parking:
Lighting:
Approximately 2-3 net-acres on a predominately level site.
Prominent location preferably at cross street. Within neighborhoods
and in close proximity to apartment complexes, townhouse development or
housing for the elderly.
Linked with trails and pedestrian walkways.
Each park should have unique characteristics such as public art,
fountain, bandstand, formal gardens, etc. to create a focal point for high
density areas.
Develop plaza areas for gathering and neighborhood social events.
Small scale, high quality play structures.
Parents’ seating area.
As appropriate to user groups in adjacent homes; provide tennis
court, pickleball courts, volleyball court, or basketball court.
Tables for 6 to 8 people for spontaneous or informal picnic use. Must also
include a minimum of one group picnic facility to accommodate group
reservations with dedicated shade structure/sails and BBQ's.
Seat walls for informal picnicking.
Views and vistas are desirable.
Not provided.
Street parking.
As necessary for security only.
Page | 130
DOWNTOWN PLAZA STANDARDS
Urban Plazas provide a public gathering place for the Downtown area.
Site Characteristics:
Access/Location:
Park Design:
Play Area:
Sports Facilities:
Picnic Facilities:
Natural Areas:
Restrooms:
Parking:
Lighting:
0.5 -1.5 net acres on a predominately level site.
Prominent site, preferably at a historically relevant location or a centrally
located site in the Downtown.
Linked with pedestrian walkways that access commercial, civic, and/or residential
uses in Downtown Dublin is preferred.
Should have unique characteristics such as public art, fountain,
seating, etc. to create a focal point for gathering and social events.
Small scale, high quality play structures may be appropriate with parents
seating area.
None.
Tables, benches, or seatwalls for spontaneous or informal picnic use. Must also
include a minimum of one group picnic facility to accommodate group
reservations with dedicated shade structure/sails and BBQ's.
Views and vistas are desirable.
Not provided.
Street parking.
As necessary for security only.
Page | 131
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER STANDARDS
A Cultural Arts Center can provide a multi-use facility that affords cultural, educational and social opportunities
for the entire community. The primary focus of this facility would be the Gallery and adjacent multi-purpose
space making it a destination for exhibitions and social events. The facility would also feature classrooms to
support a variety of cultural arts experiences.
Size: Dependent on program study.
Development Criteria: One facility per community.
Acreage: Dependent on program study.
Service Area: Centralized to major population centers.
Site Characteristics: Predominantly level.
Interesting natural or visual characteristics such as existing trees, creek, vistas.
Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road with high visibility.
Twenty-minute driving time.
Facility Design: Memorable public destination point which would be a source of pride for
the City.
Destination that will serve the diverse needs of the entire Community.
Indoor Facilities: Lobby and Reception.
Classroom/Music Room.
Art Classrooms.
Gallery Space.
Multi-Use Room.
Administrative Space.
Special Features: Outdoor patios.
Page | 132
TRAIL STANDARDS
There are three basic types of trail types that may be found in Dublin - hiking and jogging,
bicycle, and equestrian. Trails are different than parkways or paths within neighborhoods
that are privately maintained, and they are different than sidewalk or bike lanes as
described in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. While those facilities are great
amenities for the community, they are not counted as parkland, whereas a trail that is
improved to the standards contained within this Master Plan and dedicated to public use
can be considered parkland.
The types of trails that have standards in this Master Plan include:
•Parkway Trail: Paved path suitable for bicycles and pedestrians which is physically
separated from the street and not a part of the road section.
•Creekside Trail: Paved trails along creeks for pedestrian and potential bicycle use.
•Open Space Trail: Unpaved trails for equestrian and hiking use.
Hikers, joggers, and strollers make up the majority of trail users. This group naturally prefers to use trails
that are safe, that provide good footing and that are routed through interesting landscape with
attainable destination points and offer some amenities along the way such as benches and rest areas.
Pedestrians will use all the trail types noted above.
Cyclists typically use the Parkway and Creekside Trails. Recreational cyclists typically prefer trails which
have smooth surfaces (preferably paved) and which are separated from other types of traffic. Often
traveling a distance of 25 miles on an outing, the serious recreational cyclist prefers trails with sweeping
curves, good visibility, and a minimum of cross streets.
Equestrians typically use Open Space Trails, which are generally planned for the outlying areas of the
City where there is more open space and natural landscape. Because of the limited available space in
Dublin, equestrian trails are intended to connect with other regional-serving trails in neighboring
communities and park districts.
General Trail Design
Trail design should include appropriate landscaping to provide a pleasant visual and
physical environment, including protection from sun, wind, and noise where possible.
•Where feasible and desirable, trail projects should accommodate more than
one type of trail use.
•Designed to require as little maintenance as possible over time and to avoid steep inclines.
•Preserve existing vegetation, removing only as much as necessary to accommodate
the trail. Analyze existing topography and locate trails so that minimal grading is
required.
Page | 133
Parkway Trail Design
The parkway links areas within the community. As an important recreation and transportation corridor,
it should be visually distinct. It should accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian use, both separated
from the street. The parkway should be well landscaped and lighted.
Easement Width: Minimum 20 feet with landscaping on either side of formal paths.
Pedestrian Path: Minimum 5 feet wide, concrete.
Bicycle Path: Minimum 8 feet, maximum 12 feet wide; 12 feet when joint use with
pedestrians.
Asphalt or concrete
Rest Areas: Rest area should include a bench and drinking fountain.
Creekside Trail Design
•Creekside trails are a desirable community amenity and are a scenic and educational resource.
•Width of creek trails should be a function of amount of use and sensitivity of natural resource.
However, a minimum 8' width is desirable.
•Creek trail design and location should be coordinated with Alameda County Flood Control (Zone
7), California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and EBRPD (as appropriate).
•Maintenance roads/paths along creek banks can frequently serve as trails. The final design of
the trail must accommodate appropriate maintenance.
•Where possible, creek trails should be located at top of bank. Because these areas are flat,
grading is kept to a minimum and existing vegetation can be preserved. Erosion and bank
stabilization problems are also minimized. Access to and from streets and access by disabled
persons is generally easier when the trail is located at the top of bank.
•Where creek trails must be located on slopes, a bench will have to be cut into the slope to
provide a flat platform for the trail. The cut should be minimized to preserve as much native
vegetation as possible.
•Generally, the trail should be located as high above the creek as possible. Ease of access to and
from the street and by disabled persons should be considered when locating a trail on a slope.
•Provide rest areas and overlooks with educational signage to enhance enjoyment of creek area.
•Special wildlife habitat areas should be protected from access. Habitat restoration and creek
revegetation should occur in degraded creek areas.
•Where creeks are deeply incised, railing or fencing may be necessary to prevent access to the
creek.
Page | 134
Open Space Trail Design
Open space trails, at a minimum, may be narrow corridors that provide critical linkage to important
facilities.
However, at best, open space trail corridors may incorporate many hundreds of acres of significant open
space and provide the public with unique opportunities to enjoy the natural environment between
developed areas. Frequently, trails in open space areas follow old jeep roads or fire roads.
The ideal alignment will “fit” the trail to the ground and will afford users the best views from the trail as
well as follow the topography of the land.
•Long, straight stretches should be avoided as well as excessive switch backs.
•Avoid areas with high soil erosion, high fire hazard or unstable slopes.
•Where possible, route trails away from residences in order to maintain privacy.
•Establish trail rights-of-way that are wide enough to accommodate the designated uses. For
single or double-use trails that permit hiking and/or equestrian use, provide a minimum right-of-
way width of 20 feet. Multiple-use trails that permit hiking, equestrian and bicycle use, provide a
minimum right-of-way width of 30 to 40 feet.
Staging Area and Trail Head
A trail staging area is best located on arterial or collector roads in areas that are both convenient to the
public and that are easily accessible for maintenance and operation purposes.
•Where possible, located away from nearby residents.
•Provide lights, gates and fencing, as well as fire hydrants and fire truck turnarounds that address
specific needs of police and fire departments.
•Identify and utilize existing parking lots on schools and park facilities, wherever possible, to avoid
duplication of staging facilities.
•A trail head is smaller, often consisting of nothing more than a sign. It may also include a small
rest area. Whether staging area or trail head, each should be improved to include:
•Signs indicating by color and/or graphics trail type; trail name (if appropriate); distance to
distinctive feature or trail junction.
•Map (where appropriate) showing overall system.
•Trash and recycling receptacle(s).
Page | 135
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Analysis
April 5, 2022
Exhibit B
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Addendum
April 5, 2022
Project Description
The City of Dublin has prepared an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“2022 Master
Plan”) that establishes goals, short to long-term objectives and standards to guide in the acquisition,
development and management of Dublin’s future trails, park sites, and recreational facilities within the
existing City limits. The 2022 Master Plan plans for development in accordance with build-out of the
City’s General Plan and responds to the City’s growth and changing demographics. The 2022 Master
Plan guides decisions regarding the delivery of services and programs, and the expenditure of funds for
operations, park maintenance, and capital improvements. The 2022 Master Plan provides an inventory
of existing parks sites, and an assessment of future park and facility needs. The 2022 Master Plan
reaffirms previously identified future facilities needs and general locations in which those facilities could
be accommodated. The 2022 Master Plan also explains existing and future park maintenance needs and
funding mechanisms for park development.
The City of Dublin originally adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1994 and was updated in
2004, 2006 and 2015. In 2015, the document was a refinement to previous versions that incorporated
updated population data, a park and facility inventory, and description of future park and facility needs
to continue to meet established City standards.
This 2022 update continues along the path of refining the 2015 version with 2020 census data, updated
park inventory and short- to long-term objectives and standards to provide improved services. In
addition, the 2022 Master Plan identifies the location of facilities previously included in the 2015 Parks
and Recreation Master Plan without specific locations identified. Those facilities include the location of
pickleball courts and the Cultural Arts Center. The 2022 Master Plan identifies the pickleball courts to be
located in the park adjacent to the Wallis Ranch Development and as part of the Croak property
development in Fallon Village. The location of the Cultural Arts Center repurposes the Dublin Police
Service’s building in Civic Center and will supply opportunities for cultural, educational, and social
events to the entire community. The Cultural Art Center would be located on the first fl oor, with
administrative offices for the Parks and Community Services Department on the second floor. Other
uses programmed for this building that currently exist and would continue to operate include the City’s
data center, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and a weight and exercise room for City Staff.
The adopted 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incorporates the updates in the 2022
Master Plan future parks list and identifies the City’s next major community parks. The Don Biddle
Community Park, which is currently under construction, is centrally located just east of the Iron Horse
Trail along Dublin Boulevard adjacent to Dublin Crossing. Wallis Ranch Development will include an
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
8.75-acre park adjacent to the community. The City Council approved the conceptual design to include
lighted tennis courts, pickleball courts, and basketball courts. In addition, there will be a play structure,
dog park, and public restrooms. The recreational amenities will span across three parcels of land along
Rutherford Drive, bisected by Tassajara Creek. Lastly, with a recent grant award of just over $2 million,
the conceptual planning and design phase for the Iron Horse Nature Park has begun.
The CIP also incorporates Fallon Sports Park - Phase 3, providing for the completion of the final 14 acres
of the community’s 60-acre park. The final phase is under construction and includes a cricket field, a
five-bay batting cage, a playground, and four sand volleyball courts. In addition, the Cult ural Arts Center
at Civic Center is included in the CIP and will supply opportunities for cultural, educational, and social
events to the entire community. Serving as a major public destination, the facility contains multi-
purpose spaces including classrooms to support various year-round programming.
The 2022 Master Plan is but one of the City of Dublin’s policy planning documents. It is used in
conjunction with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan,
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and other applicable documents. The
General Plan identifies the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as the primary document for quantifying the
City’s need for recreational facilities.
Prior CEQA Analysis
The City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) on
March 16, 2004 (via Resolution No. 48-04). This ND tiered off several previous environmental documents,
including:
1. City of Dublin General Plan EIR, 1985
2. Schaefer Ranch EIR, 1996 (SCH 95033070)
3. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR, 1994 (SCH 91103064)
4. East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation DSEIR, 2002 (SCH 2001152114)
Prior CEQA analysis also includes the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR, 2013 (SCH 2012062009),
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2011 (SCH 2010022005) and Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015)
Addendum and Initial Study. Collectively, all above environmental review documents are referred to as
the “previous environmental documents.”
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
In order to assess whether any further environmental review is required , an Initial Study was completed.
The Initial Study dated April 5, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, determined that, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required, and an Addendum
is the appropriate CEQA review.
The 2022 Master Plan does not identify any new parks, specifically identify the construction of any new
facilities, or include any new policies that are substantively different than those in the 2004 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Update. The 2022 Master Plan identifies standards for the future development of
new parks, updates the standards for how many recreational amenities of various types should be in
Dublin's park system, and updates the goals and policies of the 2015 version. The 2022 Master Plan also
updates the City's population projections and accurately describes the City's current park and recreation al
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
facility inventory. Any future land use changes shall be subject to CEQA review at the time the change is
proposed and considered.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review.
After a review of these conditions, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is
required. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the negative declaration
due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified?
There are no substantial changes to the project compared to what was analyzed in the previous
environmental documents. No additional or different mitigation measures are required as
documented in the Explanation of Environmental Checklist section of this document.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken requiring
major revisions to the negative declaration due to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts than previously identified?
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in previous environmental documents
that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts from the project than
were identified in the previous environmental documents as documented in the Explanation of
Environmental Checklist section of this document.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous Negative Declaration was adopted, that shows the
project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous negative declaration; or previous
effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now
feasible but the Applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures or alternatives
considerably different from those in the previous negative declaration would substantially reduce
significant effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them?
There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those
identified in the previous environmental documents. Similarly, there are no new or different
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce significant effects of the project which the
applicant declines to adopt. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project.
The previous environmental documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations
associated with the project as documented in the Explanation of Environmental Checklist section
of this document.
d) Should a subsequent EIR or negative declaration be prepared?
No subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, is required because
there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the project beyond those identified in the
previous environmental documents and no other standards for supplemental review under CEQA
are met, as documented in the attached Initial Study.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
CEQA Addendum | Page 5
CEQA Addendum | Page 5
Conclusion
The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the 2022 Master Plan. Based on the Initial Study and
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City prepared an Addendum to the previous
environmental documents. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City
determines that the proposed Project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the
Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the previous
environmental documents before deciding on the proposed project. The Initial Study is included below,
and the previous environmental documents are available for review in the Parks and Community Services
Department at the City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Update (2022)
Initial Study
April 5, 2022
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Table of Contents | Page i
Table of Contents
Background & Project Description 1
Environmental Checklist 3
Determination 6
Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 7
Appendices
A Survey Report
B Existing Parks Assessment
C 2015 Facilities Standards
List of Figures
Figure 1: Park Locator Map – Existing and Future Parks ............................................................. 34
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 1
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2022)
Initial Study
Background & Project Description
Project Title
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (2022)
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
Parks and Community Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Bridget Amaya, Assistant Parks and Community Services Director
Phone: 925-833-6603
bridget.amaya@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location
Citywide
Project Applicant’s/Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Dublin
Colleen Tribby
Acting Parks and Community Services Director
Phone: 925-833-6654
colleen.tribby@dublin.ca.gov
General Plan Designation
Various, Citywide
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 2
Zoning
Various, Citywide
Project Description
The City of Dublin has prepared an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“2022
Master Plan”) that establishes goals, short to long-term objectives and standards to guide in
the acquisition, development and management of Dublin’s future trails, park sites, and
recreational facilities within the existing City limits. The 2022 Master Plan plans for
development in accordance with build-out of the City’s General Plan and responds to the
City’s growth and changing demographics. The 2022 Master Plan guides decisions regarding
the delivery of services and programs, and the expenditure of funds for operations, park
maintenance, and capital improvements. The 2022 Master Plan provides an inventory of
existing parks sites, and an assessment of future park and facility needs. The 2022 Master
Plan reaffirms previously identified future facilities needs and general locations in which
those facilities could be accommodated. The 2022 Master Plan also explains existing and
future park maintenance needs and funding mechanisms for park development.
The City of Dublin originally adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1994 and was
updated in 2004, 2006 and 2015. In 2015, the document was a refinement to previous versions
that incorporated updated population data, a park and facility inventory, and description of
future park and facility needs to continue to meet established City standards.
This 2022 update continues along the path of refining the 2015 version with 2020 census data,
updated park inventory and short to long-term objectives and standards to provide improved
services. In addition, the 2022 Master Plan identifies the location of facilities previously
included in the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan without specific locations identified.
Those facilities include the location of pickleball courts and the Cultural Arts Center. The 2022
Master Plan identifies the pickleball courts to be located in the park adjacent to the Wallis
Ranch Development and as part of the Croak property development in Fallon Village. The
location of the Cultural Arts Center repurposes the Dublin Police Service’s building in Civic
Center and will supply opportunities for cultural, educational, and social events to the entire
community. The Cultural Art Center would be located on the first floor, with administrative
offices for the Parks and Community Services Department on the second floor. Other uses
programmed for this building that currently exist and would continue to operate include the
City’s data center, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and a weight and exercise room for City
Staff.
The adopted 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) incorporates the updates in the
2022 Master Plan future parks list and identifies the City’s next major community parks. The
Don Biddle Community Park, which is currently under construction, is centrally located just east
of the Iron Horse Trail along Dublin Boulevard adjacent t o Dublin Crossing. Wallis Ranch
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 3
Development will include an 8.75-acre park adjacent to the community. The City Council
approved the conceptual design to include lighted tennis courts, pickleball courts, and
basketball courts. In addition, there will be a p lay structure, dog park, and public restrooms.
The recreational amenities will span across three parcels of land along Rutherford Drive,
bisected by Tassajara Creek. Lastly, with a recent grant award of just over $2 million, the
conceptual planning and design phase for the Iron Horse Nature Park has begun.
The CIP also incorporates Fallon Sports Park - Phase 3, providing for the completion of the final
14 acres of the community’s 60-acre park. The final phase is under construction and includes a
cricket field, a five-bay batting cage, a playground, and four sand volleyball courts. In addition,
the Cultural Arts Center at Civic Center is included in the CIP and will supply opportunities for
cultural, educational, and social events to the entire community. Serving as a major public
destination, the facility contains multi-purpose spaces including classrooms to support various
year-round programming.
The 2022 Master Plan is but one of the City of Dublin’s policy planning documents. It is used
in conjunction with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and other
applicable documents. The General Plan identifies the Parks and Recreation Master Plan a s
the primary document for quantifying the City’s need for recreational facilities.
Project Site, Existing and Future Facilities
The City of Dublin currently provides 24 parks totaling 237.04 acres. Dublin also maintains over
26.26 miles of greenways and trails. The series of routes stretches throughout the City and
ranges from recreational trails to shared-use paths. The 2022 Master Plan identifies all existing
facilities as well as the ten future parks, all of which were identified in the 2015 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
The following provides a summary of the City’s public facilities:
Dublin’s Exiting Park System
Active Community Parks (5)
▪ Dublin Heritage Park and Museums
▪ Dublin Sports Grounds
▪ Emerald Glen Park
▪ Fallon Sports Park
▪ Shannon Park
BMX Course (1)
▪ Fallon Sports Park
Amphitheater (3)
▪ Butterfly Knoll
▪ Emerald Glen Park
▪ Heritage Park
Baseball/Softball Fields (18)
▪ Dublin Sports Grounds – 7
▪ Emerald Glen Park – 3
▪ Fallon Sports Park – 7
▪ Ted Fairfield Park – 1
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 2
Basketball Courts (13)
▪ Alamo Creek Park – 1
▪ Bray Commons – 1
▪ Dolan Park – 1
▪ Emerald Glen Park – 2
▪ Fallon Sports Park – 4
▪ Jordan Ranch Park – 1
▪ Positano Hills Park – 1
▪ Schaefer Ranch Park – 1
▪ Ted Fairfield Park – 1
Neighborhood Parks/Squares (19)
▪ Alamo Creek Park
▪ Bray Commons
▪ Butterfly Knoll
▪ Clover Park
▪ Cottonwood Park & School
▪ Devany Square
▪ Dolan Park
▪ Dougherty Hills Dog Park
▪ Jordan Ranch Park
▪ Kolb Park
▪ Mape Memorial Park
▪ Passatempo Park
▪ Piazza Sorrento
▪ Positano Hills Park
▪ Schaefer Ranch Park
▪ Sean Diamond Park
▪ Stagecoach Park
▪ Sunrise Park
▪ Ted Fairfield Park
Dog Run/Dog Park (2)
▪ Bray Commons
▪ Dougherty Hills Dog Park
Cricket Fields (2)
▪ Emerald Glen Park
▪ Fallon Sports Park
Community Centers (4)
▪ Shannon Community Center
▪ Sunday School Barn
▪ Old St. Raymond Church
▪ Senior Center
Playgrounds (25)
▪ Alamo Creek Park – 1
▪ Bray Commons – 1
▪ Butterfly Knoll Park – 1
▪ Clover & Sunrise Park – 1
▪ Devany Square – 1
▪ Dolan Park - 1
▪ Dublin Sports Grounds – 1
▪ Emerald Glen Park – 1
▪ Fallon Sports Park – 1
▪ Jordan Ranch Park - 1
▪ Kolb Park – 1
▪ Mape Memorial Park – 2
▪ Passatempo Park – 1
▪ Piazza Sorrento – 1
▪ Positano Hills Park – 1
▪ Schaefer Ranch Park – 2
▪ Sean Diamond Park – 3
▪ Shannon Park – 2
▪ Stagecoach Park – 1
▪ Ted Fairfield Park - 1
Several school parks within Dublin are also classified as City parks. These include Dublin High
School and Wells Middle School as Community Parks, and Dublin, Frederiksen, Murray and
Nielsen Elementary School as Neighborhood Parks.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 2
Dublin’s Future Park System
Future Parks (7)
▪ Wallis Ranch Open Space
▪ Wallis Ranch Community Park
▪ Jordan Ranch Community Park (GH PacVest)
▪ Don Biddle Community Park (Dublin Crossing)
▪ Croak North
▪ Croak South
▪ Iron Horse Nature Park
Future Neighborhood Parks/Squares (3)
▪ Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square
▪ Dublin Crossing Neighborhood Park
▪ Downtown Square
Figure 1 depicts the location of existing and future park facilities, school parks, and other
recreational facilities available to the City of Dublin. These facilities are dispersed throughout
the community to provide efficient recreational opportunities to all residents.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 3
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Instructions
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening
analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 4
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. “Potentially
Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies
where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to
a less-than-significant level.
5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an ear lier EIR
or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following on attached sheets:
a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, wher e appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
o the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;
and
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 5
o the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments,
lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review,
identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and
reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process.
(See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available
from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per
Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions
specific to confidentiality.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 6
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant
unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_________________________________ _____________________________
Bridget Amaya, Assistant Date
Parks and Community Services Director
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 7
Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
No/
New
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact associated with views. Mitigation
Measures 5.A.1 (Grading Plan), 5.C.3 (Tree Replacement), and 5.F.1 (Regional Trail) were
included to ensure that impacts to views are addressed as the neighborhood par k sites are
finalized and fully developed.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identified an impact on the
visual character of the area and the area’s scenic resources. Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0,
3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0, and 3.8/7.1 were included to encourage preservation
of important visual resources, minimize grading for development, preserving natural contours
in grading and building, prohibit development along identified ridgelines, and preserving views
of designated open spaces. Despite the mitigation measures listed above, the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR concluded that alteration of visual character of the
hillside and flatland areas are significant and unmitigatable impacts and were included in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations that the City Council adopted on May 10, 1993.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 8
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball
courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan
identifies the location of these facilities within existing/future parks or buildings as follows:
pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the location of the Cultural
Arts Center in Dublin Civic Center.
The addition of pickleball courts at Wallis Ranch and Croak would not significantly impact view
or visual resources of these future parks. Pickleball courts are visually similar to other planned
facilities in these parks such as tennis courts and basketball courts.
The Cultural Arts Center would occupy the building formerly occupied by Dublin Police Services
in the Civic Center. Minor exterior changes are proposed to accommodate the new use
including enhancement of the former sally port to a patio area/ceramics yard; however, no
modifications to the building footprint are part of the project. The repurposing of the Dublin
Police Services Building would not result in any changes to the visual character of the building
or Civic Center.
The project utilizes previously identified future parks and an existing building. There would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics/visual resources beyond
those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA standard
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
The construction of any new facilities not identified specifically in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time a development site is
identified.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
/ New
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
/ New
Impact
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in F orest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not identify new parks or recreational facilities that would impact
agricultural and/or forestry resources. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified
the need for pickleball courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location.
The 2022 Master Plan identifies the location of these facilities within future parks or an existing
building as follows: pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the
Cultural Arts Center in Dublin Civic Center.
No sites with agriculture and/or forestry resources would be affected, and the project would
not have any impacts on agriculture and/or forestry resources beyond those already analyzed
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 10
in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA standard for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
The construction of any new facilities not identified specifically in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time a development site is
identified.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/No
New
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact associated with air quality. Mitigation
Measures 12.A.1 (Implementing Dust Control Measures), 12.B.1 (Construction Emissions), and
12.G.1 (Fugitive Dust Rule) were identified to ensure that potential air quality impacts are
alleviated.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identified Mitigation Measures
3.11/1.0, 3.11/3.0, and 3.11/4.0 to reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and
construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running
order.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 11
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air
quality beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other
CEQA standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
The construction of any new facilities not identified specifically in the 2022 Master Plan, or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time a development site is
identified.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impact/No
New
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signific
ant
Impact
No
Impact/No
New
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact associated with biological resources.
Mitigation Measures 6.A.1 (Emergent Wetland Complex), 6.B.1 (Aquatic Habitat), 6.C.1
(Grassland Revegitation and Habitat Survey), 6.D.1 (Tree Survey and Project Redesign), 6.D.2
(Tree Protection), 6.D.3 (Tree Replacement), 6.E.1 (Plant Material), and 6.F.1 (Herbicide
Restrictions) were identified to ensure that impacts to biological resources resulting from the
implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update are less than significant.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identified Mitigation Measures
3.7/1.0 through 3.7/28.0 to ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than
significant level.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball
courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan
identifies the location of these facilities within future parks or an existing building as follows:
pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in
Dublin Civic Center. The proposed facilities do not result in any new development and there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources
beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA
standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
The construction of any new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time a development site is
identified.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 13
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
/No
New
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact related to cultural resources and included
Mitigation Measures 14.A.1 (Notification Procedures), 14.B.1 (Rock Walls), and 14.C.1 (Historic
Resources) to ensure that development of any neighborhood park sites in the Western
Extended Planning Area be mitigated to have a less than significant impact on any significant
historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains in the area.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR included Mitigation Measures
3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 to ensure that all construction activity will cease if any new historic or
cultural sites are found, and Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 will ensure that
adequate research is done to assess the historical significance of any resources, encourage
adaptive re-use of any historic facilities, and encourage the City to develop a preservation
program for historic sites.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball
courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan
identifies the location of these facilities within future parks or an existing building as follows:
pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in
Dublin Civic Center. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to
cultural resources beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 14
and no other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
The construction of any new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time a development site is
identified.
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact/
No New
Impact
13. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) did not specifically
analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the Negative
Declaration was adopted.
Discussion
Because the Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) has been
adopted, the determination of whether energy resources need to be analyzed for this proposed
project is governed by the law on subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15162). Energy resources are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless
it constitutes new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted (CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15162 (a) (3).
Energy impacts were not analyzed in the Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (2004); however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or
could not have been known at the time the Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (2004) was adopted, and no new analysis is required. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 15
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact/
No New
Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 16
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact related mass grading, slope stability,
erosion, fill settlement, expansive and corrosive soil, seismic hazard, groundwater, and
excavation impacts. Mitigation Measures 9.A.1 to 9.H.1 were included to reduce the effects of
development in the area to less than significant.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR identified Mitigation Measures
3.6/1.0 to 3.6/8.0 to ensure that new structures in the area will comply with seismic safety
standards and Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 3.6/26.0 to mitigate for slope stability
problems, and 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 will mitigate for water run off problems.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in new parks or recreational facilities that were not
already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015).
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for picklebal l courts and a
Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan identifies the
location of these facilities within existing/ future parks or buildings as follows: pickleball courts
in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the location of the Cultural Arts Center in
Dublin Civic Center. Therefore, the proposed facilities do not result in any new development
that would affect geology and/or soils. The project would not have any impacts on geology
and/or soils beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents, no other
CEQA standards for supplemental review are met and, therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) did not specifically
analyze impacts to greenhouse gas emissions as it was not a separate topic for analysis when
the Negative Declaration was adopted.
Since adoption on the Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2004,
the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006.
Because these Negative Declaration has been adopted, the determination of whether
greenhouse gasses and climate change need to be analyzed for this proposed project is
governed by the law on subsequent EIRs and negative declarations (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15162). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those
standards unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance, which was not
known and could not have been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was
adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the Negative Declaration for
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2004; however, these impacts are not new information
that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Negative Declaration was
adopted. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to
Negative Declaration adoption. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change
impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and
analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the
certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires
analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental
analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 18
Discussion
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Guidelines
section 15162.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
¼ mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact related to hazardous materials and
included Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 15.A.4 for future facility sites in Schaefer Ranch
portion of the Western Extended Planning Area to ensure that any potential impacts from
hazardous materials, transformers, wells, and septic systems are mitigated to a less than
significant level. In addition, Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 (Fire Response Time Mitigation), 7.3.2
(Fire Protection Measures), 7.3.3 (Water Supply and Fire Hydrants), and 7.3.4 (Construction
Materials) were included to ensure that any potential impacts involving wild land fires will be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR included Mitigation Measures
3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 for future parks, trails, and recreational facilities in the Eastern
Extended Planning Area to ensure that new safety and service facilities are constructed to
coincide with new service demands, and will also require that fire trails and fire breaks are
incorporated into the open space and trail system.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational f acilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball
courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan
identifies the location of these facilities within future parks or an existing building as follows:
pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in
Dublin Civic Center. Therefore, the proposed facilities do not result in any new development
and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological
resources beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no
other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 20
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
(i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-
site;
X
(ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
X
(iii). Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
X
(iv). Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 21
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact related to water quality and included
Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 through 8.2.4 to ensure that any impacts relating to grading and
drainage, surface water quality, runoff, and ground water quality.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR included Mitigation Measures
3.5/1.0, 3.5/4.0, 3.5/5.0, 3.5/12.0, 3.5/26.0, 3.5/47.0, 3.5/53.0, 3.5/54.0, and 3.5/55.0 to ensure
that any impacts relating to grading and drainage, surface water quality, runoff, and ground
water quality.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball
courts and a Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan
identifies the location of these facilities within future parks or an existing building as follows:
pickleball courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in
Dublin Civic Center. Therefore, the proposed facilities do not result in any new development
and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology or
water quality beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no
other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
All future construction will need to comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, we well as all City of Dublin stormwater treatment and water quality
requirements. The construction of new facilities not specifically identifie d in the 2022 Master
Plan or the General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development
site is identified.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan is in conformance with the General Plan and all the City’s specific plans.
The project would not have any impacts on land use and planning beyond those already
analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA standard for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. The
construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the General
Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is identified.
Any future land use changes would be subject to CEQA review at the time the change is
proposed and considered.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 23
Discussion
There are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or designated in the General
Plan or other land use plan and, therefore, no new impact would result and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards
of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a significant impact related to noise and included Mitigation
Measure 11.A.1 (Construction Noise) to ensure that construction impacts to surrounding
residents are mitigated to a less than significant level, and Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 (Noise
Control Plan) and 11.B.2 (Project Redesign) to ensure that the final location of all future park
sites in the Western Extended Planning Area will conform with the General Plan policies
regarding noise impacts.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR included a significant impact
related to construction noise and included Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 24
Discussion
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball courts and a
Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan identifies the
location of these facilities within future parks or an existing building as follows: pickleball courts
in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in Dublin Civic
Center. The addition of pickleball courts at Wallis Ranch and Croak are similar to and would be
consistent with the level of activity previously identified in these parks as active facilities such
as tennis courts and basketball courts. The Cultural Arts Center would occupy the building
formerly occupied by Dublin Police Services in the Civic Center, which was historically an active
public building. The repurposing of this public facility for the Cultural Arts Center would not
result in significant impacts to the noise levels.
As stated, the project utilizes previously identified future parks and an existing building and
there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond those
already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA standard for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further en vironmental review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 25
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan will not add new population nor displace any housing; therefore, there
would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing
beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA
standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could caus e significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
New construction projects are required to comply with applicable building, safety, and fire
codes, fund on and off-site improvements, and contribute to the City’s public facilities fees
commensurate with the type, size and scope pf the project.
Other than the established facility location of the Cultural Arts Center, the 2022 Master Plan
does not identify new parks or recreational facilities that are not already identified in the City’s
General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015). There would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond those already analyzed
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 26
in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA standard for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the 2022 Master Plan or the
General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015). It will not result in the increased use of existing public recreation facilities, nor
cause the need for new facilities. There would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts on recreation facilities beyond those already analyzed in the previous
environmental documents and no other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 27
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
The 2022 Master Plan does not result in the development of new parks or recreational facilities
that were not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2015).
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) identified the need for pickleball courts and a
Cultural Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The 2022 Master Plan identifies the
location of these facilities within the future parks or an existing building as follows: pickleball
courts in the Wallis Ranch and Croak Property parks and the Cultural Arts Center in Dublin Civic
Center. The project will modify existing and future parks and an existing building that are
designed to accommodate them and will continue to be served by the existing infrastructure.
There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on transportation
beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents and no other CEQA
standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 28
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the Parks Master Plan (2022) or
the General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Previous CEQA Document
The Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) did not specifically
analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the Negative
Declaration was adopted. However, mitigation measures related to potential impacts to
historic and archeological resources on the site are described in the Cultural Resources section,
above.
Discussion
Since adoption of the Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004),
the topic Tribal Cultural Resources is a new category in the CEQA checklist. However,
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 29
mitigation measures related to potential impacts to historic and archeological resources on the
site are described in the Cultural Resources section, above.
Because Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been adopted, the
determination of whether tribal cultural resources need to be analyzed for this proposed
project is governed by the law on subsequent EIRs or Negative Declarations (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15162). Tribal cultural resources are not required to be analyzed under those standards
unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted (CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 30
Previous CEQA Document
There are no applicable mitigation measures from the previous environmental documents.
Discussion
New construction is required to contribute to the City’s impact fees to fund public service
infrastructure commensurate with the type, size and scope of the construction.
Other than the established facility location of the Cultural Arts Center, the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (2022) does not identify new locations for parks or recreational facilities that are
not already identified in the City’s General Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015),
therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on utilities
and service systems beyond those already analyzed in the previous environmental documents
and no other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the Parks Master Plan (2022) or
the General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
18. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No/New
Impact
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Previous CEQA Document
The Negative Declaration for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2004) did not specifically
analyze impacts to wildfire as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the Negative
Declaration was adopted.
Discussion
The City has a Wildfire Management Plan. Impacts related to Wildfire were not analyzed in any
of the prior environmental documents, however, other than the established facility location of
the Cultural Arts Center, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022) does not identify new
locations for parks or recreational facilities that are not already identified in the City’s General
Plan or the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015). Therefore, the project does not propose
substantial changes and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
related to wildfires. No other CEQA standard for supplemental review are met and therefore,
no further environmental review is required.
The construction of new facilities not specifically identified in the Parks Master Plan (2022) or
the General Plan will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA at the time the development site is
identified.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not
degrade the quality of the environment. The implementation of all previously-adopted
Mitigation Measures will ensure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a less than
significant level. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts
or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and
no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required for this impact area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental
impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the previous
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 33
environmental documents. The previous environmental documents considered the project’s
cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment as a result of build-out of the City. Implementation of the proposed project, with
mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required for this impact area.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adv erse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The
proposed project would refine the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan with 2020 census
data, updated park inventory and short-long objectives and standards to provide improved
services. In addition, the 2022 Master Plan identifies the location of facilities previously
included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan without specific locations identified. Those
facilities include pickleball courts and the Cultural Arts Center. The project would not result in
any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed
throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as
previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Page 34
Figure 1: Park Locator Map - Existing and Future Parks
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Appendices
Appendix A
Survey Report
Page | 63
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX A:
Survey Report
City of Dublin 2019 Parks and Recreation
Survey
Final Report
Page | 64
INTRO, METHODOLOGY & KEY FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CURRENT PARTICIPATION
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND PROGRAMS
COMMUNICATION AND VISION
SUGGESTIONS
VALUES AND VISION
Page | 65
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was
to gather community feedback
on the City of Dublin’s facilities,
programs, trails, future
planning, public art,
communication, and more.
This survey research effort and
subsequent analysis were
designed to assist the City of
Dublin in developing a plan to
reflect the community’s needs
and desires.
3
Page | 66
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted using three primary methods: 1) a mailed survey to 3,500
households in Dublin, 2) an online, password protected invitation website, 3) an
open link survey for all other residents who were not included in invitation sample.
Invitation respondents were given a unique password to participate through the
online survey. Approximately two weeks after arriving at mailboxes, the open link
survey was made available to all residents who did not receive an invitation survey.
Results are kept separate to maintain the statistical validity of the invitation
sample. The invitation sample contains 324 completed surveys (margin of error:
5.4%) with the open link closing with 119 completed surveys.
For the analysis herein, the results will primarily focus on the invitation sample. The
results for the open link sample are provided and compared throughout the report;
however, the results for the invitation survey are only results considered
statistically-valid.
4
Page | 67
WEIGHTING THE DATA
The underlying data from the
invitation data were weighted by
age to ensure appropriate
representation of Dublin residents
across different demographic
cohorts in the sample.
Using U.S. Census Data, the age
distributions in the sample were
adjusted to more closely match the
population profile of Dublin.
Due to variable response rates by
some segments of the population,
the underlying results, while
weighted to best match the overall
demographics of residents, may not
be completely representative of
some sub-groups of the Dublin
population.
5
Page | 68
KEY FINDINGS
Dublin respondents highlighted community/neighborhood parks, the Dublin
Public Library, and trails and bikeways as most important to their household.
•Respondents keyed in on these three facilities as most important in both the invite and open link
samples; solidifying their importance across the larger spectrum of the overall community.
Satisfaction is generally high in most parks and recreation categories for
invitation respondents. Open link respondents are slightly less satisfied, but
more respondents are positive about all categories.
•Satisfaction for parks, facilities, programs, and events for invite respondents is quite high with all
categories receiving an average rating of at least 4.0. Open link respondents are slightly less
satisfied, but that finding is common in parks and recreation research.
Adult recreation programs, special events, aquatics facilities and programs,
and heritage and cultural arts programs are the four facilities/services that
are identified by the matrix for improvements.
•The above four facilities/programs are perceived as being higher than average importance, but
lower than average needs met. These could be areas of opportunities for Dublin to expand
and/or improve on in the future.
6
Page | 69
KEY FINDINGS
More programs/community events for recreation facilities and more shaded
areas for parks were identified to increase participation rates.
•Respondents identified these two top improvements that could be made for increasing their
participation rates of facilities and parks, respectively. Also highlighted were more/improved
restrooms for facilities and safer biking/walking connections for parks.
For the new Cultural Arts Center, respondents identified art classrooms, and
performance and event space as the two most desired additions for the
facility.
•Respondents also identified music classrooms and dance studios as top needs for the new
facility.
Open-ended comments praised Dublin for what it provides and offers for the
community. Specific park-improvements were suggested along with
additions for programs and new facilities.
•Overall, respondents commented on how impressed they were with Dublin’s ability to provide
high quality services and facilities. However, there are some areas of improvement indicated by
the open-ended comments.
7
Page | 70
DEMOGRAPHICS
Page | 71
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
9
Respondents are nearly split in identifying as male (46%) and female (54%). Of invitation respondent nearly
55% of households state they have kids in the home. Age, a weighted variable, displays a representation
equal to that of the U.S. Census estimates for Dublin. Results indicate the sample consists of a wide cross-
section of respondents from Dublin.
Page | 72
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
10
A portion of invite and open link respondents identify as Hispanic / Latino / Spanish origin (7%
and 8%, respectively). The majority of invite respondents identify as White (59%) with Asian
(31%), Black or African American (3%), and another race (7%) following in selection (small
sample size for open link respondents). Annual income skews high for invitation and open link
respondents.
Page | 73
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
11
Most invite respondents own their own home (81%) and 6% have a need for ADA-accessible
facilities and services. Approximately 41% of invite respondents have lived in Dublin for more
than 10 years, with 31% living in town between 4 –10 years. Open link results trend similar.
Page | 74
CURRENT PARTICIPATION
Page | 75
FAMILIARITY WITH PARKS AND RECREATION
13
Dublin invite respondents are moderately-to-mostly familiar (rating 3 or 4) with parks and
recreation facilities and services. About 54% of respondents rated their familiarity either a 4
or 5 (“very familiar), while 33% rated their familiarity 3 out of 5. Only 13% rated either a 1 or
2 out of 5. Open link respondents are more familiar than invite respondents overall.
Page | 76
FAMILIARITY BY AGE
14
By age, familiarity is strongest for those aged 45-54 with 39% rating their familiarity a 5 out of
5 (using both invite and open link samples). Those under 35 are least familiar with Dublin’s
parks and recreation services, with those 75 and older less familiar too. Households most
likely to be aged in the range to have children are more familiar than most other age ranges.
Page | 77
FAMILIARITY BY LENGTH OF TIME IN DUBLIN
15
When cross-tabbed by length of time in Dublin, respondents who have lived longer in the
community are more familiar with the parks and recreation services offered, a likely trend.
However, there may be room to further promote and on -board new residents to what is
offered in Dublin for parks and recreation activities and services. Those who have lived in
Dublin less than three years are much less likely to know what is offered.
Page | 78
USAGE OF FACILITIES/AMENITIES
16
The Dublin Public Library (70%), Emerald Glen Park (68%), and a variety of “other”
neighborhood / community parks (54%) are used most frequently in Dublin by invite
respondents. The Wave at Emerald Glen Park (39%), Fallon Sports Park (37%), and Shannon
Community Center (33%) follow in usage. Respondents from the open link are more likely to
participate/use nearly all facilities in the community, especially Fallon Sports Park.
Page | 79
MOST FREQUENT USAGE
17
When asked to choose the facility respondents use the most, Emerald Glen Park (25%) and
“Other” neighborhood / community parks (19%) rise to the top for invite respondents. Dublin
Public Library (15%) and Fallon Sports Park (15%) are close behind as the next two most used
facility/amenity for invite respondents. Open link respondents are much more likely to cite
the Fallon Sports Park (28%) as one their most commonly used facility.
Page | 80
INCREASING USAGE OF FACILITIES
18
Invite respondents would use recreation facilities more often if more programs/community
events (39%) were held, more or improved restrooms (31%) were utilized, better
condition/maintenance of facilities (28%), and lower pricing/user fees (27%) was addressed.
Open link respondents were more apt to say they desired lower pricing/user fees (34%) and
more facilities (28%) than invite respondents.
Page | 81
INCREASING USAGE OF PARKS
19
Invite respondents would use parks more frequently if there were more shaded areas (52%),
safer biking and walking routes/connections (35%), and more programs in parks (35%). Open
link respondents were similar, but had a higher response for increased/improved lighting (32%)
to encourage higher participation rates in parks.
Page | 82
CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES
Page | 83
SATISFACTION
21
In general, invite respondents are quite satisfied with parks, recreation facilities, events, and
programs/services. Parks received the highest average rating (4.3 out of 5.0) with facilities (4.1) following.
Events and programs were reported with the lowest satisfaction (4.0), but the average is still moderately
high with few respondents stating negative opinions. Open link respondents were similar in rankings, but
slightly less satisfied in all categories.
Page | 84
SATISFACTION BY AGE
22
By age, satisfaction tends to increase in older age ranges. The least satisfied age grouping are those aged
35-44 who reported lower ratings in nearly every category compared to other age groups. Those 65-74 had
the highest average satisfaction ratings compared to other groups. It appears that those who are most likely
to have young children may be the most critical in their satisfaction, which is commonly seen in other parks
and recreation studies too.
Page | 85
MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT OFFERINGS -INVITE
23
The most important facilities/services to invite respondents are neighborhood/community parks
(4.5) and the Dublin Public Library (4.4). Trails and bikeways (4.2) are a close third in terms of
importance. These three options are of much higher in importance for invite respondents.
Page | 86
MOST IMPORTANT CURRENT OFFERINGS –OPEN LINK
24
The most important facilities/services to open link respondents are neighborhood/community
parks (4.5) and the Dublin Public Library (4.3). Trails and bikeways (4.1) are a close third in
terms of importance for this group as well. Youth and teen programs are considerably more
important for open link respondents when compared to invite. The overall trend is similar
though.
Page | 87
NEEDS MET OF CURRENT OFFERINGS -INVITE
25
When asked how well these facilities are meeting the needs of Dublin, the Dublin Public Library (4.2),
Dublin Senior Center (4.1), and three tied at 4.0 (athletic fields, Shannon Community Center, and
Neighborhood/community parks) are best meeting the needs of Dublin for invite respondents. The facilities
that are least meeting the needs of invite respondents are non-traditional athletic fields and Stager Gym.
Page | 88
NEEDS MET OF CURRENT OFFERINGS –OPEN LINK
26
For open link respondents, the Dublin Public Library (4.2), athletic fields (3.9),
neighborhood/community parks (3.8), and Shannon Community Center (3.8) are most meeting
their needs. Senior programs (3.2) are least meeting the needs of this group, but they are also
not that important overall to open link respondents.
Page | 89
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX
27
High importance/
Low needs met High importance/
High needs met
Low importance/
Low needs met
Low importance/
High needs met
These amenities are important to most
respondents and should be maintained
in the future, but are less of a priority for
improvements as needs are currently
being adequately met.
These are key areas for potential
improvements. Improving these
facilities/programs would likely
positively affect the degree to which
community needs are met overall.
Current levels of support appear to be
adequate. Future discussions evaluating
whether the resources supporting these
facilities/programs outweigh the benefits
may be constructive.
These “niche” facilities/programs have a
small but passionate following, so
measuring participation when planning
for future improvements may prove to
be valuable.
Survey results from the previous questions are combined in a graphic illustration that shows the “importance” of
facilities on the Y-axis and the “needs met” ratings on the X-axis. As described below, these matrices provide a means
to evaluate potential priorities based on survey data.
Page | 90
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX (INVITE)
28
High importance / Low needs met
High importance / High needs met
Low importance / Low needs met Low importance / High needs met
Page | 91
IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX (OPEN LINK)
29
High importance / Low needs met
High importance / High needs met
Low importance / Low needs met Low importance / High needs met
Page | 92
FUTURE FACILITIES, AMENITIES,
& PROGRAMS
Page | 93
31
GREATEST NEEDS IN DUBLIN -INVITE
Invite respondents
indicated the greatest
needs in Dublin over
the next 5 to 10 years
to be; City parks and
open space (4.4), trail
and pathway
connectivity (4.4) and
improved amenities
(4.1). A second tier of
importance included
youth and teen
programs (3.8), indoor
multi-use facility (3.8),
athletic fields and
courts (3.8), and
cultural activities and
events (3.8).
Page | 94
32
GREATEST NEEDS IN DUBLIN –OPEN LINK
Open link respondents
indicated the greatest
needs in Dublin over the
next 5 to 10 years to be;
City parks and open
space (4.1), trail and
pathway connectivity
(4.1) and improved
amenities (4.0), and
youth and teen
programs (4.0). A second
tier of importance
included indoor multi-
use facility (3.8) and
athletic fields and
courts (3.7).
Page | 95
FAMILIARITY WITH PUBLIC ART
33
Familiarity with public art in Dublin is split for both invite and open link respondents. About 49% of invite
respondents and 34% of open link respondents are “not at all familiar” or unfamiliar (rated 1 or 2), 24% of
invite and 31% of open link are somewhat familiar (rated 3 out of 5) and 24% of invite and 34% of open link
are familiar to very familiar (rated 4 or 5). Overall, familiarity is not as strong for public art as it is for
general parks and recreation facilities and services.
Page | 96
AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC/CULTURAL ART
34
Respondents were asked to state their agreement with four statements about public art in
Dublin. In general, invite respondents were positive for cultural and performance art. In all
categories, many more respondents were positive than negative on public art’s influence and
place within Dublin. Open link respondents had less overall support, but still had more
respondents agreeing than disagreeing with the statements on public art.
Page | 97
SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC ART
35
Despite individuals not being completely aware of public art, a majority of invite respondents
would support additional areas to display it in Dublin. About 57% of invite rated their support
either a 4 or 5, while 42% of open link said the same. Overall, open link respondents are
slightly more likely to not support public art, but they still represent a smaller share than those
that would support more areas.
Page | 98
SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC ART BY AGE
36
Support for public art varies slightly by age. In particular, younger age groups reported stronger
support than those older. Those under 45 years old had the strongest levels of support while
those 75 and older had the least support. Overall, more respondents in each age group
supported the idea than did not support it.
Page | 99
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER ACTIVITIES
37
When asked what
respondents would
like to see in the new
Cultural Arts Center,
invite and open link
respondents trended
similar. Art classrooms
(68% invite),
performance and
event space (66%
invite), and music
classrooms (59%
invite) were the top
three choices for both
groups.
Page | 100
COMMUNICATION
Page | 101
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS
39
Communication effectiveness was rated moderately high by both invite and open link
respondents. About 54% of invite and 51% of open link rated Dublin’s communication
effectiveness either a 4 or 5 out of 5. Only 19% of invite and 22% of open link rated the
communication as “ineffective” (1 or 2 out of 5).
Page | 102
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS BY AGE
40
When examined by age, those under 35 had the lowest rating of effectiveness overall with 33%
rating either 1 or 2 out of 5. Those 65-74 had the highest rating with 77% rating the
effectiveness either a 4 or 5. There may be opportunities to improve communication of parks
and recreation offerings with new/younger generations within the community.
Page | 103
COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS
41
When asked which method of communication is best for the respondent, both the invite and
open link cited the activity guide/brochure (68% invite, 67% open link) and E -mail from the
City (58% invite, 73% open link) as the top two options. Open link respondents were more apt
to desire parks and recreation information via social media (54%) while newsletters were more
common for invite respondents (46%).
Page | 104
VALUES AND VISION
Page | 105
VALUES AND VISION
43
$
Invite respondents see Dublin’s parks and recreation providing the following top benefits for the community:
recreational experiences (82%), promoting health and wellness (75%), and strengthening community
image/sense of place (64%). Open link results were similar for most benefits/purposes of parks and
recreation.
Page | 106
SUGGESTIONS
Page | 107
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments about
parks and recreation facilities and programs, needs, and opportunities in Dublin. Prominent themes include
praise for what Dublin offers, a need to continue maintenance, specific individual park improvements, and a
need for more facilities/parks. Random selections of verbatim responses from all open-ended questions related
to each theme are shown in the slides to follow. A full listing of responses is provided in the appendix.
45
Do you have any further comments regarding facilities, activities, or services
provided by the Dublin Parks and Recreation Department?
Page | 108
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
PRAISE FOR CURRENT OFFERINGS
46
Thanks to the leadership for making Dublin a wonderful place. I
would recommend to please review the current ecological
situation before allowing any other houses construction.
We as a family are fond of parks & public spaces
that Dublin offers. We are in favor of green
Dublin city which is walkable, cyclable &
promotes beautification of city through local
businesses and artists. We heart Dublin
Dublin does a nice job of promoting their parks and rec
facilities.
Our use of many of Dublin's fine facilities are limited now that
our children are grown and live in other cities with their
children. We appreciate the efforts Dublin has made to have
parks in so many communities in our City.
Overall I think Dublin does good with their parks, recreation,
and programs. I wish they would have more shade at parks and
restrooms available. Dublin parks are a great place for kids.
Thank you for providing such fantastic
amenities already! The city clearly cares and
works hard to have accessible facilities and
programs. It is really impressive. I really look
forward to more outdoor space and think
partnerships with EBRPD and others would
be beneficial. Keep up the great work, and
thank you for making Dublin a special place
to live.
Page | 109
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
PARK-SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS
47
Please cut grass shorter and more often at all parks. Enforce
dogs on leashes. I can't say it enough. Thank you for asking the
people of Dublin for their opinion. It is greatly appreciated.
I would love to see a dog park on the east side
so we don't have to drive to Dougherty Hill dog
park.
Several parks don't have adequately clean public restroom. Also
these are few indoor facilities or shade areas for people during
summer. Availability for birthday party events is also limited.
The grass put in at Dougherty Dog park already
dead in some areas. It was a waste of money.
needs to be different ground cover. Also
maintenance has to be kept up.
I think we need an inexpensive family swim option -not all the bells and whistles of the Wave -still upset about
the closure of the city pool near DHS. I have to go to San Ramon for private swim lessons/family swimming. My
husband would like more tennis court options in W. Dublin.
Dublin has an abundance of parks to explore. We are looking forward to the updates and improvements at the City
Sports Park with the All Inclusion Park. We hope that is a grand addition and that many more renovations and
improvements are made to that area overall. We would like to see many more small child friendly facilities at the
Dublin Library. We'd also like to see more fun activities in general on the calendar at the library. It's a bit off putting
and disturbing that we see more Restraining Order Clinics than creative and fun activities for children. Page | 110
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS
MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES
48
We need to improve our soccer facilities to
encompass more fields and also Futsal courts.
Athletic courts in sport park are not balanced. Too many
softball courts and under used, while tennis courts are too
crowded!!
During the summer it's hot in Dublin during sunlight hours.
Suggest adding lights and offering after dark hours to same
parks like dog parks and kids parks
Please work harder to keep the Pioneer Cemetery cleaned &
maintained also Kolb house & surrounding buildings are in
need of better maintenance / repair.
Please finish developing the neighborhood
park close to Wallis Ranch (across the street
from Quarry Lane school). The “future
neighborhood park” sign has been up for 3
years already. would love to be able to use it!
Thank you!
I would want cleaner bathrooms at public parks and add more
charging stations for electric cars.
Page | 111
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Appendices
Appendix B
Existing Parks Assessment
Page | 113
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX B:
Existing P arks
Assessment
EXISTING DUBLIN PARKS
ASSESSMENT
The parks assessment was completed in 2019. Butterfly Knoll Park and Clover & Sunrise Parks
were not complete at the time of the assessment and are not included.
*Each park assessment lists opportunities, that if addressed, could improve the park. Many of
those items have been completed and are identified with an asterisk.
Page | 114
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
ALAMO CREEK PARK
5.3 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
7601 SHADY CREEK ROAD
INVENTORY:
Large informal field
•Public art
•Trail connection
•Basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
KEY FINDINGS:
Actively used park with various activities for all ages, picnic
OPPORTUNITIES:
I · Maintain or replace picnic tables due to graffiti*
area with three barbecue grills and picnic tables that seat •consider adding additional shaded seating areas
people under nice shady tree canopies. One advantage of this
park is that it serves as a trailhead to the Dublin trail system.
KEY FINDINGS:
BRAY COMMONS
4.8 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3300 FINNIAN WAY
INVENTORY:
•Dog run(20lbs.or unde0
•Volleyball court (grass)
•Multi-purpose field
•Excellent treesI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • Play equipment has sun damage
•Replace dried out ground cover planting
Plethora of shady trees along pathways and large central lawn
space with various amenities including a grassy volleyball
court embody this parks character. In addition to the park's
other amenities, Bray Commons also features various game
tables, including chess and checkers table tops. Dog run
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: playgrounds
for dogs 20 lbs. or under and various seating opportunities
peppered throughout the park add to the experience.
10/25/19 EXISTING CONDITIONS .l.......J Page | 115
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CA LIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Park services surrounding neighborhood and includes
a labyrinth and a water play area. Nice large trees along
pathways and ample space for children's play area are a nice
addition to this park. A lack of restroom facilities may present
an opportunity for enhancement.
KEY FINDINGS:
Excellent walking trail with break out fitness stations and
signage engage users within this park. Separate play areas
targeting different age groups, and large shade structure with
numerous picnic tables creates respite from the sun.
10/25/19
DEVANY SQUARE
2.0 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
4405 CHANCERY LANE
INVENTORY:
Large flexible space
Children's play area
Children's water play area
I OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Replace or maintain sun damaged playground equipment
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: unlit sports courts, and
additional non-competitive sports fields
DOLAN PARK
4.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
11651 PADRE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Shaded picnic shelter
•Hilly -not a lot of flat space for informal field
Large public art installation; 12' high x 14' long steel "arm"
Basketball court with lights
•Fitness equipment stationsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Outdoor fitness stations need attention
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: open multi-use areas
EXISTING CONDITIONS L....J Page | 116
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
One of two dog parks in Dublin, servicing both large and small
dog breeds in separate contained areas. Doggie drinking
fountain placed in either dog run and benches scattered
throughout provide a nice amenity for users.
KEY FINDINGS:
Large multi-functional park with historic buildings, lawns, a
historic cemetery, picnic areas, and various amenities embody
the character of this park. The vibrant landscape palette is
open to the public during daylight hours with a variety of
native planting and impressive trees. This park serves as the
home to classes, camps, events, and tours.
10/25/19
DOUGHERTY HILLS DOG PARK
1.4 ACRES
NEIGH BORHOOD PARK
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Large open lawn for dog exercise and interaction with
fencing for safety
•Recent public art installation
•Minimal plant variety
Doggie fountains in either dog runI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Lawn worn and dry, ensure irrigation reaches these areas
•Consider adding agility equipment, boulders, or mounds for
exercise variation
•Consider restroom facility for dog owners/ attendees as
funds become available
DUBLIN HERITAGE PARK &
MUSEUMS
10.0 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
6600 DONLON WAY
INVENTORY:
Planting in planters thriving, variety of ornamentals, nice
repetition of allee trees and grasses
•Shady areas abundant
•Picnic area seats 80
2 barbecue grillsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Trees in picnic area need to be considered for replacement;
splitting bark and tree trunks, irrigation in the roots
•Typically, neighborhood parks may include the following
additional facilities: additional unlit sports courts, and
additional non-competitive sports fields
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2........J Page | 117
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS
22.8 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
6700 DUBLIN BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Concession stand
• 1 Lighted baseball diamond, 2 lighted softball diamonds, 2
lighted soccer fields
•Walkways and trails
•Children's play area heavily used
KEY FINDINGS:
=:;.;:;,__,-"'--"-"' I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.9 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Situated in a prime, central location, Dublin Sports Grounds
accommodates several athletics. With several lit ball fields
and soccer fields, for games and practices, and children's play
area, there is something for everyone to be active and enjoy.
KEY FINDINGS:
Community park with various programming elements ranging
from athletic fields to Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic
Complex, plethora of seating opportunities and well planted
landscape areas. Plenty of flexible space, walking trails, and
connections to the Dublin trail system make this park a true
gem within the overall system.
10/25/19
• Replace older, sun damaged, playground equipment;
consider expanding playground to be adequate size for usage
ie. adding swings at playground for variety*
•Trash receptacles not consistent, styles vary*
•Consider adding shade structures near seating areas*
•Consider any additional facility needs this community park
may require, (i.e. community parks may additionally include
aquatic amenities)*
EMERALD GLEN PARK
49.0 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
4201 CENTRAL PARKWAY
INVENTORY:
•Bio-retention planters thriving
•Copious amount of space for flexible programming
•Aquatics center, skate park, basketball courts, baseball
diamonds, bocce courts, soccer fields, tennis courts, picnicareas
•Water play areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • Cricket pitch with evident worn turf, replace*
•Trash receptacles sun damaged and not consistent style*
•Consider any additional facility needs this community park
may require, (i.e. community parks may additionally include
lighting on remaining sports fields)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page | 118
Page | 119
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Large park for multi-purpose use. Seating areas covered by
tree canopies for shade. Separate play equipment areas for
different kids age groups.
KOLB PARK
4.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
8020 BRISTOL ROAD
KEY FINDINGS:
•Fitness equipment
•Play equipment for different age groups
•Tennis courts (lighted)
•Pedestrian walkway
•Picnic area seats 48, 2 barbecue grillsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Bathroom restoration
•Improve accent plant palette variety
•Update or replace sun damaged kids play equipment
•Outdoor activity stations needs updating
•Multi-purpose field unleveled, maintain for activity use
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
MAPE MEMORIAL PARK
2.6 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
11711 MAPE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Grassy areas, large shade trees, and planting bed
Large informal field/lawn
•Sand volleyball court
KEY FINDINGS:
--=----...JI I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.6 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Mape Park was named for Commander John Jack Clement
Mape USN, who was Dublin's first casualty of the Vietnam
War. Adjacent to school with basketball courts and
playground, park offers plenty of flexible lawn space.
10/25/19
I • Update aged kids play equipment*
•Update plant palette to include more ornamental shrubs*
•Update site furnishings including seating areas
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally reflect
neighborhood character
EXISTING CONDITIONS §........J
Page | 120
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Lush and verdant landscape palette. Age-inclusive kids play
equipment includes a playground for tots and a separate
playground for older children. This park offers unique
amenities including an interactive sundial, a small vineyard,
seasonal garden, grilling stations, restrooms, and windy
walkway a large multi-purpose field surrounded by a walking
path.
KEY FINDINGS:
Park features an expansive meadow offering opportunity for
flexible programming, a play area, and shaded picnic area. A
serene tree lined pedestrian walkway emphasizes this facility.
10/25/19
PASSATEMPO PARK
5.1 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3200 PALERMO WAY
KEY FINDINGS:
•Lush landscape
•Multi-purpose field
•Well kept play equipment
•Pedestrian walkways and trails
•Picnic areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks include additional
spaces for relaxation
PIAZZA SORRENTO
2.0 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3600 PALERMO WAY
INVENTORY:
Large open field on slight slope
Pleasant ornamental trees varieties
•Shaded seating areaI OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Play equipment sun damaged, consider updating and
replacing
•Seating area can use upgraded furnishings
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
EXISTING CONDITIONS z........i Page | 121
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
This park offers opportunity for play to all ages including fun
interactive nature-themed play areas for children and an
outdoor basketball court. Various seating areas can be found
throughout the park along the windy pedestrian path while
the lush landscape compliments adjacent Tri-Valley views.
KEY FINDINGS:
Landscape palette very verdant. Informal field offers flexible
use. Covered picnic structure with tables offers respite from
the sun. Other amenities the park offers include a "tot lot"
for 2-to 5-year olds, an apparatus play area for 5-to 13-year
olds, a basketball court, a tennis court, and a pair of game
tables for checkers or chess. Dogs are permitted on a leash.
10/25/19
POSITANO HILLS PARK
4.6 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
2301 VALENTANO DRIVE
INVENTORY:
•Flat flexible lawn
Unique playground equipment placement
•Various seating elements
•Excellent views of the Tri-Valley
Basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional unlit sports facilities
SCHAEFER RANCH PARK
6.3 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
9595 DUBLIN BLVD
INVENTORY:
•Large informal field
•Beautiful ornamental trees
•Apparent of safety features
• Tennis court, basketball courtI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Playground may need additional shade elements
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation
EXISTING CONDITIONS �
Page | 122
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Dublin's 20th park to open, names for former Dublin resident
Army Staff Sergeant Sean Diamond, who was killed in action
in Iraq in 2009. The park being fairly recently opened shows
little signs of wear and tear. Contains two play areas with
unique play features including a 90' long zip line, large shade
canopy, and large open meadow for informal programming.
KEY FINDINGS:
This park had much to offer; public art, lush planting beds,
and a variety of frees. A natural creek meanders its way
through the park and is a great place for exploring nature.
Water feature and solar panels add unique touches to the
park. Dogs are permitted on a leash.
10/25/19
SEAN DIAMOND PARK
5.03 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
4801 LA STRADA DRIVE
INVENTORY:
Volleyball court (grass), tennis court
Shade structure provides sun respite seating area
•Many verdant grasses, overall landscape vibrant
•Unique play equipment (ie. zip line)I OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.8 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
I • No visible public art*
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation, and practice fields
SHANNON PARK
9.6 ACRES
COMMUNITY PARK
11600 SHANNON AVE
INVENTORY:
•Water Play Area
•Adjacent community center and preschool accessible bybridges
Informal sports fields
•EV charging stationsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.7 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES:
• Incorporate ADA paths at seating under solar panels
• If appropriate, consider any facility needs this community
park may require, (i.e. community parks may also include
lighted sports fields)
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-.......J Page | 123
EXISTING PARK ASSESSMENT DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA
KEY FINDINGS:
Ample seating with no shade coverage is the highlight of this
park. Covered kids play structure in good condition and has
unique interactive climbing elements. Park features an art
installation, commissioned by the City of Dublin in 1996.
KEY FINDINGS:
Park features various athletic fields including a basketball
court and soccer fields surrounded by pathways. Various
areas for seating under shady tree canopies. Public art
installation gives the park a fun and colorful identity.
10/25/19
STAGECOACH PARK
0.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
7550 STAGECOACH ROAD
INVENTORY:
•Public art installation
•Rubber turf ground and shade structure over kids play area
•Lush native landscape
I OVERALL PARK RATING: 2.0 (EXCELLENT)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Increase shade around seating area
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional spaces for relaxation, informal multi-purpose
lawn space, as well as sport practice courts and fields
TED FAIRFIELD PARK
6.9 ACRES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
3400 ANTONE WAY
INVENTORY:
•Variety of athletic fields including baseball diamond, sand
volleyball court, basketball court
•Large public art tile mosaic
•Picnic tables
•Pedestrian walkway and trailsI OVERALL PARK RATING: 1.6 (GOOD)
OPPORTUNITIES: I • Play structure needs to be updated
•Consider any additional facility needs for this neighborhood
park. Typically neighborhood parks will additionally include
additional informal multi-purpose lawn space.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page | 124
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
Initial Study | Appendices
Appendix C
Facility Standards
Page | 125
City of Dublin, CA | Parks & Recreation Master Plan
APPENDIX C:
2015 F acilities
Standards
PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITY STANDARD
2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Page | 126
ACTIVE COMMUNITY PARK STANDARDS
Active Community Parks should offer a variety of recreational opportunities that attract a wide range of local
age groups and interests. Active Community Parks should feature large open space areas, unique natural,
historic, and/ or cultural areas as well as group picnic areas, bicycling and hiking trails, sports facilities, dog runs,
community facilities, and other unique features or facilities.
Size: Approximately 10 to 60 acres
Service Area: Preferably centralized within the City of Dublin.
Access/Location: Highly visible and easily accessible. These Community Parks should be utilized to
create a central focus for the Dublin community.
Park Design: Active Community Parks should create a memorable social hub and landmark public
destination.
Facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience of all residents.
Provide a mixture of facilities to attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Provide a sense of connection linking the uses on the site to the surrounding retail,
residential or recreational facilities.
Play Area: High quality and innovative play structures.
Larger than neighborhood parks.
Separate facilities for tots from those for older children. Provide parents seating area.
Potential Sports Facilities: Diamond ball fields (60-foot, 80-foot and 90-foot), graded and maintained for
practice and competitive baseball or softball. Spectator amenities.
Regulation soccer fields with a combination of natural and synthetic turf.
Practice soccer fields (may overlap ball fields). Cricket Pitch.
Football field.
Futsal court (may overlap with basketball). Outdoor basketball courts.
Outdoor volleyball courts. Lighted tennis courts.
Pickleball courts. Frisbee golf.
Exercise equipment.
Picnic Facilities: Shaded and secluded picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people located throughout
the park providing areas for spontaneous picnic use. Group picnic facilities by
reservation.
Natural Areas: Open meadow zones that provide soft, green use areas for picnics, informal
sports as well as passive group and individual uses.
Provide pedestrian trails to link with regional trail and transit systems.
Potential Special Features: Dog parks
Multi-Purpose Room Buildings for classes and camps.
Cultural and Performing Arts spaces. Public Art for visual impact.
Community garden. Maintenance yard for the park.
Additional unique features may include an education center or museum, outdoor
amphitheater, rose gardens, or outdoor wedding facilities.
Restrooms: Permanent restroom structure.
Parking: Sufficient parking lot to accommodate demand during high use periods.
Page | 127
NATURAL COMMUNITY PARK STANDARDS
Natural Community Parks should offer a variety of passive recreational opportunities that attract a
range of age groups of people looking for a more serene park experience. Natural Community Parks
should feature areas that are primarily un-programmed and more natural in appearance, often
including features that have historically existed on the site, such as hills, creek or wetland features, or
man-made structures such as bridges or small buildings.
Size: Varies depending on location and adjacencies.
Service Area: Future Natural Community Parks should be located in the Western and/or
Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Access/Location: Dependent on the location of the natural features to be enhanced and/or
retained.
Park Design: Natural Community Parks should create a space for quiet, passive
enjoyment of the natural landscape primarily with low intensity uses and a
few active nodes. Uses that may be appropriate for inclusion in a Natural
Community Park include:
•Trails and sitting areas.
•Wildlife viewing platforms.
•Outdoor educational spaces.
•Nature interpretive areas with signage.
•Shaded and secluded picnic areas with tables for 6 to 8 people
located throughout the park providing available areas for small-scale
picnic use.
•Community and/or children’s garden.
•Par course style exercise.
•Open meadow zones that provide soft, green use areas for
informal sports as well as passive group and individual uses.
•Public restrooms.
•Parking area.
•High quality and innovative natural play features built into the
landscape may be appropriate in limited areas.
•Ample pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby
residential areas.
•Other appropriate facilities that maximize the recreational and
leisure experience of all residents.
Page | 128
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK STANDARDS
The neighborhood park can be the visual and social center for the local community. In addition to meeting the
local residents’ recreational needs, the neighborhood park is also a “village green.” These parks should be
designed to reflect the unique character of each neighborhood.
Neighborhood parks are developed to provide space for relaxation, play and informal recreation activities in a
specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units. The park improvements are oriented toward the individual
recreational needs of the neighborhood in which it is located. Facilities should be designed to include practice
fields and not for competitive use, which traditionally bring more traffic into a neighborhood.
Development Criteria: Approximately 4 to 9 net acres.
Service Area: Service area defined by major arterials or topography.
Adjacent to neighborhood boundaries or open space area, visible from
neighborhood entry.
Site Characteristics: Major percentage of the site should be level to accommodate active recreation
uses.
Natural or visual qualities to enhance the character.
Access/Location: Minimum of two public street frontages.
On collector or residential streets; not major arterials.
Park Design: Central green/social center for neighborhood. Reflect character of setting—natural
features or architectural style of homes.
Play Area: Tot lot for children 2 - 4 years.
Playground for youth 5 - 12 years.
Parent’s seating area.
Potential Sports Facilities: Turf fields graded and maintained for practice
softball/baseball (minimum 250' outfield) and soccer (minimum 180').
Tennis courts. Volleyball courts.
Outdoor basketball courts. Pickleball courts.
Walking track.
Exercise/Par-Course Equipment.
Picnic Facilities: Tables and secluded space for informal family picnics up to 6 - 8 people.
Barbecue facilities in family-sized picnic areas.
Natural Areas: Open space meadow for informal sports, games and passive activities.
Restrooms: Two unisex restrooms.
Parking: Sufficient off-street parking where minimum street frontages are not provided.
Lockable parking for 6 - 10 bicycles.
Lighting: Provide lighting for security purposes not for night-use activities. Avoid penetration
of unwanted light into adjacent neighborhood.
Page | 129
NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE STANDARDS
Neighborhood Squares provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or
special interest group such as young children or senior citizens. The Neighborhood Square is a scaled-
down version of the Neighborhood Park, with an average size of 2-acres and located in high density
residential urban areas where a green pocket is the central focus of the neighborhood.
Site Characteristics: Approximately 2-3 net-acres on a predominately level site.
Access/Location: Prominent location preferably at cross street. Within neighborhoods
and in close proximity to apartment complexes, townhouse development or
housing for the elderly.
Linked with trails and pedestrian walkways.
Park Design: Each park should have unique characteristics such as public art,
fountain, bandstand, formal gardens, etc. to create a focal point for high
density areas.
Develop plaza areas for gathering and neighborhood social events.
Play Area: Small scale, high quality play structures.
Parents’ seating area.
Sports Facilities: As appropriate to user groups in adjacent homes; provide tennis
court, pickleball courts, volleyball court, or basketball court.
Picnic Facilities: Tables and benches with limited open space for individual use.
Seat walls for informal picnicking.
Natural Areas: Views and vistas are desirable.
Restrooms: Not provided.
Parking: Street parking.
Lighting: As necessary for security only.
Page | 130
DOWNTOWN PLAZA STANDARDS
Urban Plazas provide a public gathering place for the Downtown area.
Site Characteristics: 0.5 -1.5 net acres on a predominately level site.
Access/Location: Prominent site, preferably at a historically relevant location or a centrally
located site in the Downtown.
Linked with pedestrian walkways that access commercial, civic, and/or residential
uses in Downtown Dublin is preferred.
Park Design: Should have unique characteristics such as public art, fountain,
seating, etc. to create a focal point for gathering and social events.
Play Area: Small scale, high quality play structures may be appropriate with parents
seating area.
Sports Facilities: None.
Picnic Facilities: Tables and benches with limited open space for individual use and
seatwalls for informal picnicking.
Natural Areas: Views and vistas are desirable.
Restrooms: Not provided.
Parking: Street parking.
Lighting: As necessary for security only.
Page | 131
CULTURAL ARTS CENTER STANDARDS
A Cultural Arts Center can provide a multi-use facility that affords cultural, educational and social opportunities
for the entire community. The primary focus of this facility would be the Gallery and adjacent multi-purpose
space making it a destination for exhibitions and social events. The facility would also feature classrooms to
support a variety of cultural arts experiences.
Size: Dependent on program study.
Development Criteria: One facility per community.
Acreage: Dependent on program study.
Service Area: Centralized to major population centers.
Site Characteristics: Predominantly level.
Interesting natural or visual characteristics such as existing trees, creek, vistas.
Access/Location: Located on a major arterial or collector road with high visibility.
Twenty-minute driving time.
Facility Design: Memorable public destination point which would be a source of pride for
the City.
Destination that will serve the diverse needs of the entire Community.
Indoor Facilities: Lobby and Reception.
Classroom/Music Room.
Art Classrooms.
Gallery Space.
Multi-Use Room.
Administrative Space.
Special Features: Outdoor patios.
Page | 132
TRAIL STANDARDS
There are three basic types of trail types that may be found in Dublin - hiking and jogging,
bicycle, and equestrian. Trails are different than parkways or paths within neighborhoods
that are privately maintained, and they are different than sidewalk or bike lanes as
described in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. While those facilities are great
amenities for the community, they are not counted as parkland, whereas a trail that is
improved to the standards contained within this Master Plan and dedicated to public use
can be considered parkland.
The types of trails that have standards in this Master Plan include:
•Parkway Trail: Paved path suitable for bicycles and pedestrians which is physically
separated from the street and not a part of the road section.
•Creekside Trail: Paved trails along creeks for pedestrian and potential bicycle use.
•Open Space Trail: Unpaved trails for equestrian and hiking use.
Hikers, joggers, and strollers make up the majority of trail users. This group naturally prefers to use trails
that are safe, that provide good footing and that are routed through interesting landscape with
attainable destination points and offer some amenities along the way such as benches and rest areas.
Pedestrians will use all the trail types noted above.
Cyclists typically use the Parkway and Creekside Trails. Recreational cyclists typically prefer trails which
have smooth surfaces (preferably paved) and which are separated from other types of traffic. Often
traveling a distance of 25 miles on an outing, the serious recreational cyclist prefers trails with sweeping
curves, good visibility, and a minimum of cross streets.
Equestrians typically use Open Space Trails, which are generally planned for the outlying areas of the
City where there is more open space and natural landscape. Because of the limited available space in
Dublin, equestrian trails are intended to connect with other regional-serving trails in neighboring
communities and park districts.
General Trail Design
Trail design should include appropriate landscaping to provide a pleasant visual and
physical environment, including protection from sun, wind, and noise where possible.
•Where feasible and desirable, trail projects should accommodate more than
one type of trail use.
•Designed to require as little maintenance as possible over time and to avoid steep inclines.
•Preserve existing vegetation, removing only as much as necessary to accommodate
the trail. Analyze existing topography and locate trails so that minimal grading is
required.
Page | 133
Parkway Trail Design
The parkway links areas within the community. As an important recreation and transportation corridor,
it should be visually distinct. It should accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian use, both separated
from the street. The parkway should be well landscaped and lighted.
Easement Width: Minimum 20 feet with landscaping on either side of formal paths.
Pedestrian Path: Minimum 5 feet wide, concrete.
Bicycle Path: Minimum 8 feet, maximum 12 feet wide; 12 feet when joint use with
pedestrians.
Asphalt or concrete
Rest Areas: Rest area should include a bench and drinking fountain.
Creekside Trail Design
•Creekside trails are a desirable community amenity and are a scenic and educational resource.
•Width of creek trails should be a function of amount of use and sensitivity of natural resource.
However, a minimum 8' width is desirable.
•Creek trail design and location should be coordinated with Alameda County Flood Control (Zone
7), California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and EBRPD (as appropriate).
•Maintenance roads/paths along creek banks can frequently serve as trails. The final design of
the trail must accommodate appropriate maintenance.
•Where possible, creek trails should be located at top of bank. Because these areas are flat,
grading is kept to a minimum and existing vegetation can be preserved. Erosion and bank
stabilization problems are also minimized. Access to and from streets and access by disabled
persons is generally easier when the trail is located at the top of bank.
•Where creek trails must be located on slopes, a bench will have to be cut into the slope to
provide a flat platform for the trail. The cut should be minimized to preserve as much native
vegetation as possible.
•Generally, the trail should be located as high above the creek as possible. Ease of access to and
from the street and by disabled persons should be considered when locating a trail on a slope.
•Provide rest areas and overlooks with educational signage to enhance enjoyment of creek area.
•Special wildlife habitat areas should be protected from access. Habitat restoration and creek
revegetation should occur in degraded creek areas.
•Where creeks are deeply incised, railing or fencing may be necessary to prevent access to the
creek.
Page | 134
Open Space Trail Design
Open space trails, at a minimum, may be narrow corridors that provide critical linkage to important
facilities.
However, at best, open space trail corridors may incorporate many hundreds of acres of significant open
space and provide the public with unique opportunities to enjoy the natural environment between
developed areas. Frequently, trails in open space areas follow old jeep roads or fire roads.
The ideal alignment will “fit” the trail to the ground and will afford users the best views from the trail as
well as follow the topography of the land.
•Long, straight stretches should be avoided as well as excessive switch backs.
•Avoid areas with high soil erosion, high fire hazard or unstable slopes.
•Where possible, route trails away from residences in order to maintain privacy.
•Establish trail rights-of-way that are wide enough to accommodate the designated uses. For
single or double-use trails that permit hiking and/or equestrian use, provide a minimum right-of-
way width of 20 feet. Multiple-use trails that permit hiking, equestrian and bicycle use, provide a
minimum right-of-way width of 30 to 40 feet.
Staging Area and Trail Head
A trail staging area is best located on arterial or collector roads in areas that are both convenient to the
public and that are easily accessible for maintenance and operation purposes.
•Where possible, located away from nearby residents.
•Provide lights, gates and fencing, as well as fire hydrants and fire truck turnarounds that address
specific needs of police and fire departments.
•Identify and utilize existing parking lots on schools and park facilities, wherever possible, to avoid
duplication of staging facilities.
•A trail head is smaller, often consisting of nothing more than a sign. It may also include a small
rest area. Whether staging area or trail head, each should be improved to include:
•Signs indicating by color and/or graphics trail type; trail name (if appropriate); distance to
distinctive feature or trail junction.
•Map (where appropriate) showing overall system.
•Trash and recycling receptacle(s).
Page | 135