Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 9.1 Request for initiation of Zone ChangeCITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 17, 1992 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff PREPARED BY: David K. Choy, Associate Planner Xi SUBJECT: PA 92-065 Request for Initiation of Zone Change RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Receive report 2. Question Staff 3. Provide input 4. Adopt Resolution Initiating Zone Change or continue to future meeting EXHIBITS: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: A. Draft Resolution Initiating Zone Change 1. Location/Zoning Map 2. General Plan Land Use Designation Map 3. General Plan Land Use Definitions 4. Assessors Map depicting affected properties This Application, PA 92-065, is being requested by the Planning Department, in response to an application submitted by the Operating Engineers Credit Union, PA 92-050. The Operating Engineers Credit Union, located at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (zoned M-1, Light Industrial) propose to expand their current operation into a portion of the adjacent building to the north, located at 6400 Village Parkway (zoned C-O, Administrative Office). A breezeway will be added to connect the two existing office buildings. In conjunction with the proposed expansion, approval of a lot merger application is required to combine the two parcels. However, the lot merger application cannot be approved by the Planning Department, since the resultant parcel would be split zoned (M-1 and C-0). As part of PA 92-050, the Operating Engineers Credit Union is requesting approval of a zone change for the existing ±1.01 acre parcel at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-08) from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-0, Administrative Office District. The zone change would provide a consistent zoning designation for the two parcels, which would allow the Planning Department to approve a lot merger application. ITEM NO. 9A COPIES TO: Property Owners Address Files Planning Secretary PAGE I OF _8 DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to the zone change request by the Operating Engineers Credit Union, PA 92-050, Staff evaluated the properties located along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard. Staff found that this area contains a total of eight contiguous parcels which are zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park/Industrial. These parcels are as follows: APN APN APN APN APN APN APN APN 941-1401-08 941-1401-09 941-1401-10 941-1401-16 941-1401-17 941-1401-18 941-1401-12 941-1401-03 - 6300-6370 Village Parkway; - 6250 Village Parkway; and 6200 Village Parkway; and 6375 Clark Avenue; and 6377 Clark Avenue; and - 6379 Clark Avenue; and - 6363 Clark Avenue; and - 6300 Clark Avenue and All of these parcels have been developed with office as the primary use, except the National Food Laboratory located at 6363 ClarK Avenue, which is operating as a research and development facility. The M-1, Light Industrial District does not, however, permit office use as a primary use. The County of Alameda approved the construction of office buildings and the establishment of office uses on these parcels, prior to the City of Dublin incorporating. Staff feels that office and research and development uses are appropriate in this area, but not under the M-1, Light Industrial District designation. The C-O, Administrative Office District is a more appropriate zoning district, allowing office as a permitted use, and allowing research and development facilities as a conditional use. Both of these uses are consistent with the Business Park/Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation. In addition, the existing British Petroleum Gas Station and Car Wash facility located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway, 6602 Village Parkway, (APN 941-1401-19), is also zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this parcel is Retail/Office. Properties to the north, south and east of this parcel are zoned C-2, General Commercial, and have the same General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office. Staff feels that this property should be rezoned to reflect 1) a zoning designation more appropriate for the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office, and 2) to provide consistent zoning designations for parcels within this area. Section 8-103.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, provides the Planning Commission with the ability to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment through resolution approval. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the draft Resolution relating to PA 92-065 initiating 1) a zone change from the M- 1, Light Industrial District to the C-0, Administrative Office District, for eight contiguous parcels (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) located in the general vicinity of Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard; and 2) initiating a zone change from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-2, General Commercial District, for the property located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19). PAGE 2' OF B RESOLUTION NO. 92 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 92-065 INITIATING A ZONE CHANGE FOR EIGHT PARCELS (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12 & 03) FROM THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO THE C-O, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DISTRICT AND INITIATING A ZONE CHANGE FOR ONE PARCEL (APN 941-1401-19) FROM THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has an adopted Zoning Ordinance which regulates land uses throughout the City; and WHEREAS, an application (PA 92-050) has been submitted requesting a zone change from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-O, Administrative Office District, for the ±1.01 acre parcel located at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-08); and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has evaluated the seven surrounding parcels, in addition to the subject site, along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard (APN 941-1401-09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and found that six operate as office uses and one operates as a research and development facility; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit office use as a primary use within the M-1, Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS, Section 8-103.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, provides the Planning Commission with the ability to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment through resolution approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommends initiating a zone change for all eight existing M-1, Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard (APN 941- 1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District in order to mitigate the inconsistency between the majority of existing land uses (office) and the existing Zoning District (light industrial); and WHEREAS, the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401- 19) is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial and is occupied by a service station and car wash facility; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommends initiating a zone change for the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District to provide a more appropriate zoning designation for the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office. EXHIBIT A PAGE OF 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. Rezoning the existing M-1 Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard, (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District could provide for a more logical use of the land; and B. Rezoning the existing M-1 Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard, (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District could permit continued operation of existing uses, which are more appropriately located within the Administrative Office District rather than the Light Industrial District; and C. Rezoning the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District could eliminate a spot zoned parcel; and D. Rezoning the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District could provide for a more consistent designation of land uses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 92-065 Request for Initiation of Zone Change. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Planning Director Planning Commission Chairperson - 2 PAGE OF Sll SI IU.I. II; 1 1 - 1 1, 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 ,1 '1 11 1 , 1� M.�,111kf' "lektfr1A419 11 t 1 1i 1 1. e' Z / 1+/ //�a a €0.14' 1 t 1 11 1 i r, 1 11 alswerc)w snai .1.3311S 1 11 1 1; 1 ;1 ;1 1.1 11 /,1.1, , / , i v ; // /;• tt 0 c CITY OF DUBLIN 7- - 1, is — n SANTINA . THOAMPSONi,c.~ A PART OF T-F ZONING MAP THE CITY OF DUBLIN ATTIANMENT/ PAGE 5 OF Land Use and Circulation Section ca 0 Dublin Genera Residential Primary Planning Area !� Q\�IIIIIf511�'S F2 SZ`1 _. re I ATTACHMENT Z PAGE 6 OF Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). The range allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for family living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires mixed dwelling types, listed policies specific to the site govern the location and distribution of dwelling types. Assumed household size is two persons --per unit. Recently reviewed projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and Amador Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills (13.5). Residential: Medium -High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre). Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some under -structure parking and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Examples of medium -high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments (19.8). Commercial/Industrial Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and--sane--of---auto parts are included in this classification. -Residential-Use—is excluded except in the Downtown Intensification Area Retail/Office and Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Business Park/Industrial. Uses are non -retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court. Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage. In addition to the Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett Court. Public/Semi-Public Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses are labeled. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches. Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities. Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands. 5 CNNT .: PATE A OF a ASSESSOR'S MAP 94I RANCHO SAN RAMON (J. M. Amador) (Bk.A Pat. Pg.172) JEREMIAH FALLOW TRACT (Bk.3 Pg.1) P.M. 786 (Bk.72 Pg.25) P M. 728 (Bk.72 Pg.24) (AMENDED) P M. 725 (Bk. 72Pg.23)(AMENDED) P M. 843 (Bk. 76 Pg.5) P M. 1102 (Bk.79 Pg.25) Rev. Acreage (Bk.88Pg.51) CO °? rm - N1 N A '11.77 N m cr Ir m. I _ N Ion. C N t p 6 Poi B/k. /400 .3 .33 210 �o g 26-00I --$ —i 26-000 19-023 2/Q 26-000 -P. 2�0 fs 2oS 0e0?0b n h 8.64Ac.{(P) S Nay N .E �a706� 1400 qa /38Ac.%� ttia 0 /� f67'u �J�lr' RYILNJ Lb s ��• s/ Ns-.vJ/7971 sTArE itirF9sT4r4' AMOHME PAGE9'0E inn CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 17, 1992 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff 4- �y� PREPARED BY: David K. Choy, Associate Planner XO SUBJECT: PA 92-065 Request for Initiation of Zone Change RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Receive report 2. Question Staff 3. Provide input 4. Adopt Resolution Initiating Zone Change or continue to future meeting EXHIBITS: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: A. Draft Resolution Initiating Zone Change 1. Location/Zoning Map 2. General Plan Land Use Designation Map 3. General Plan Land Use Definitions 4. Assessors Map depicting affected properties This Application, PA 92-065, is being requested by the Planning Department, in response to an application submitted by the Operating Engineers Credit Union, PA 92-050. The Operating Engineers Credit Union, located at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (zoned M-1, Light Industrial) propose to expand their current operation into a portion of the adjacent building to the north, located at 6400 Village Parkway (zoned C-O, Administrative Office). A breezeway will be added to connect the two existing office buildings. In conjunction with the proposed expansion, approval of a lot merger application is required to combine the two parcels. However, the lot merger application cannot be approved by the Planning Department, since the resultant parcel would be split zoned (M-1 and C-O). As part of PA 92-050, the Operating Engineers Credit Union is requesting approval of a zone change for the existing ±1.01 acre parcel at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-08) from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-0, Administrative Office District. The zone change would provide a consistent zoning designation for the two parcels, which would allow the Planning Department to approve a lot merger application. ITEM NO. Clot COPIES TO: Property Owners Address Files Planning Secretary PACE I OF ._ DESCRIPTION: Pursuant to the zone change request by the Operating Engineers Credit Union, PA 92-050, Staff evaluated the properties located along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard. Staff found that this area contains a total of eight contiguous parcels which are zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park/Industrial. These parcels are as follows: APN 941-1401-08 APN 941-1401-09 APN 941-1401-10 APN 941-1401-16 APN 941-1401-17 APN 941-1401-18 APN 941-1401-12 APN 941-1401-03 - 6300-6370 Village Parkway; 6250 Village Parkway; and - 6200 Village Parkway; and 6375 Clark Avenue; and - 6377 Clark Avenue; and - 6379 Clark Avenue; and - 6363 Clark Avenue; and - 6300 Clark Avenue and All of these parcels have been developed with office as the primary use, except the National Food Laboratory located at 6363 ClarK Avenue, which is operating as a research and development facility. The M-1, Light Industrial District does not, however, permit office use as a primary use. The County of Alameda approved the construction of office buildings and the establishment of office uses on these parcels, prior to the City of Dublin incorporating. Staff feels that office and research and development uses are appropriate in this area, but not under the M-1, Light Industrial District designation. The C-O, Administrative Office District is a more appropriate zoning district, allowing office as a permitted use, and allowing research and development facilities as a conditional use. Both of these uses are consistent with the Business Park/Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation. In addition, the existing British Petroleum Gas Station and Car Wash facility located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway, 6602 Village Parkway, (APN 941-1401-19), is also zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this parcel is Retail/Office. Properties to the north, south and east of this parcel are zoned C-2, General Commercial, and have the same General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office. Staff feels that this property should be rezoned to reflect 1) a zoning designation more appropriate for the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office, and 2) to provide consistent zoning designations for parcels within this area. Section 8-103.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, provides the Planning Commission with the ability to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment through resolution approval. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the draft Resolution relating to PA 92-065 initiating 1) a zone change from the M- 1, Light Industrial District to the C-O, Administrative Office District, for eight contiguous parcels (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) located in the general vicinity of Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard; and 2) initiating a zone change from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-2, General Commercial District, for the property located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19). PACE' a OF B RESOLUTION NO. 92 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 92-065 INITIATING A ZONE CHANGE FOR EIGHT PARCELS (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12 & 03) FROM THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO THE C-O, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DISTRICT AND INITIATING A ZONE CHANGE FOR ONE PARCEL (APN 941-1401-19) FROM THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has an adopted Zoning Ordinance which regulates land uses throughout the City; and WHEREAS, an application (PA 92-050) has been submitted requesting a zone change from the M-1, Light Industrial District to the C-O, Administrative Office District, for the ±1.01 acre parcel located at 6300-6370 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-08); and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has evaluated the seven surrounding parcels, in addition to the subject site, along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard (APN 941-1401-09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and found that six operate as office uses and one operates as a research and development facility; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit office use as a primary use within the M-1, Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS, Section 8-103.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, provides the Planning Commission with the ability to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment through resolution approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommends initiating a zone change for all eight existing M-1, Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard (APN 941- 1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District in order to mitigate the inconsistency between the majority of existing land uses (office) and the existing Zoning District (light industrial); and WHEREAS, the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401- 19) is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial and is occupied by a service station and car wash facility; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommends initiating a zone change for the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District to provide a more appropriate zoning designation for the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Retail/Office. EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 or 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. Rezoning the existing M-1 Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard, (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District could provide for a more logical use of the land; and B. Rezoning the existing M-1 Light Industrial zoned parcels along both Village Parkway and Clark Avenue, south of Dublin Boulevard, (APN 941-1401-08, 09, 10, 16, 17, 18, 12, & 03) to the C-O, Administrative Office District could permit continued operation of existing uses, which are more appropriately located within the Administrative Office District rather than the Light Industrial District; and C. Rezoning the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District could eliminate a spot zoned parcel; and D. Rezoning the parcel located at 6602 Village Parkway (APN 941-1401-19) to the C-2, General Commercial District could provide for a more consistent designation of land uses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 92-065 Request for Initiation of Zone Change. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Planning Director Planning Commission Chairperson - 2 • sn,I 133IIS ii 1 1/ 11 1 OA CITY OF 1:97 DUBLIN r.1 ,rn..".. 4, .1 SANTINA THOMPSON uc."--,_„ ji A PART IOF T-F ZONING MAP — •1 THE CITY OF DUBLIN ATTACHMENT 11 . PAGE 5 OF _a_ Land Use and Circulation Section ara c vcr a c a C Q CD C C .— a cu E 0 a th Pi !); Cq Uti U T uti 9 Z � m C w 8 I cr FIGURE 1 ATTACHMENT Z PAGE 6 OF Residential: Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). The range allows duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development suitable for family living. Except where mixed dwelling types are designated, unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Where the plan requires mixed dwelling types, listed policies specific to the site govern the location and distribution of dwelling types. Assumed household size is two persons --per unit. Recently reviewed projects in the medium density range include Parkway Terrace (7.8) and Amador Lakes west of the Dougherty Hills (13.5). Residential: Medium -High Density (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre). Projects at the upper end of this range normally will require some under -structure parking and will have three or more living levels in order to meet zoning ordinance open space requirements. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Examples of medium -high density projects include The Springs (17.8) and Greenwood Apartments (19.8) Commercial/Industrial Retail/Office. Shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations,_-- andsale of --auto parts are included in this classification. Residential use is excluded except in the Downtown Intensification Area Retail/Office and Automotive. This classification includes all retail/office uses and adds auto dealerships, auto body shops, and similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Business Park/Industrial. Uses are non -retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court. Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage. In addition to the Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. Example: Scarlett Court. Public/Semi-Public Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses are labeled. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi-public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches. Parks/Public Recreation. Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities. Open Space. Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands. 5 ATTACHMENT 3 PAGE �! OF -13. woe Area hos.co-vUv co-Ivu ASSESSOR'S MAP 941 Scale:1".200' 210 y\m $ao Y o 26-N �Isp 26-000001 Wes° a RANCHO SAN RAMON _ (J. M. Amador) (Bk.A Pat. Pg.I72) JEREMIAH FALLON TRACT (Bk,3 Pg.I) P.M. 786 (Bk.72 Pg.25) P M. 728 (Bk.72 Pg.24) (AMENDED) P M. 725 (Bk. 72Pg.23)(AMENDED) P M. 843 (Bk. 76 Pg.5) P M. 1 102 (Bk.79 Pg.25) Rev. Acreage (Bk.88Pg.51) .. co co ri CV CO N, ;o N• rot_ r ' M a?m O 31 • _ Por. BM. /4O0 \ O aY p a1rA 3 O 1O/4c. yve. as .`b I9- 023 Por. 1 4.244e. /.4O4 ± ., 26-000 5684c.±(P) /NTF9Sr4T F cirp STATE 1 ATTACH PAGE �"0� c/TY RANCHO FALLON TR (CI of Dublin General Plan Volume 2: Technical Supplement Draft Environmental impact Report 4. Draft Februanj, 1984 SCH #84011002 ATTACHMENT'. it 57:3)UBLEN rs). 240 'OA 445e$ CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAFT February 8, 1984 Prepared for the City of Dublin by Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners TJKM, Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Emeryville Charles M. Salter & Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, San Francisco TABLE OF CONTENTS TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES iii SECTION 1: BACKGROUND 1-1 1.1. PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 1-1 1.2. GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND WORKING PAPERS 1-1 SECTION 2: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION 2-2 2.1. LAND USE ELEMENT 2-2 2.1.1. Residential Land Use 2-2 2.1.2. Commercial and Industrial Development: Retailing 2-2 2.1.3. Commercial and Industrial Development: Offices 2-5 2.1.4. Commercial and Industrial Development: Manufacturing and Distribution 2-5 2.2. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 2-7 2.2.1. Agricultural Open Space 2-7 2.2.2. Open Space For Outdoor Recreation 2-8 2.3. SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES FACILITIES ELEMENT 2-12 2.3.1. Schools 2-12 2.3.2. Public Land 2-14 2.3.3. Sewage Treatment and Disposal 2-16 2.3.4. Water Supply 2-1'4 2.3.5. Solid Waste Disposal 2-14 2.4. CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT 2-19 2.4.1. Daily Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 2-19 2.4.2. Projected Traffic Volumes 2-22 2.4.3. Freeway Capacity 2-22 2.4.4. Traffic Accidents 2-22 2.4.5. Parking 2-23 2.4.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation 2-23 2.4.7. Status of Major Transportation Improvements 2-23 3.0. HOUSING ELEMENT 3-1 3.0. HOUSING ELEMENT (detailed Table of Contents) 3-i 4.1. CONSERVATION ELEMENT 4-1 4.1.1. Hydrology 4-2 4.1.3. Air Quality 4-7 4.1.4. Soils 4-10 4.1.4. Minerals 4-11 4.1.6. Archaeologic Resources 4-12 i LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 2-1 Comparative Taxable Sales, 1979 vs. 1982 (Third Quarter) 2-3 2-2 Park Sites Within the City of Dublin 2-9 2-3 Popular Activities 2-10 2-4 Murray School District: Current and Potential Enrollment at Buildout Proposed General Plan and Alternatives 2-13 2-5 Estimated 1983 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Selected Streets 2-20 2-6 Existing Peak -Hour Intersection Conditions 2-21 4-1 Biotic Communities of the Livermore Amador Valley 4-5 4-2 Air Pollution in the Bay Area by Station and Contaminant: 1982 4-8 4-3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 4-15 4-4 Relationship Between Magnitude, Intensity and Peak Ground Acceleration 4-16 4-5 Major Historic San Francisco Bay Area Earthquakes 4-17 4-6 Recent San Francisco Bay Area Earthquakes of Magnitudes Greater than 5.0 since 1950 4-18 4-7 CNEL Values 4-27 4-8 Result of Noise Measurements 4-28 4-9 Typical Sound Levels 4-31 4-10 1983 and Projected 2005 Noise Exposure 4-32 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 3-1 Sites for Housing Development 3-32 4-1 Geologic Map - Within City 4-14 4-2 Types of Fault Movement 4-14 4-3 Active Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in the San Francisco Bay Area 4-14 4-4 Study Area Landslide Deposits 4-22 4-5 Development of Man -Made Bedrock Landslides 4-22 4-6 Four Ways to Make a Stable Cut Slope Unstable 4-22 4-7 Schematic Landslide Diagrams 4-22 iii SECTION 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN This volume contains three items: 1. Background data and analyses used in preparation of the Plan Policies Report (which together with the plan maps constitutes the adopted General Plan for elements other than the Housing Element). 2. The Housing Element, which by law must include in its adopted form data and analyses that exceed the level of detail appropriate to other elements of the General Plan. 3. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which must be certified as com- plete by the City Council prior to adoption of the General Plan. Most of the information required for the EIR appears elsewhere in this volume and is incor- porated in the EIR by reference. The reasons for separating the material in this volume from the Plan Policies report are clarity and brevity. A person attempting to understand the City's adopted policies should not have to search through long analyses or descriptions of existing conditions. Also, it makes no sense to adopt background material as part of city policy. The Technical Supplement is intended to serve as a resource for persons who wish to exam- ine in detail the rationale for the proposed plan policies and as a data base for future planning work in Dublin. The sequence of the Technical Supplement follows that of the Plan Policies report to facilitate cross reference. 1.2 GENERAL PLAN PROCESS AND WORKING PAPERS The proposed General Plan was prepared by Blayney-Dyett, incorporating data and advice received from members of the public and the City staff as well as decisions (choices among planning options) by the Planning Commission and City Council. The following working papers, portions of which appear in this volume with revisions, served as the basis for discussion at public meetings: Detailed Work Program, May 2, 1983; revised May 25, 1983 Working Paper 1: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, June 21, 1983; revised September, 1983 Working Paper 2: Analysis of Planning Options, August 17, 1983 Working Paper 3: Description of Alternative Sketch Plans, November 17, 1983 Some sections of the Technical Supplement include a list of "Planning Issues." These are excerpted from Working Paper 1 and are included to indicate the kinds of ques- tions that were explored during the General Plan preparation process. 1-1 SECTION 2 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT 2.1.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE (Residential land use is discussed in the Housing Element) 2.1.2 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: RETAILING Virtually all of Dublin's commercial and industrial development is contiguous, extend- ing north from the I-580 Freeway at the south edge of the city. In 1980, the total floor area in commercial districts was 2.3 million square feet and 78 percent of the 355 acres of commercially zoned land were developed. Most of the retail outlets are in one of the eleven shopping centers —many adjoining and none with strong separate identity. Only one, San Ramon Village Plaza, a neighborhood center at San Ramon Road and Alcosta Boulevard, is entirely removed from the grouping that forms down- town Dublin. Downtown is perhaps the only true multi -ownership central business district that has been built in in Northern California since World War II, having about twice as many stores as a typical regional shopping center. It was built at a time when the development community thought only in terms of shopping centers, but because the market grew slowly there never was the potential for a dominant shopping center until Stoneridge Regional Shopping Center opened in Pleasanton in 1981. Dublin's anchor tenants are Mervyn's, Ward's, Gemco, and K-Mart, while Stoneridge has attracted the usual mainstays of a Bay Area regional center—Macy's, Emporium/ Capwell's, and Penney's. It appears that Stoneridge may have opened "early" —either with the expectation that growth would be faster or because of a desire to preempt a maket. The over,11 impact of Stoneridge on Dublin has not been severe, and some Dublin merchants may have been helped by the additional customers attracted to the area. There are few retail vacancies in downtown Dublin, and sales tax figures show sales gains three times the East Bay average during the 1979-82 period, despite low population growth in the trade area, the opening of Stoneridge, and the effect of recession on consumers. Tax- able sales in 1982 are estimated at $265 million, based on third and fourth quarter reports of transactions. Dublin's 251 retail outlets held 39 percent of the total sales tax permits and accounted for 77 percent of the dollar volume subject to sales tax. Table 2-1 compares Dublin sales with those in competing cities. Dublin's share of total taxable sales in Alameda and Contra Costa counties increased nearly 25 percent since 1979—moving from 1.8 to 2.2 percent. During the same period, Pleasanton doubled its share with the opening of Stoneridge, but its total was still below Dublin's. The following analysis of sales capacity for existing and potentially expanded retail floor area is based on approximate data that are several years old, but the results are sufficiently accurate for planning purposes. 2-2 that would not be found in regional shopping centers and did not pay high shopping center rents. The figures suggest that although downtown sales were at satisfactory levels, they could increase by at least 30 percent in constant (adjusted for inflation) dollars in the same floor area. The most successful 10 percent of regional shopping centers in the national survey achieved much higher sales —averaging nearly $200 per square foot. Floor area also could be increased on many sites, with a total theoretical increase of 47 percent. This figure is derived by assuming 5.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area (the national median) and allowing 20 percent of the total land area for open space. Building coverage would be 28 percent vs. the current 19 percent on developed sites in the three zoning districts. At the time of the survey, 23 percent of the 286 acres in the three commercial zoning districts was undeveloped, allowing for a theoretical 43 percent floor area expansion if developed to maximum one-story intensity. Adding the three expansion factors —more developed land, more floor area on developed land, and increased sales per square foot —results in a theoretical capacity to yield 2.5 times the 1979 constant dollar sales on land currently zoned for retail commercial development. Designation of additional retail sites might result in increased sales, but most of the gain also could be captured by existing stores or zoned sites. Presently designated sites are more than capable of capturing constant dollar sales increases resulting from the 60 percent Tri-Valley population gain projected by ABAG for the year 2000, al- though the limitations of the circulation system may prevent bringing 2.5 times the present number of patrons to downtown. Strengths of Downtown: — Dominant location (with Stoneridge) to serve 160,000 present residents and a potential population of 250,000 plus a secondary market area including Alamo, Danville, and Tracy. Santa Clara County, a saturated market, supports one regional shopping center for each 135,000 residents. — Large enough trade area and low enough rents for one -of -a -kind stores serving trade area such as pianos, coins, wigs, trophies, and dictating equipment. — Dominant auto sales, service, parts, and accessories concentration for trade area. — Dominant building specialties center. — Trade area's largest restaurant choice within small area. In summary, Dublin offers many of the advantages of the traditional downtown — variety, wide rent range, and accessibility. Weaknesses of Downtown: — One story buildings and dominance of paved areas make downtown much like a commercial strip despite its relatively compact form. 2-4 20 years or longer, although industries desiring freeway visibility might snap up the frontage. About 700 gross acres would be available, extending to an average depth of 1,300 feet from the freeway. Assuming 30 employees per acre, this north freeway frontage could accommodate up to 21,000 jobs. PLANNING ISSUES 1. Future character of downtown retailing —continue as low-priced retail center or make effort to attract more high -end stores. 2. Means of improving downtown identity, clarity of organization, and ability to find stores. 3. Potential for cooperative efforts among shopping center owners to improve appearance and circulation between centers. 4. Potential for long-term intensification of downtown by adding stores, offices, parking structures, and possibly housing in multi -story buildings. 5. Comparative contributions to vitality of downtown Dublin from housing and office development on sites near downtown where either use is viable (both west of San Ramon Road and elsewhere). 6. Potential for adding office space through intensification of downtown development by adding parking structures or mid -rise buildings. 7. Type and timing of development of north I-580 frontage east of Santa Rita. 2-6 operators in the planning area. Over the long term, regulation to retain open space must be based on characteristics of the land that make it unsuitable for urban deve- lopment. Because both the environmental quality of the Bay Area and continued viability of agriculture are dependent on retaining substantial areas of developable land as open space, public acquisition eventually will be necessary as development pressures increase. 2.2.2 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has developed all of Dublin's six parks, and it owns all but Kolb and Cronin parks, which are on Murray School District property (see Table 2-2). In the early 1970s, voters approved a $2.3 million bond issue for improvements and a special tax for equipment and maintenance. In 1978 a de- tailed Park and Recreation Master Plan Update, prepared with broad community participation, recommended an ambitious program of acquisition and development. Shortly after, passage of Proposition 13 eliminated the tax override and the possibility of additional bond issues. A subsequent advisory election on restoring a parks tax failed. Currently, the only sources of DSRSD revenue for parks are capital improvement fees levied as a condition of residential subdivision map approval. These fees, authorized under the State's Quimby Act, are determined on the basis of the value of the property being developed. Recent fees have been used to finance capital improvements such as lighting at the Dublin Sports Grounds and solar heating for the Swim Center. No additional acquisition funds are currently available. Maintenance funds come from property taxes and are at approximately one-third of their pre -Proposition 13 levels. The 1978 Master Plan identifies five of six neighborhood parks as below accepted acreage standards. Additionally, when the planning study compared District resources to National Recreation and Park Standards, it found Dublin's neighborhood parks to be deficient in acreage by over 80 percent and community parks to be lacking by over 18 percent. National standards suggest one neighborhood center for each 10,000 people and one community center for each 25,000 people. By these measures, Dublin presently is 100 percent deficient in neighborhood centers and up to standard for community level centers. 2-8 A March, 1983 survey conducted for the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee ranked the 20 most popular activity facilities: TABLE 2-3 POPULAR ACTIVITIES No. of Rank Activity Respondents 1 Aerobicsa 100 2 Concertsa 94 3 July 4th Celebrationa 87 4 Teen Centera 81 5 Computer Classa 75 6 Longer Pool Hoursa 75 7 Tennis 72 8 Gymnastics 68 9 Horseback Ridinga 65 10 Hiking Trailsa 57 11 Soccer 53 12 Crafts 52 13 Tennis Courts - additional 51 14 Ceramics 49 15 Ballet or Tap Dance 45 15 Additional Park Spacea 45 15 Bike Trails 45 16 Family Picnic Areas 43 17 Painting Classes 42 18 Little League 35 allot currently available through public programs. Although additional park space did not rank near the top as a separate item, additional tennis courts, family picnic areas, and possibly some of the other activities would need more park space. In its Master Plan, the District identified new types of facilities that should be deve- loped, and adopted standards for parks in the city. The Board of Directors established policies to provide one 5-acre neighborhood park within one-half mile of each home, and to acquire lands adjacent to school sites if possible. Additionally, the Board assumed responsibility for a community beautification program, to be achieved in part through the development and implementation of a formal street tree planting program and the preservation of scenic open spaces in its existing and proposed jurisdiction. The Board also listed as policy objectives the adoption of cultural arts programming as the primary area of emphasis for provision of new services and the development and implementation of a districtwide bikeways system on streets and through open space in existing and future areas of jurisdiction. None of these objectives have been met. 2-10 2.3 SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILJTIES ELEMENT 2.3.1 SCHOOLS As in most communities that have grown rapidly, declining birth rates and a growing proportion of empty -nest households have caused a drastic decline in Dublin school enrollment. School closure is always difficult because it involves loss of both a ser- vice and the potential for new development in a long-established neighborhood. In Dublin the case for redeveloping surplus schools is less apparent than in a fully deve- loped community because additional housing may bring increased enrollment. District Boundaries. Murray School District serves grades K-8 in Dublin, northwest -Pleasanton, and the hills to the west. Arroyo Vista housing on Dougherty Road is the only portion of Dublin omitted. The Pleasanton Joint School District serves it and Camp Parks, while the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District serves grades K-12 east of Camp Parks. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District includes both the Murray and Pleasanton elementary districts. Murray School District. Established in 1866, the Murray School District operated until 1960 with one two -room school. Between 1960 and 1970, nine schools" were built to accommodate an enrollment that increased from 400 to 5,432. In 1971 there were three K-6 and five K-8 schools in the district. By 1977, in response to declining enrollment, the Board of Trustees decided to group all seventh and eighth grade students in two intermediate schools, Wells and Frederik- sen. That decision left Cronin, Dublin, Fallon, Murray, and Nielsen schools as the K-6 schools serving Dublin (see Table 2-4). In addition to the sites of its 10 schools, the Murray School District owns a 27-acre undeveloped site on Castilian Road in Dublin's western foothills. Because enrollment decline is averaging about 7 percent per year and current capacity is nearly twice current enrollment, the District must close schools. Dublin School has been leased to the private Valley Christian School since 1980. Consistent with a report by a Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Board closed Fallon School in June 1983 and will close Frederiksen School at the end of the 1984/1985 school year, holding open the possibility that it subsequently may reopen as a K-6 school. Table 2-4 summarizes Murray School District's potential enrollment under the pro- posed General Plan and two alternative plans for the primary planning area. Current enrollment in grades K-8 is .54 students per occupied housing unit, down from a high of 1.0 per unit in the early 1970's. Because about 80 percent of the city's housing stock was built between 1960 and 1970, families are growing up and further decline in student population from existing units is expected. Despite low initial enrollments, new single family homes are likely to have more school age children within ten years after occupancy than existing homes. Enrollment ratios are expected to reach the peak levels of homes built during the 1960's because of lower fertility rates and changes in household and family structure. Multi -family housing, which will comprise 37 percent of all units in the primary plan- ning area under the proposed Plan, poses the most difficult projection problem. 2-12 Traditionally, apartments have housed few children, but the current and anticipated inability of many families to afford detached units almost certainly will increase enrollments. An assumption must be made as to how much. Murray School District reports that new housing of all types has about 0.2 children per unit. The projections assume that peak K-8 enrollment will be reached five to ten years after buildout with 0.2 K-8 students per all multi -family units, .6 K-8 students per new single family unit, and .4 K-8 students per existing single family unit, producing 2,570 to 2,740 K-8 students. Built capacity of the four Murray School District schools shown on the plans is 2,480. The discrepancy occurs west of I-680 where Nielsen School capacity is 707, but projected K-6 enrollment is about 1,000 students. Dublin school could be re -opened to accommodate additional students, or capacity at other sites could be increased with use of portable classrooms as necessary. Amador Valley Joint Union High School District. Currently, Dublin High School has 984 students in grades 9-12. The school's capacity is slightly over 1,200, and adminis- trators expect enrollment to decline at a rate of 1.3 to 3 percent over the next several years. The District has no plans to change school organization or structure and is responding to declining enrollment through program changes and leasing some class- rooms to Alameda County for special and vocationaleducation. Pleasanton School District. The Pleasanton School District has no schools in Dublin, but does serve the residents of the Pleasanton Housing Authority's Arroyo Vista pro- ject. Approximately 25 students from Arroyo Vista attend Fairland and Pleasanton schools. 2.3.2 PUBLIC LANDS Public lands having the greatest relevance to the city's future adjoin the eastern boundary of the incorporated area. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA), Tassajara Creek Regional Park, and Alameda County's Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center form a barrier that stretches from I-580 to the county line. The western part of the city's proposed extended planning area contains no significant public lands. Within the city, public lands are parks owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services Dist- rict; flood control drainageways owned by the Alameda County Water Conservation and Flgod Control District, Zone 7; and school sites owned by the Murray and Amador Valley Joint Union High School Districts. Parks RFTA The military installation that now serves as an Army Reserve Forces Training Area has belonged to both the Navy and Air Force at different times since its construction in 1942. The original installation reached from Dougherty to Tassajara roads, exten- ding northward past the county line and south to I-580. In 1964 approximately 1,400 - acres of the Army's land was disposed to various public jurisdictions (see below) as the installation was deactivated. The Army is now again using Parks RFTA on a continual basis. The site includes 2,268 acres, with 1,633 acres remaining in open space and the remainder used for 2-14 PLANNING ISSUES 1. Role public lands play as barriers to City's annexation of land in the eastern por- tion of the extended planning area. 2. Possible negative impacts (visual, noise, etc.) Parks RFTA activity may have on land west of Dougherty Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard when it is developed. 3. Effect of possible reacquisition of Tassajara Creek Regional Park by Army on area parklands/open space resources. 2.3.3 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Sewage collection and treatment and effluent disposal are provided to Dublin residents and businesses by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), a member of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipe- line used by member jurisdictions. (Other members of LAVWMA are the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore). DSRSD's treatment plant, which adjoins the I-680 Freeway in Pleasanton, can be expanded to four times its present size, but the LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated effluent through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is nearing capacity. Development of additionalLAVWMA capacity in the form of another pipeline out of the valley would require valleywide voter approval. Current and Projected Usage Residential: Sewage capacity is allocated by DSRSD through issuance of connection permits. Currently, there are approximately 580 outstanding residential permits in Dublin; i.e., permits that have been issued for dwelling units not yet hooked up to the system. An additional 1,700 residential permits remain to be issued to users through- out the District on a first come, first served basis. Nonretail Commercial:. Distinct from the remaining DSRSD capacity discussed above, the City has an allocation of 100,000 gallons per day set aside to serve new nonretail commercial development. Since business/industriar park space varies widely in terms of water usage, it is difficult to predict the amount of floor area this capacity will ultimately serve. Obstacles to Further Expansion With remaining sewage capacity for 1,700 residential permits throughout DSRSD's service area (May, 1983), and remaining residential development capacity in Dublin alone allowing approximately 3,700 additional units, it seems probable that pipeline capacity will be reached before Dublin is built out, and that growth will be curtailed within 2 to 5 years if additional effluent disposal capacity is not available. Although a 2-16 stations and a reservoir. Pipes will be installed as part of subdivisions, and pump station construction will begin in conjunction with initial residential development. Following adoption of the Master Water Plan, the Services District expanded its boundaries to include the entire third zone, which is not entirely within the existing City boundaries. Currently, all of Dublin's water demand is satisfied by Zone 7. A representative of Zone 7 has indicated, however, that supply may become a problem sometime in the 1990s if no new sources are brought into use. Mitigation of future supply problems may be provided by a major State -sponsored water project, or by resuming the use of local well water, requiring extensive treatment. Another response to possible water shortage would be implementation of a water conservation program in the Zone 7 service area. Area residents demonstrated their capacity to conserve water during the 1976-1977 drought, when water consumption levels dropped significantly without any major efforts on the parts of Zone 7 or the Services District. Per capita water consumption has not returned to its predrought levels. 2.3.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DSRSD is responsible for solid waste collection, hauling, and disposal within its service area. The District contracts with the Dublin Disposal•Service in Livermore for gar- bage collection and carting, and waste is disposed of at the Altamont Landfill, a sanitary landfill under the criteria established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The landfill, which is privately owned and operated, has enough unused capacity for an additional:50 years of operation. Pick-up and disposal fees are set by the Services District and collected by the disposal service. PLANNING ISSUES 1. Adequacy of sewage treatment and effluent disposal capacity given projected Tri- Valley development. 2. Funding and electorate approval of expansion of sewage treatment and effluent disposal capacity. 3. Development of alternative effluent disposal plans. 4. Adequacy of Zone 7 water supply for projected Tri-Valley development. 5. Feasibility of extending all public services to the extended planning area. 2-18 Street Section TABLE 2-5 ESTIMATED 1983 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ON SELECTED STREETS Existing Estimated Right -of- Average Way (Feet) Daily Traffic San Ramon Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 153 35,000 Dublin Blvd. to Alcosta Blvd. 167 16,000-18,000 Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Amador Valley Blvd. 100 15,000 Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr. 100 19,000 Tamarack Dr. to Kimball Ave. 100 10,700-15,000 Dougherty Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd. 100 41,000 Dublin Blyd. to Sierra Ln. 80 13,000 Sierra Ln. to Amador Valley Blvd. 50 7,500 Dublin Boulevard West of San Ramon Rd. 100 3,000-5,500 San Ramon Rd. to Clark Ave. 100 20,000-22,000 Clark Ave. to Dougherty Rd. 100 25,000-27,000 East of Dougherty Rd. (Searlett Ct.) 50 3,000 Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to Village Pkwy. 108 17,000 Village Pkwy. to Dougherty Rd. 80 4,100 - 7,500 Alcosta Boulevard (San Ramon) Near I-680 100 20,000 Sierra Court 68 6,000 Amador Plaza 60 6,200 Regional Street 68 6,400 Donohue Drive Near Amador Valley Blvd. 60 5,400 Starward Drive 2,400 Tamarack Drive 58 1,600-2,300 Brighton Drive 58 2,300-4,600 Davona Drive 60 2,700-4,300 Kimball Avenue 60 3,500 Vomac Road 60 1,500 Silvergate Drive 102 1,500-4,200 West of Peppertree 80 Hansen Drive 64 2,000 Source: Alameda County; TJKM. 2-20 2.4.2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TJKM prepared projections of traffic on the arterial and collector street systems using a modification of the simulation model used for the Tri-Valley Transportation Study (1983). Key assumptions are: Additional housing units in Dublin per proposed General Plan. - Additional jobs in Dublin = 2,885 (20 percent higher than increase of 2,400 assumed for General Plan, but reliability of any employment assumption is much less than for housing.) - Transit diversion (except retail area trip ends): 5 percent to local transit; 5 percent to BART. - Carpooling: 10 percent of trip ends for offices. - BART Station: 1,250 parking spaces; 4 trip ends per space less 15 percent diversion to local transit. The 1983 and 2005 Daily Projected Traffic Volumes map in the Plan Policies report shows the volumes assigned to arterial and collector streets and the number of lanes required. Dougherty Road is proposed as 6 lanes with median despite low assigned volume because Contra Costa County development expected by 2005 was not included in the model. Similarly, the model did not assign traffic generated by business park and residential development north of 1-580 and east of Parks RFTA to Dublin Boule- vard extension. A four lane arterial with median is proposed. 2.4.3 FREEWAY CAPACITY TJKM projections for I-680 and I-580 were prepared for the Tri-Valley Transportation Study using four sets of assumptions. Scenario 2A assumes partiarcompletion of Las Positas by 2005 and includes 97,000 dwelling units and 145,000 jobs in the Tri-Valley. Scenario 2B assumes full buildout of all reasonably foreseeable and con- templated projects, resulting in 119,000 dwelling units and 242,000 jobs. TJKM concludes that all of the scenarios except 2B could be served by reasonable expansion of the existing freeway system. Scenario 2B would result in LOS F along most seg- ments of both I-580 and I-680. Thus the freeway system will acommodate demand only if some current development proposals are not realized, if massive freeway improvements are built, or if major changes in travel habits occur. 2.4.4 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Most traffic accidents occur at intersections along the high volume arterials, including portions of Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, and Amador Valley Boulevard. 2-22 4. Interstate 680 Freeway Improvement. I-680 has been identified as a freeway corridor needing additional capacity in the future. The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) calls for widening to eight lanes between I-580 and Wal- nut creek and six lanes south of I-580. The widening to eight lanes in itself will affect Dublin, particularly homes and businesses along the freeway right-of-way, although little or no additional land is expected to be acquired. In addition, the I-580/I-680 interchange will need to be upgraded in the future to accommodate regional traffic demands. This will likely consist of direct connection two-lane flyover ramps serving the heaviest movements. Currently, a.m. peak -hour traffic southbound on I-680 exiting to I-580 in a single lane may back up to Aleosta Boule- vard. In addition, Dublin is inadequately served by I-680—particularly downtown Dublin, which can be reached from the north only by 1.5 miles of surface street from the Alcosta interchange or by using I-580 to the San Ramon Road interchange. When the freeway -to -freeway interchange is rebuilt —probably in 5 to 10 years —it should be possible to design ramps that would provide access from I-680 directly to Dublin Boulevard or Amador Valley Boulevard. The benefits would include reduced traffic at the San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road interchanges with I-580 and the Alcosta Boulevard interchange at I-680. 5. Extension of Dublin Boulevard. One potential source of additional capacity in the I-580 corridor would be eastward extension of Dublin Boulevard to potentially developable areas east of Parks RFTA. The physical and jurisdictional problems related to such an extension include crossing the Southern Pacific Railroad, cros- sing Federal Government and -Alameda County property, and acquisition of private property near the Dougherty Road intersection. 2-24 SECTION 3 HOUSING ELEMENT DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1 OVERVIEW 3-1 3.1.1 Profile Of Dublin —The Primary Planning Area 3-1 3.1.2 Extended Planning Area 3-2 3.1.3 Subregional Development Trends 3-2 3.2 HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ORGANIZATION 3-5 3.2.1 State Requirements 3-5 3.2.2 Organization of Housing Element 3-5 3.2.3 Public Participation 3-6 3.2.4 Consistency With Other Elements of The General Plan 3-7 3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 3-8 3.4 EXISTING HOUSING RESOURCES 3-11 3.4.1 Existing Housing Stock 3-11 3.4.2 Subsidized Housing in Dublin and the Tri-Valley 3-15 3.4.3 Housing Services Available to Dublin Residents 3-17 3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED 3-18 3.5.1 Overview of Housing Affordability and Need Issues 3-18 3.5.2 Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Housing Needs Determination 3-18 Definitions of Income Categories for Dublin 3-21 Determination of Moderate Income Unit Price 3-21 3.5.3 Immediate Housing Need 3-22 Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing 3-23 Level of Payment as a Function of Ability to Pay 3-23 Vacancy Rates 3-26 Overcrowding 3-26 3.5.4 Special Housing Needs 3-27 Housing for the Elderly 3-27 Housing Accessible to Disabled Persons 3-27 Needs of Female Headed Households 3-29 Other Groups with Special Housing Needs 3-29 3.5.5 Jobs/Housing Balance 3-29 3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING 3-31 3.6.1 Sites Currently Zoned for Residential Use 3-31 3.6.2 Sites Not Currently Designated For Residential Use 3-31 3.6.3 Sites for the Development of Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing 3-33 i LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 3-1 Projected Tri-Valley Employment Additions at Full Development in 2005 + 3-3 3-2 Existing and Projected Tri-Valley Housing and Jobs 3-4 3-3 Index to Required Housing Element Components 3-6 3-4 City of Dublin - Population Characteristics 3-9 3-5 City of Dublin - Household Characteristics 3-10 3-6 Housing Units By Tenure and Year Structure Built, 1980 3-12 3-7 Tri-Valley Single -Family Homes: Average and Median Resale Prices, lst Quarter 1983 3-13 3-8 1980 Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms, Occupancy Status, and Tenure 3-14 3-9 Subsidized Housing in the Livermore/Amador Valley, 1983 3-16 3-10 Tri-Valley Housing Services 3-17 3-11 Dublin Households: Distribution by Income Category, and ABAG Projected Need 3-20 3-12 City of Dublin: Ability to Meet ABAG Projected Need 3-20 3-13 Waiting Lists For Subsidized Housing 3-24 3-14 Monthly Ownership Cost as a Percentage of Income 3-25 3-15 Monthly Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income 3-25 3-16 Dublin Households Spending 25 Percent or More 3-26 3-17 Persons With Major Disabling Conditions: 3-28 3-18 Sites Available for Development of Housing Currently Zoned for Residential Use 3-32 3-19 Sites Available for Development of Housing Not Currently Designated for Residential Use 3-33 3-20 Single Family Mortgage Payments, $ 100,000 Mortgage 3-38 3-21 Summary of Housing Program Strategies Related To City Goals and Housing Program Requirements 3-41 iii Dublin is a compact city --construction on the sites identified as available for housing development would not result in non-contiguous urbanization; all are infill sites. Under Alameda County zoning (adopted by the City), most of the city is classified R- 1-B-E, a single-family residential combining district allowing lot sizes from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Some of the City's larger sites appropriate for residential development are zoned P-D (Planned Development). All residential structures are one or two stories and building heights in commercial districts have not exceeded three stories. 3.1.2 EXTENDED PLANNING AREA Dublin has designated a 33 square mile extended planning area that "bears relation to its planning" (Govt. Code 65300). The extended planning area is largely undeveloped and is characterized by steep slopes with oak woodlands west of the City and rolling grasslands east of the City. The area also includes the public lands comprising Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA), Santa Rita Prison, and Tassajara Regional Park. (See map in Plan Policies Report). General Plan designations for the extended planning area are schematic in nature. Single-family residential densities of 2.0 units per acre apply to slopes under 30. percent. The extended area may accommodate as many as 32 percent of the housing units of the combined primary and extended planning areas. Due to the high develop- ment costs for roads and public facilities and services, and the steep slopes of the area, few if any of the units in the extended planning area will be affordable to moderate income households. While land values are likely to preclude development of mobilehome parks on avail- able level sites in the primary planning area, portions of the extended planning area could accommodate them. An area that provides the exception to the rule of steep slopes and inaccessibility in the extended planning area is the land adjoining the proposed business park area north of I-580 on either side of Tassajara Road. When the General Plan is reviewed and refined for this area, consideration will be given to designating some portion for residential development, including mobile home parks. The details of developing infrastructure and providing services to the extended planning area have not begun to be worked out. It is therefore assumed that resi- dential development in the extended planning area, with the exception of individual rural residences, will not occur within the time frame of the housing program included in the Housing Element. State law requires Housing Element revision every five years so the document's first revision and program update will appropriately include detailed policies and plans for the extended planning area. 3.1.3 SUBREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Dublin, like other cities in the Tri-Valley area (the San Ramon, Livermore, and Amador valleys), was developed as a bedroom community oriented toward the major urban centers of Oakland and San Francisco. Now the area is facing a dramatic change as, for the first time, employment growth is expected to outpace housing development, resulting in a net in -commute of workers. 3-2 TABLE 3-2 EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRI-VALLEY HOUSING AND JOBS Ratio of Tri- Jobs to Housing Valley Employed Employed Populationa Units a Jobs a Residentsb Residents 1980 160,000 51,302 50,373 75,900 0.66 2000; ABAG '83 with Las Positas 253,000 90,000 132,200a 133,200 0.99 aABAG Series '83: Preliminary Population, Household, and Employment Projections: 1980-2000, Working Draft, March 1983. bAssumes 1.48 per housing unit valley -wide 1980 census. 3-4 TABLE 3-3 INDEX TO REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS Statutory Requirement Analysis of population and employment trends Section(s) Page Number(s) 3.1, 3.3 3,4,9,10 Quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income levels - share of the regional housing need 3.5 18-23 Analysis of household character- istics Analysis of characteristics of the housing stock Inventory of land suitable for residential development Analysis of governmental constraints Analysis of non -governmental constraints Analysis of special housing needs Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation Statement of community housing goals, quantified objectives and policies Five year housing program to achieve community housing goals and objectives 3.2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3.3 10 3.4 11-17 3.6 31-34 3.7 35,36 3.7 36-39 3.5 28-30 3.8 53 3.8 40 3.8 41-53 The General Plan preparation process in Dublin has included a citizen's workshop on the General Plan and a series of Planning Commission and City Council meetings to consider three working papers and alternative sketch plans. Copies of working papers have been available to members of the community; sketch plans and, earlier, maps of the planning area were displayed in the City offices. Throughout the planning process, and at all Planning Commission and City Council meetings, housing has been a primary concern. The major area of community 3-6 3.3 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Dublin's population is relatively homogeneous in terms of age and ethnic character- istics. The short span of time during which most of the City's single family homes were constructed, and low original housing prices resulted in a predominance of young families in the 1960's and then a slowing down of growth and overall aging of the population. Development in accord with the General Plan will result in about 8,100 dwelling units and 22,400 residents at full development —a 64 percent population addition to the 1983 total. Even with this population increase, Dublin will probably never again have a school -age population that will fill its built public elementary school capacity. The high cost of new housing and declining family size are among the causes. Current population data for Dublin is included in Table 3-4. Household characteristics, including mobility and household size, are presented in Table 3-5. Except where otherwise noted, data is from the 1980 U.S. Census, Summary Tape Files (STF) 1 and 3. This data is already four years old, but is in many cases the only available information on Dublin population and households. 3-8 TABLE 3-5 CITY OF DUBLIN - HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Total Households, 1983 Percent of Total Dublin Households 4,428 100 Residence in 1975 (persons over 5 years old), 1980 same house 5,332 39.5 different house, same county 3,697 27.4 different house, different county 2,299 17.0 different state 803 5.9 abroad 262 1.9 Median Household Income,a 1983 $33,180 Households by size, 1980 1 person households 311 7.9 2 person households 899 23.0 3 person households 859 22.1 4 person households 1,035 26.5 5 person households 566 14.5 6 or more person households 213 5.5 Average Household Size, 1980 3.41 Single -parent households, 1980 Female -headed Households 222 5.3 Male -headed Households 57 1.4 Female -headed households below povertyb (with children), 1979 135 3.0 aFigure derived from HUD 1983 Bay Area median income. bFamilies and unrelated individuals in the census were classified as being below or above the poverty level, based on income in 1979 using an index which provides "poverty thresholds." These thresholds vary by size of family, number of children, and age of the family householder or unrelated individual. The threshold used for a four person family, for example, was $7,412. Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett. 3-10 TABLE 3-6 HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE AND YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT, 1980 Units Percent of Owner Renter Built Existing Units Occupieaccupied 1979 to March 1980 35 .8 18 5 1975 to 1978 123 2.9 107 7 1970 to 1974 304 7.3 182 109 1960 to 1969 3,314 80.2 2,605 656 1950 to 1959 156 3.8 91 65 1940 to 1949 186 4.5 0 94 1939 or earlier 15 3.6 0 15 Source: 1980 U.S. Census. While the single-family house has remained dominant, the composition of Dublin households has been changing. The 1980 Census reported an average household size of 3.41, as compared with 4.0 in 1970. We estimate a 1983 average household size of 3.2. This sharp decline is typical of similar communities in the state and nation. At what point household size will "bottom out" is unclear; factors influencing household size and structure include marriage and divorce trends, birth and death rates, general economic conditions, patterns of young adult behavior, and regional housing availability. Not all change is toward small household size. There is evidence that "doubling up," i.e. more than one family living in a single-family house, is becoming increasingly common. While data are not available to gauge this phenomenon precisely, it was mentioned several times in the course of interviews conducted for this report. Doubling up is a typical consequence of hard economic times, when young people cannot afford their first homes, elderly family members move in with children, and many people are reluctant or unable to make major financial commitments. Difficulty in affording housing may not be the only reason for doubling up in Dublin; small families may choose to share a home for convenience, companionship, or reluc- tance to assume responsibility for an unneccesarily large unit. This trend indicates both a change in the nature of the community's households and a mismatch between available housing and those in the housing market, in terms of both price and type of units available. Some amount of doubling represents efficient use of single-family stock as family size declines. The next five to ten years will bring the second major burst of growth in Dublin's housing stock, with over 1,600 units approved but not built or occupied by the end of 1983. These units will result in a major change in the type of unit in Dublin --with multi -family units approved, the City will see an increase in the percentage of multi- family units even if all units yet to be approved were single family. 3-12 It can be seen that while home prices have risen over the past 4 years, homes in Dublin remain available to a wider range of households than units in other Tri-Valley cities. The median home price for Dublin, when compared with that of San Ramon, and Pleasanton, suggests that there are a greater percentage of resale units available in the $100,000 range, and thus relatively more opportunities for homeownership by moderate income households in Dublin than elsewhere in the area. Home ownership is out of reach for many area residents, and this fact increases the demand for rental housing. The number of single-family homes offered as rentals boosts Dublin's rental stock significantly. While Dublin's housing stock includes only 356 multi -family units, at least 950 additional units, all single-family, were rented out in 1979. Counting multi and single family units, Dublin's rental housing stock included 988, or 23 percent, of the City's housing units, as compared with 44 percent for the nine -county Bay Area, according to the 1980 Census. The 1980 Census reported slightly over 85 percent of Dublin's housing units as having 3 or 4 bedrooms, with the breakdown by occupancy and tenure as follows: TABLE 3-8 1980 HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, OCCUPANCY STATUS, AND TENURE Total Total Occupied Renter Occupied None 5 5 5 1 118 118 97 2 269 239 196 3 2,045 1,926 428 4 1,495 1,469 218 5 or more 201 197 1 TOTAL 4,133 3,954 945 Source: 1980 U.S. Census. 3-14 TABLE 3-9 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY, 1983 Unit Size Type Total (# of Age Group Rent City Complex (# of Units) Bedrooms) of Tenants Subsidy Dublin Arroyo Vista 150 16 - 1's Elderly Q.I. (Pleasanton (85 complete 78 - 2's Family Housing as of 6/83) 32 - 3's Handicapped Authority) 24 - 4's 8 - Hdcp. Dublin The Springs 176 7 - 1's Elderly Q.I. (36 subsidized) 29 - 2's Family 3 - Hdcp. Handicapped Livermore Hillcrest Gardens 54 28 - Studio Elderly Q.I. 26 - 1's Handicapped S.S. Livermore Leahy Square 125 12 - 1's Family Q.I. (Livermore 48 - 2's Elderly Housing 45 - 3's Handicapped Authority) 18 - 4's 2 - 5's Livermore Livermore Gardens 96 56 - 2's Family Q.I. 32 - 3's S.S. 8 - 4's Livermore Meadowbrook 47 20 - 1's Elderly Q.I. 22 - 2's Family 3 - 3's Handicapped 2 - Hdcp. Livermore Vineyard Village 74 74 - 1's Elderly Q.I. 8 - Hdcp. Handicapped Pleasanton Kottinger Place 50 32 - Studio Elderly Q.I. 16 - 1's Handicapped 2 - 2's Pleasanton Pleasanton Gardens 39 19 - Studio Elderly S.S. 20 - 1's Handicapped. Pleasanton Pleasanton Greens 131 31 - Ps Elderly S.S. 66 - 2's Family 34 - 3's Handicapped Q.I. = 25 percent of income S.S. = Sliding Scale Source: Blayney-Dyett survey, May, 1983 3.5 EVALUATION OF HOUSING NEED 3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND NEED ISSUES Given the limited amount of undeveloped land remaining in Dublin and the extent of planned commercial and industrial growth in the Tri-Valley area, it can be reasonably assumed that there will be demand for as many units as can be produced in the city. At issue, then, are the types of units to be produced, primarily in relation to density, tenure, and cost. General Plan policies will result in the production of more housing units at higher densities than could be expected if zoning based on the Alameda County General Plan at the time of incorporation were to continue. Housing construction in Dublin will exceed "projected need" as included in Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Determina- tion by over 80 percent. However, needs by income category as determined by ABAG and accepted by the City will likely not be met. The major constraint on production of below -market rate units is the lack of public funds devoted to that purpose. While Dublin has had and will continue to have relatively affordable homes for the Tri- Valley area, current market conditions make production of units affordable to even moderate income households a challenge. Using a method developed by the Bay Area Council, assuming the traditional 25 percent of income spent for housing, the maximum affordable home price for a moderate income Dublin household is $75,000. Few if any units are currently being built at or below that price. For example, while a recent proposal for a "mini -condominium" project initially proposed units priced at $60,000 - $70,000, approval has been made contingent on density reductions and provision of some townhouse units, raising expected unit prices to the $65,000 - $130,000 range. New higher cost units in Dublin are selling, indicating that households with higher incomes are moving into the City. Some households are able to purchase homes which, according to the formula on page 22, they cannot afford because they purchased homes when home prices and interest rates were low and they now have assets that enable them to "move up" into houses which they would not be able to afford on their incomes alone. Renters, who have no equity from a current home, have much more difficulty purchasing a first unit. The relatively low cost of renting and absence of a requirement of a large down payment makes rentals an important source of affordable market rate housing. 3.5.2 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' (ABAG) HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION Dublin's regional fair share allocation is presented in Housing Needs Determinations - San Francisco Bay Region (July 1983). Needs determinations have been prepared for the nine Bay Area counties, their incorporated cities, and the total unincorporated area for each county. Existing Need represents the number of additional units a jurisdiction would have provided in 1980 in order to have a housing market in "better" supply -demand balance based on the "optimum vacancy rate." According to ABAG, Dublin's "existing need" in 1980 was 296 units. The "existing need" figure is, in effect, an analysis of the city's housing situation, reflecting the extent of unmet housing demand. "Existing need" is included in "projected need." 3-18 TABLE 3-11 DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS: DISTRIBUTION BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1980 AND ABAG PROJECTED NEED Income Categories Above Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Household income by percent distribution, 1980 Census 9% 11% 26% 54% Projected need for housing units by income category (ABAG),1983 391 274 450 841 Desired distribution of households by income category (ABAG),1983 20% 14% 23% 43% ABAG's regional redistribution of households by income category would result in more than double the percentage of very low income households in Dublin with relatively slight changes in the percentages of low and moderate income households. The total "projected need" for Dublin represents slightly more than the number of units currently approved or under consideration by the City. Comparing ABAG's total "projected need" figure of 1,956 to the 3,700 total additional units expected under General Plan policies, it can be seen that the demand for housing units in Dublin as determined by ABAG will be more than satisfied by anticipated construction. (See Table 3-12). TABLE 3-12 CITY OF DUBLIN: ABILITY TO MEET ABAG PROJECTED NEEDS, 1980-1990 Buildout Under General Plan Policies Existing Units, May, 1983 4,428 Units Approved or Under Consideraton, November, 1983 1,800 Anticipated Units on Currently Unsubdivided Land 1,900 Total Additional Units 3,700 Units in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 1,744 Percent in Excess of ABAG Projected Need 89% 3-20 The following method for determining housing cost affordable by a moderate income household was developed by the Bay Area Counci1.5 This approach takes into account likely interest rates and loan periods, but does not consider assets of the household. It should be recognized that many moderate income households live in homes which they "should not" be able to afford, as they were purchased with large down payments or when home prices and mortgage rates were lower. The advantage such households have in moving to a new home is clear. The flip side of the coin reveals the diffi- culties faced by first time home -buyers of moderate income, without similar assets. DETERMINATION OF THE MODERATE -INCOME UNIT PRICE a. Moderate -income definition (120% of median) _ $39,816 b. $39,816 x .9 = $35,834 income to be used in determining price. In order to establish a practical range of incomes able to afford a specific price for a unit, it must be affordable to those having 90 percent of the calculated income. Without this "window" only those whose income was $39,816 or more would qualify. c. $35,834/12 = $746, maximum monthly mortgage payment, or maximum rent 4 payment at 25 % of gross income. (Utilities and insurance not included). d. $746 payment at 13% fixed rate, 30-year term = $67,438 mortgage e. $67,438 = $74,931 moderate income affordable purchase price assuming .9 (downpayment 10% downpayment adjustment) 3.5.3 IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEED State law requires that the Housing Element include an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs (Government Code 65583). Indicators of need include level of payment compared to ability to pay, analysis of special housing needs, vacancy and overcrowding. While data regarding overcrowding and "overpayment" can be readily assembled and presented, such figures need to be qualified before they are "translated" into existing need. By long standing rule of thumb, overpayment occurs when a household pays more than 25 percent of monthly income for housing, although some of the recent literature uses 30 percent. Clearly, higher income households are more able to spend a greater portion of income on housing without sacrificing basic needs than are low income households. However, households that are technically "overpaying" are not necessarily in immediate need of affordable units. Put another way, there is no evidence to suggest that all (or even a majority) of overpaying households in Dublin or the region would relocate were affordable housing available in the City. The fact that those households identified by the Census as overpaying are living in Dublin indicates the ability to pay. 5 Bay Area Council, Proposal for a San Mateo County Affordable Housing Incentive Program, June 1983, prepared by the Bay Area Council and submitted to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. TABLE 3-13 WAITING LISTS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING City Complex Dublin Arroyo Vista (Pleasanton Housing Authority) Dublin The Springs Pleasanton Pleasanton Pleasanton Livermore Kottinger Place (Pleasanton Housing Authority) Pleasanton Gardens Pleasanton Greens Hillcrest Gardens Livermore Leahy Square (Livermore Housing Authority) Livermore Livermore Gardens Livermore Meadowbrook Livermore Vineyard Village On Waiting List (June 1983) From Dublin 4 Elderly 86 Family From Pleasanton 9 Elderly 88 Family From Livermore N/A Long term waiting list not maintained N/A N/A N/A 29 Elderly N/A 27 Elderly 57 Elderly Estimated at 110, almost all from Livermore; no breakdown available N/A N/A Estimated at 150; no breakdown available Estmated at 50; no breakdown available 70 on waiting list; no breakdown available Estimated at 85 elderly, 1 disabled; no breakdown available aDescriptions of housing complexes are in Table 3-9. Source: Blayney-Dyett telephone survey, Spring, 1983 3-24 TABLE 3-16 DUBLIN HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 25 PERCENT OR MORE OF INCOME ON HOUSING, 1980 Renting Households Total Percent of All Renting Households Home -Owning Households Total Percent of All Home -Owning Households Percent of Income Spent on Housing 25%-35% 35%+ 190 20% 604 20% Source: 1980 U.S. Census; extrapolation by Blayney-Dyett. 100 10% 459 15% Vacancy rates. Vacancy rates, a commonly used indicator of the adequacy of the existing housing stock in meeting market area needs, are particularly difficult to obtain for Dublin because several of the customary providers of vacancy data have not conducted surveys in the city. The 1980 census reported vacancy rates as follows: Vacant for Sale Vacant for Rent VACANCIES - DUBLIN HOUSING UNITS, 1980 Vacant Units Percent of Total Units 28 .9 17 1.8 The California Department of Housing and Community Development reports that in California a rental vacancy rate of six percent and a for sale vacancy rate of two percent are desirable to provide for the number of moves generally made by households in a period of a year. The for sale and for rent vacancy rates as reported by the 1980 Census are considerably lower than these standards. A sample survey of Dublin apartments conducted in mid-1983 by Blayney-Dyett found virtually no vacancies in Dublin apartments, with waiting lists typical. Overcrowding. An overcrowded housing unit is defined as one in which there are more than 1.01 persons per room. The 1980 Census reported 109 overcrowded units in Dublin, 2.6 percent of the City's housing units. While overcrowding has been declining statewide since the 1960's, the 7.4 percent overcrowding in California reported in 1980 represents a substantially higher incidence of overcrowding statewide than in the City. 3-26 Total Disabling Conditions TABLE 3-17 PERSONS WITH MAJOR DISABLING CONDITIONS: VALLEYS CORRIDOR AND DUBLIN, 1982 Valleys Corridora Dublinb Percent of Number Number City Pop. 25,199 2,219 16.4 Total Sensory Disorders 2,418 212 1.5 Blind 176 15 .1 Visually Impaired 453 39 .3 Deaf 554 49 .4 Hearing Impaired 1,235 109 .8 Total Physical Disorders 12,373 1,088 8.1 Amput. and Othersc 4,713 415 3.1 Epilepsy 252 22 .2 Heart Disease 1,638 144 1.1 Speech Impaired 327 29 .2 Digestion Disorder 1,033 90 .7 Other Physical Disordersc 4,410 388 2.9 Total Mental Disorders 10,408 916 6.8 Mental Illness 907 80 .6 Mentally Retarded 1,588 140 1.0 Drug and Alcohol 6,779 596 4.4 Other Character Disorders 1,134 100 .7 a"Valleys Corridor" includes the cities and Census designated places of Alamo, Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, total 1980 population 154,312. bAssumes even distribution of disabled population throughout Valleys Corridor. CPopulations most likely to have special housing needs, totaling 803, 5.9 percent of Dublin's population. Source: Valleys Corridor Project, United Way of the Bay Area: extrapolation by Blayney-DyetL. 3-28 The jobs/housing balance, reflecting the relationship between persons employed and employed persons residing in a given jurisdiction, is included in the Housing Element to satisfy the State requirement. In 1979, 5,992 Dublin residents, 1.45 persons per household, a slightly lower average than that reported Valley -wide, were employed. Using 1980 Alameda County data on commercial and industrial floor area, we estimate that there are about 6,000 jobs in Dublin, roughly the same number as employed residents. At build -out the Primary Planning Area is expected to have 8,400 jobs and 8,100 housing units. If the number of workers per household continues at 1.45, 11,745 employed persons would be housed in the city, indicating a net out -commute. When anticipated development of the extended planning area is included in a job/housing balance calculation for Dublin a different picture emerges. While the General Plan designations for the extended planning area are only schematic, the proposals suggest that as many as 21,000 jobs and 3,800 housing units could exist there. Adding these figures to the total anticipated jobs and housing units for the primary planning area results in a projection of 29,400 total jobs and 17,300 employed residents, yielding a jobs to employed residents ratio of 1.7:1. ABAG's preliminary 1983 projections anticipate 253,000 Tri-Valley residents by the year 2000 with Las Positas new town included. This would result in 90,000 housing units and 130,500 employed residents (at 1.45 per unit). ABAG projects 132,200 jobs in the Tri-Valley, so the ratio of jobs to employed residents would be 1:1. If, however, all of the 129,615 "planned jobs" listed in Table 3-1 materialize and are added to the 50,400 jobs existing in 1980, the job total will be 180,000 instead of 132,000 and the jobs to employed residents ratio will rise to 1.4:1 unless housing construction also exceeds ABAG's projection. The ABAG projections do not include development in the Dublin extended planning area, which would increase the imbalance between houses and jobs Valley -wide. With 201,000 jobs (including 21,000 in the Dublin Extended Planning Area) and the 90,000 housing units projected by ABAG the jobs/employed residents ratio would be 1.49:1 assuming there are 1.45 employed persons per household. Valley -wide, employment growth is likely to outpace housing additions. To create jobs/housing balance; i.e., the same number of jobs as resident workers, regardless of commute pattern, residential development will have to exceed planned levels. Using the ABAG employment projection, which is lower than the total "planned jobs" reported by the Alameda County Planning Department, 98,000 housing units would be needed to achieve Valley -wide jobs/housing balance, but with the "planned jobs" figure, 133,000 units would be required. The higher figure exceeds the 1980 stock by 83,000 units. To reach this total would require housing construction equivalent to 20 communities with the number of dwelling units presently in Dublin. Valley -wide "fair shares" are essential if jobs -housing balance is to be attained because each jurisdiction tends to act in its perceived fiscal self-interest. Dublin, with lower per household income than Pleasanton, cannot be expected to accept more market minimum housing so that Pleasanton can devote similarly situated land to employment if both cities believe jobs to be more beneficial. 3-30 TABLE 3-18 SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE Site Number Approximate Current Location On Map Acreage Zoning East of Dougherty Hills, north of Amador Valley Boulevard to County line 1 79a R-1-B-Eb Pleasanton Housing Auth- ority property, southwest portion of site 2 5 South of Alcosta Boule- vard, east of I-680 3 2 South side of Betlen Drive north of Prow Way 4 9 Abutting approved Neilsen tentative map multi -family north of Hansen Road 5 4 Southwest of approved Neilsen tentative map, north of' Valley Christian Center 6 7 Abutting north property line of Valley Christian Center 7 12 PD R-1-B-E aThe almost 100 acres of the total site includes a designated park and Alamo Creek. Estimated area available for residential development is 79 acres. bR-1-B-E allows for sites from 5,000-7,500 square feet. 3-32 TABLE 3-19 SITES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE Site Number Approximate Current Location On Map Acreage Zoning West of Dougherty Road, C-N south of Amador Valley Neighborhood Boulevard 8 2 Business Fallon School 9 8 R-1-B-E Frederiksen School 10 7 R-1a Dolan School Site 11 27 R-1-B-E Valley Christian Center property — southeast portion 12 1-12 Downtown Intensifi- cation Area 13 —b Agricultural Mostly C-1, some M-1, C-2, and PD aMinimum lot size in an R-1 district is 5,000 square feet. bThe extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the area of future intensification is not known at this time. 3.6.3 SITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING Opposition to mobile homes and manufactured housing sometimes arises when a landowner proposes mobile home or manufactured housing on an undeveloped parcel in a developed neighborhood of traditional single family detached homes. Such conflict is unlikely in Dublin, where very few subdivided parcels are available for development. Development of mobile home parks is also unlikely in Dublin. The few large sites available are designated medium density residential (6.0 to 14.0 units per acre) by the General Plan, allowing more intensive use than can be achieved under most mobile home park standards6• The strategies of the housing element presented in Section 8 6U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Guidelines for Improving the Mobile Home Living Environment, August 1977, p. 7. National average densities are 6 to 7 units per acre. 3-33 3.7 CONSTRAINTS TO THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING 3.7.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS State law requires that the Housing Element "address" and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. With 1,619 units approved or under consideration in Dublin, increasing the city's housing stock by 36 percent, it becomes clear that, overall, governmental constraints are not impeding development. However, the level of activity does not indicate whether governmental constraints are increasing housing costs. Lack of Programs for Subsidized Housing. The major housing problem area is the failure to produce units affordable to low and moderate income households. While several of the strategies outlined in Section 8 of the Housing Element will bring more market -rate housing within the reach of moderate income households, below market - rate households will not be assisted by most of the steps the City is capable of taking. The primary governmental constraint relative to the production of housing for low income households is the drastic cut -back in federal funds and programs previously available to subsidize housing. For example, Section 8 funds, formerly the main federal housing subsidy program, decreased from $30 billion in fiscal year 1981 to less than $9 billion in fiscal year 1983. The president's proposed budget for fiscal year 1984 included only $514 million in new budget authority for assisted housing under Section 8, to be used for the construction of 10,000 units nationwide for the elderly and handicapped. Dublin's arithmetical share would be half of one unit. The current federal strategy is to provide assistance to the states through the Block Grant Program, shifting the burden of allocation of a dwindling "pie." As part of Alameda County's "urban county," Dublin is eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Though Block Grant funds may not be allocated for hous- ing construction, they may be used for site development and other related costs. Competition for Block Grants is intense, both among jurisdictions and between activities. Currently, Alameda County nonentitlement cities that are part of the urban county receive a maximum of $250,000 per year. Dublin used its 1982 allocation to assist the Kaleidoscope Center for the developmentally disabled and for Dougherty Road improvements. These allocations indicate the range of deserving uses to which CDBG funds can be put, and suggest that they will not be a major source of housing subsidies. Existing Zoning. Alameda County zoning, adopted by Dublin after incorporation, designated most of the City for single family residential development. Existing zoning constrains both the total number of units which can be produced and the number of multi -family units constructed, thereby limiting opportunities for the development of affordable housing in Dublin. Processing and Permit Procedures. None of the land owners, realtors, or developers contacted in the course of the General Planning process cited building code requirements, site improvements, permitting procedures, or other governmental actions as obstacles to the approval and construction of residential developments. 3-35 available. Although a major new system would take 5 to 7 years to construct, minor capacity increases could be implemented soon after authorization, possibly alleviating development constraints during pipeline expansion. Limited Land Availability. As noted in Section 1, only 167 acres of undeveloped land remain in Dublin outside of commercially zoned sites. Given the strength of the housing market in Dublin, it is likely that more land would be developed were it available in an area served by public facilities and services. With small lots, very few units over twenty years old, and a small number of units needing repair, it is unlikely that redevelopment resulting in more intensive use of presently developed land will occur within the five year time frame of the housing program. Residential designations have been considered for several commercially zoned sites and rejected. Planning Commission and City Council members chose to retain com- mercial designations because of concerns regarding traffic and land use compatibility and in recognition of anticipated demand for commercial sites. Mixed commercial/ residential uses are allowed in the Downtown Intensification Area. Competition Among Uses. Closely related to the limited availability of land in Dublin is the tension between competing uses for what limited undeveloped land does exist. For example, in deciding on General Plan designations for the Fallon and Frederiksen school sites, the need for housing was weighed against growing need for recreation facilities as the city's population grows. The resulting plan continues devoting portions of each site to park while designating the remaining acreage for medium density residential development. In the Extended Planning Area, landowners have already stated their desire for business park development north of I-580 in the vicinity of Tasajara Road. This relatively flat accessible area is unique in the extended planning area for a lack of the topographic constraints that will likely make housing units constructed elsewhere affordable only to households of above -moderate income. Though the Tassajara road area does have the potential for development of affordable housing, especially on County surplus land, the adverse effects of proximity to the new County jail and the freeway combined with the greater profitability of business park development weaken support for residential development. Interest Rates. Rising interest rates in the 1970's and early 1980's have been a major contributor to high costs for both housing providers and consumers. The dramatic rise in monthly mortgage payments attributable to high interest rates is illustrated in Table 3-20, which compares payments on a $100,000 mortgage at different interest rates and varying terms. In Section 5, $67,400 was established as the maximum mort- gage assumable by a moderate income Dublin household, based on a 13% 30 year loan. The $ 100,000 mortgage, however, is necessary for a large number of buyers of Dublin homes. Lower interest rates increase the number and income range of households that can qualify for mortgages. High monthly payments associated with current interest rates explain why many who purchased homes before the interest rate rise of the 1970's are able to pay for homes that renting households of the same income cannot now afford to purchase. High interest rates are a major factor that makes it much easier to remain a homeowner than to become one for the first time. 3-37 Community Opposition to Medium and High Density Housing. Two multi -family residential projects recently proposed in Dublin have been delayed and are finally near approval at reduced density as a consequence of opposition of nearby residents to multi -family dwellings at high densities. Community concerns that have been raised center on noise and traffic impacts, aesthetics and neighborhood character. Opposition of some Dublin residents to higher density housing has impeded development of a wider variety of housing types than the city has had in the past. Approvals contingent on redesign have meant projects with fewer and larger, more costly units than initially proposed by the developers. Despite density reductions resulting from community sentiment, medium -high density development has been approved in Dublin in 1983. The General Plan process is intended to set densities that are consistent with accepted design standards and community policies and will not be subject to negotiations when future project designs are submitted. 3-39 TABLE 3-21 SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES RELATED TO CITY GOALS AND HOUSING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Housing program strategies recgiirirg adoption of General Plan and consistent Zoning Ordinance amendments for implementation: Increase residential densities (C,1) Designate additional land for residential use (A, C, 1) Designate land not previously zoned for residential use at higher densities than surrounding neighborhoods (A, 1) Treat one -bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75 percent of a housing unit when computing allowable density. Allow residential development in Downtown Intensification Area (A, C, 1) Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable housing on their sites (B, 1) Require a percentage of units in large multi -family projects be rented for a specified period of time (B, 1) Housing program strategies requiring additional City action for implementation: Encourage development of second units in existing single family homes (B, 1) Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop below -market rate units (B, 1) Work with Pleasanton toward establishing a joint housing authority (B, 1, 4) Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in Dublin (B, 1) Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assistance for the purpose of including below market rate units in proposed projects; assist developers in obtaining information on available programs (B, 1) Housing program strategies requiring ongoing City effort usiftg existing programs: Grant 25 percent density bonuses for provision of 25 percent affordable units as required by state law (B, 1) Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others seeking housing in Dublin (E, 4) Continue City code enforcement program; aid low income households in obtaining financial assistance for housing rehabilitation (D, 2) Statutory Housing Program Requirements The program must: A. Identify adequate sites for the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels B. Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate -income households C. Address and, where possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing D. Conserve and Improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock E. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. City Housing Goals 1. Provide housing of varied types, sizes and prices in Dublin in order to satisfy current and future housing needs of all Dublin residents. • 2. Preserve Dublin's existing housing stock in sound condition. 3. Ensure that housing In Dublin will have adequate public services and will be fully served by public facilities and accessible to public facilities and employment and commercial centers. 4. Work for equal housing opportunity and access for all persons regardless of any arbitrary factors. 3-41 Implementation Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months of General Plan adoption Designate Additional Land for Residential Use. The inventory of sites available for residential use (Section 6) shows several sites appropriate for housing where residential uses are not currently permitted. These include three school sites, and a portion of the small commercially -zoned parcel at the corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. All four sites are designated for multi -family residential use by the General Plan. Site 11, the Dolan school site, is given the medium density/required mixed dwelling type designation. The desired development pattern on the site is single family homes on the perimeter to achieve compatibility with existing surrounding single family development, with density throughout the site averaging 14 units per acre. The Fallon and Frederiksen school sites are both designated partly for neighborhood parks and partly for medium density residential. Two acres of the Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard site are designated as medium -high density. Policy Objective: Increase total number of units produced in Dublin by providing additional sites for residential development Quantified Objective: 523 units total; 260 over next five years Action Undertaken: Residential designation on General Plan Actions Needed: Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations. Financing: No cost to City Implementation Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months of General Plan adoption Designate Land not Previously Zoned for Residential Use at Higher Densities than Surrounding Neighborhoods. The neighborhoods surrounding the Fallon and Frederiksen schools are older Dublin neighborhoods and include some of the homes built by Volk -McLain in the 1960's. The Dolan site is in a newer area, characterized by single family homes on larger lots. All three sites are designated for medium density residential use by the General Plan, with a mix of housing types required on the Dolan site. Policy Objective: Increase total number of units in city; reduce housing cost by reducing per unit land cost, allowing smaller units. 3-43 Time Frame: 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months of General Plan adoption Allow Residential Development in Downtown Intensification Area. The Land Use element establishes a "Downtown Intensification Area," where mid -rise buildings will be permitted along with a range of land uses. Mixed commercial/residential use will be allowed in the area, and is most likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed BART station between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. While it is difficult to project the number of dwelling units that will be built downtown, 200 is a reasonable assumption - whether or not this potential will be realized depends on market factors affecting the profitability of residential vs. commercial development, other intensification plans for the area, and an increased acceptance of mixed use projects in general. Mixed -use, mid -rise housing would cost more than the current market will pay, and is unlikely in a five year housing program. However, second and third floor residential space over ground floor commercial recently has been successful elsewhere in the Bay Area. Such space is virtually "free" of land cost except for parking if the developers' alternative is a one-story retail store . Policy Objective: Action Undertaken: Actions Needed: Financing: Implernentation Responsibility: Time Frame: Increase units produced in Dublin; increase sites appropriate for affordable housing and accessible to downtown General Plan designation of Downtown Intensification Area Adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments consistent with Plan policies and designations. No cost to City Dublin Planning Commission and City Council 1984; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance within six months of General Plan adoption Support Semi -Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable Housing on Their Sites. With public funding for the development of affordable housing extremely limited, the City will support efforts by semi-public institutions to provide housing. The Valley Christian Center, for example, is considering construction of senior housing on a por- tion of its property at the west end of Dublin Boulevard. To facilitate the center or any other land-owning institution in developing affordable housing on an appropriate site, the definition of the General Plan's "semi-public" designation makes provision for residential uses. The definition reads: "Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific semi- public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development under the Zoning Ordinance." 3-45 3.8.4 HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL CITY ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION Encourage Development of Second Units in Existing Single Family Homes. A 1982 survey conducted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development found that approximately 15 percent of the state's single-family homes are underutilized7. Given decreasing household size and the increasing cost of housing, second units added to or converted from single-family homes may be a way to use this housing resource to provide needed new housing at minimal financial and environmental costs. Objections to second units have centered around a few major concerns —character of single-family neighborhoods, adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal, traffic and parking problems —all related to population density. It is important to realize that second units represent a way for homes and services to be used to the capacity they were designed for by accommodating more households in a given number of housing units as household size decreases. Overall density and trip generation would be lower than previous peak levels. Recent legislation requires local jurisdictions to provide for second units. Section 65852.2 of the Government Code gives cities two options with regard to second units: they may adopt ordinances to establish zones in which second units are allowed, establishing criteria and standards relating to parking, service, and unit design. If no ordinance is adopted the jurisdiction must grant conditional use permits for all second units complying with criteria established by law. A locality can adopt an ordinance that totally precludes second units only if specified findings are made. Dublin's planning staff is currently drafting an ordinance which will set forth design criteria and parking standards for second units. While it is difficult to anticipate how many second units will be built in Dublin, a target goal if the City actively promotes the development of second units would be 350 units, representing one -tenth of all units in the City with three or more bedrooms. For such an ambitious goal to be achieved the City would need to develop a public awareness plan about second units, publicizing relevant regulations, benefits to the homeowner, and information on how to create a second unit - from getting necessary permits to hiring a reputable contractor to deciding how much rent to charge when the unit is complete. Predictions of the effect of second unit conversions on the City's housing stock are by necessity speculative. Results of the second unit program will be monitored to determine whether or not additions of second units are resulting in a depletion of the City's supply of single family units which has an overall negative effect on the housing market. 7Underutilized means one or two people occupying a three or more bedroom home; three people occupying a four or more bedroom home; or four people occupying a five or more bedroom home. 3-47 Actions to be Undertaken: Cooperate with Eden Housing in developing surplus school site or contract with Eden or another agency for assistance in investigating ways to provide affordable housing. Financing: No financing necessary. Assistance to the development of affordable housing might include providing a short-term low interest loan to the housing developer. Implementation Responsibility: City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame: Plan for Fallon Site by mid-1985; 1984 if possible. Work With Pleasanton Toward Establishing a Joint Housing Authority. Dublin's only public housing project, Arroyo Vista, is owned and operated by the Pleasanton Housing Authority. Though Arroyo Vista is physically in Dublin, the City is represented on the decision -making body which manages the complex only by chance - one of the tenant commissioners appointed by the Pleasanton City Council lives at Arroyo Vista. Participation with Pleasanton in the Housing Authority would demonstrate Dublin's commitment to working for housing opportunities for all income groups and to provid- ing a range of housing services, and will give Dublin a voice in future decisions regarding use of Housing Authority land. Both Dublin and Pleasanton would need to take legislative action in order to expand the Housing Authority. This obviously ambitious task would have to begin with a positive dialogue initiated by Dublin regarding broadening the Housing Authority's domain to include both cities. Another possibility is a Livermore-Amador Valley Authority governed jointly by Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin and serving an area that clearly is part of a single housing market. Policy Objective: Share control of Housing Authority activities in Dublin; support housing information and referral services. Actions to be Undertaken: Financing: Implementation Responsibility: Time Frame: Dialogue with Pleasanton City staff and City Council; passage of resolution. No Cost to City City Council Initiate discussions with Pleasanton in 1984 Encourage Development of Additional Units on Housing Authority Land in Dublin. The Arroyo Vista site includes three to four acres of undeveloped land suitable for additional development. Pleasanton Housing Authority staff has indicated interest in possible future development of senior housing on the site. 3-49 program availability and are using available funding assistance whenever possible. To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City should prepare and regularly update a packet of information on available programs, including a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This information should be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval process. This requirement shall apply only to developers of project that will contain 75 or more multi -family units. Policy Objective: Promote use of available funds and funding mechanisms in private sector housing development Actions to be Undertaken: Assign staff time, print standard information for developers, develop review process for implementation Financing: Cost of staff time equivalent to five percent of the time of a full time staff person; from planning budget or through use of Block Grant funds Implementation Responsibility: City planning staff, Dublin Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame: Program in place by 1985 3.8.5 STRATEGIES REQUIRING ONGOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING PROGRAMS Grant 25 Percent Density Bonuses for Provision of 25 Percent Affordable Units as Required by State Law. The State's first density bonus law was enacted in 1979 and clarified in 1982. Together, the two laws (Government Code section 65915) require that developers of housing that agree to construct at least 25 percent of the total units of a development for low or moderate income households, or ten percent for low income households, must be granted a density bonus of at least 25 percent or other incentives of equivalent financial value. The law contains additional clarifying language regarding the procedures and definitions relevant to granting density bonuses. Little use of the required density bonus provision is anticipated. For the bonus incentive to result in construction of a significant number of affordable units the incentives would have to be increased. Some jurisdictions offer additional density incentives. Rather than develop a complex density bonus system, this housing program incorporates the concept of higher -than -base densities through adopting a flexible density definition. This approach provides incentives for the production of more small units priced at full market value„ rather than providing incentives for the development of lesser numbers of below market rate units. Policy Objective: Provision of incentives for providing affordable units; compliance with State law 3-51 Continue City Code Enforcement Program; Aid Low Income Households in Obtaining Financial Assistance for Housing Rehabilitation. For a year following its incorporation, Dublin contracted with Alameda County for building inspection services. Now Dublin has its own inspection program conducted by two part-time staff members responsible for plan checking and zoning and building code enforcement. Code enforcement is conducted only in response to complaints. Both County and City staff responsible for building inspection have reported only minor code violations in the City, attributed to the newness of the housing stock. Additionally, where market conditions result in steadily increasing property values, homeowners have a strong incentive to maintain their property. Even so, as buildings age the incidence of deterioration and code violations will almost certainly increase. When the Housing Element is revised the City should consider implementing an active rehabilitation program suiting the age of most of the City's units. Currently, low income households may obtain low interest loans for required rehabilitation through a program operated by Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. To qualify, units must have at least one code violation; funds may be used for general property improvements as long as violations are corrected as well. City inspectors will inform households living in units found to have code violations of possible eligibility for the loan program. Policy Objective: Action Undertaken: Actions to be Undertaken: Financing: Implementation Responsibility: Time Frame: Enforce building and zoning codes in Dublin. Expansion of City staff to include building inspector(s) Continue enforcement program; provide information on appropriate loan programs City Funds City staff Ongoing 3.8.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION The State of California sets energy conservation standards for new residential construction. The City can promote energy conservation in project design through a variety of measures. It should be recognized that since all parcels in Dublin available for residential development are infill sites they are inherently energy conserving, locating new residents near employment and commercial centers. Designating sites for multi -family densities, a major change resulting from the City's first Housing Element and General Plan, will result in the construction of units which are energy efficient due to minimal exterior walls. It is in approving site plans that the City can assure new developments will have energy efficient design. Prior to project approval, the City should require developers 3-53 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 4.1 CONSERVATION ELEMENT Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult conservation issues, even with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Association (LAVWMA) pipeline, and significantly improved air quality. The extent of planned and anticipated development now draws greater attention to other conservation issues — conversion of agricultural land to other uses; loss of open space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide -prone areas; increased runoff, erosion and stream siltation; .etc. Additionally the prospect of renewed or intensified air quality and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans approved or under consideration that would result in up to 200,000 jobs in the Tri-Valley. Open space resources are discussed in the open space element; the seismic safety and safety elements consider natural hazards. This section and its counterpart in the Plan Policies Report consider hydrology, habitats, agricultural open space, air, soil resources, and archaeologic and historic resources. The planning area includes three sections that are distinct in terms of topography, vegetation, and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area just north of I-580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land east of Parks RFTA and Santa Rita and south of the county line consists of grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These areas are referred to below as the valley, eastern hills, and western hills of the planning area, respectively.) The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa Clara counties and established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National Parks Service study (U.S. Department of the Interior New Area Feasibility Study 1980, pp. 97-103). The ridgelands have been the subject of many preservation efforts over the years, and have been protected through organizational and agency efforts as well as by the difficulty of development on the steep slopes and ridges. The ridgelands of the western hills are characterized by good quality woodland and forest habitats with high natural resource values. Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of' a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread. The eastern hills are not as valuable as the western hills in terms of habitat, but do contain grazing and hay -growing land of unusually high quality. Throughout the extended planning area most of the land is under Williamson Act contract, which prohibits its development for a minimum of ten years while providing tax advantages to landowners. 4-1 Groundwater pollution is generated by point and non -point sources. Point sources are discrete generators of pollution, such as factories with outfall pipes that discharge water with illegal concentrations of pollutants; or gas stations that do not handle oil and gas appropriately. The limited general industrial activity in Dublin minimizes point source pollution. The major non -point source is runoff, precipitation which flows as a surface water film because it can not percolate into the ground due to the pre- sence of inpenetrable substances or saturation of soil. Runoff from urban areas generally includes automobile gas and fluids, pet waste, and a variety of hazardous substances in common use. Runoff from agricultural areas generally contains ferti- lizer, pesticides, and animal wastes, all of which pollute groundwater and surface water supplies. With increased urbanization, the amount of undeveloped land through which pure water is recharged decreases, and the concentration of pollutants in the groundwater increases. As more and more impervious surfaces (e.g., roads and roofs) are created, runoff increases as does the content of pollutants from non -point sources in the groundwater. In addition to carrying pollutants, runoff causes soil erosion and eventually stream sedimentation and siltation, resulting in stream turbidity, clogging of streams and reduced reservoir capacity. Flood Hazards and Control Flooding in Dublin is caused by winter storms with heavy rainfall, steep topography, and constricted stream flows. Concentration of storm runoff is rapid in areas of steep slope. Many watercourses are seasonal and cannot accommodate higher flows. Bridges or culverts may also constrict heavy flows, resulting in flooding. Zone 7 of the Alameda County Water Conservation and Flood Control District is responsible for flood protection in the planning area. A special program is now in effect for drainage channel improvements throughout Zone 7 as development occurs. These improvements, funded with development fees, have not been major in Dublin. Future, improvements to Alamo Creek may be necessary with development of the large parcel east of the Dougherty Hills and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. While Alamo Creek now has sufficient capacity, bank erosion caused by development of the site may create a need for additional improvements. Although Zone 7 representatives believe that there are no serious flood hazards in Dublin, during January of 1983 flooding did occur west of San Ramon Road in the Silvergate area. Brief, intense rains carried debris down from the hills where it blocked pipes and creeks, causing flooding of backyards and several homes. These incidents of flooding are believed to have been caused by unintentional obstruction of watercourses by nearby residents. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared a Flood Insurance rate map (August, 1983) showing a 100-year flood that inundates portions of the city, generally in the vicinity of Dougherty Road at I-580, Amador Valley Boulevard west of I-680, and the west side of San Ramon Road. 4-3 Urban Rural Riparian Woodland TABLE 4-1 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES OF THE LIVERMORE AMADOR VALLEY Cities, towns, subdivisions, parks, etc. Cultivated croplands and pasture. In wooded canyons along stream courses. (Various stages depending on rainfall runoff patterns) Grassland Non -cultivated areas in Valley and adjacent hills. Oak Woodland Inner coastal ranges from 400 to 3000 feet; rolling hills along north and south edge of Livermore Valley lowlands Introduced trees and shrubs; House Finch, English Sparrow, Norway Rate, House Mouse, Cockroach. Various truck and row crops; Barn Owl, Sparrow hawk, Brewers' Black- bird, Gopher, Vole, Gopher Snake, Alfalfa, Cabbage Butterfly. Western Sycamore, Fremont Cotton- wood, Red Willow, Arroyo Willow, Big Leaf Maple; appendix for faunal indicator species. Blue Bunch Grass, California Oak Grass, Foothill Sedge, brome grass, wild oats. At lower elevations, Valley Oak, Coast Live Oak; Blue Oak; Digger Pine, at higher elevations. Through- out: Holly -leaf Cherry, California Coffee Berry, California Buckeye, Poison Oak. Source: Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Riparian Woodlands Riparian areas have vegetation dependent on proximity of a natural watercourse and are an important natural resource in the relatively dry climate. The riparian environment serves an important role in protecting watercourse integrity. Riparian zones reduce stream sediment load by reducing erosion while also acting as sediment buffers, protecting water quality by filtering sediment and debris contained in surface runoff. Another function of the vegetation along stream banks is to protect the plant and animal habitat created by the stream. The plant species in riparian woodlands are similar to associations common in the cool moist areas of the ridgelands. Basin -wide, vegetation reduces the total volume of streamflow as well as making the flow more constant and regular. During the dry season, the riparian vegetation provides shelter to many animals not usually found in 4-5 4.1.3 AIR QUALITY Air quality has long been a problem in the Tri-Valley area. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, air quality recorded at the Livermore monitoring station was the worst in the Bay Area in respect to photochemical oxidants, or ozone (smog). Table 4-2 presents 1982 data for ozone and for other contaminants, recorded for all stations in the Bay Area by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air quality in the Dubin area is a function of location, topography, and pollutant - generating activities both in and out of the Tri-Valley. Sunshine and warm tempera- tures, valued by many Bay Area residents, contribute to air quality problems in association with other characteristics of the planning area, making it difficult to attain air quality standards designed to protect the public health. The topography of the Valley favors the creation of temperature inversions, a condition in which warm air traps a layer of cooler air beneath it, thus preventing vertical mixing and resulting in the concentration of pollutants close to the ground. Temperature inversions occur as low as 2,500 feet in the Dublin area. Surface winds are generally channeled through the passes into the Valley, creating predominant westerly, southwesterly, northwesterly, and northeasterly winds, and carrying pollutants from the San Francisco and Bay Plain areas. Due to the sheltering effect of the mountains, wind speeds are low in the Valley. Additionally, the shape of the Valley itself limits horizontal movement and mixture of air, further inhibiting the dispersion of pollutants. Since 1967, all major air pollutants except hydrocarbons have been continually monitored in the Valley. Air quality problems in the area have been almost exclu- sively related to one pollutant, photochemical oxidants, the primary component of which is ozone. Photochemical oxidants and ozone are secondary pollutants created from the interaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight., Since sunlight is an ingredient in the ozone -producing process, oxidants are a seasonal problem, occurring principally between the months of April and October. Ozone has negative health effects as well as adverse economic impacts caused by damage to crops and materials. Standards for ozone have been designed to prevent eye irritation and respiratory difficulties. Certain high -risk groups, most notably infants and the elderly, are particularlysusceptible to health problems created by high levels of ozone and other pollutants. Although the Tri-Valley had the highest regional ozone levels 15 years ago, air quality has improved in recent years, and the Bay Area's worst ozone problems have shifted southward to the Los Gatos area. In 1969 when ozone reached its highest levels in the Bay Area, the federal standard was exceeded in the Livermore area on 53 days. By contrast, standards were violated two days per year in 1980 and 1981 and only one day in 1982. This record can be compared with data from the Fremont monitoring station, where ozone standards were exceeded on 6 days in 1980, and 3 days each in 1981 and 1982. Part of this seemingly dramatic change is due to a significant lowering of the standard, but there is general agreement that significant absolute improvement has taken place as a result of the regulation of oxidant -generating emissions from both stationary and mobile sources (industry and cars). 4-7 Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide have never been exceeded at the Livermore monitoring station. As monitoring is done in Livermore, it is difficult to assess the effect of the I-580/I-680 interchange on CO levels in Downtown Dublin. As Valley growth causes increased traffic volumes, CO may emerge as a problem pollutant in the Valley. The volume of total suspended particulates (TSP) has been a source of concern in the Livermore area. While standards were not exceeded in 1981 or 1982, in 1980 Cali- fornia TSP standards were exceeded on 9 days. In Fremont, state TSP standards were exceeded 8 days in 1980 (1 day exceeded the lower federal standard), no days in 1981, and 2 days in 1982. Throughout the Bay Area, about 23 percent of particulate matter is produced by automobiles. As the Tri-Valley has few sources of industrial pollution, the high levels of particulates could also be due to pollen and dust generated from construction, agricultural, and gravel extraction operations. Air quality standards have been set by the Federal Government since the passage of the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Two levels of standards exist: primary standards designed to protect human health, and more stringent secondary standards that protect property and aesthetics. Attainment and exceedance is in relation to the primary standards. All standards are figures that reflect a concentration of a particu- lar pollutant in the air. Under the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, the Bay Area is a Nonattainment Area for ozone, required to submit an air quality implementation plan to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The State of California has designated the entire San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin as an Air Quality Maintenance Area in accordance with EPA requirements. Three agencies share the responsibility for air quality main- tenance and planning in the Bay Area: the California Air Resources Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC). BAAQMD is empowered to control air pollution from sta- tionary sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The California Air Resources Board sets motor vehicle emissions standards, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the lead agency for transportation improvements. Given the regional nature of air pollution problems, and the character of the agencies addressing them, individual localities have relatively small roles to play in addressing air quality issues. The primary responsibilities of local government officials are to inform themselves on air quality issues and to consider air quality in the environ- mental review process. Additionally, jurisdictions should be aware of any local impacts of air quality maintenance plan policies. The 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, part of the State Implementation Plan for California and the San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Management Plan, describes air quality problems in the Bay Area and formulates programs to improve air quality. The goal of the plan is achievement of ambient air quality standards in the Bay Area by 1987. The 1982 plan is an update of the 1979 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, which contained four major program elements as follows: use of available control technol- ogy on existing stationary sources; new source review; motor vehicle inspection and maintenance; and transportation system improvements. Three factors prompted the revision of the 1979 plan: 1) the fact that the State Legislature has not authorized the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program adopted in the 1979 plan; 2) the 4-9 sliding, suggesting that a significant increase in debris flows would follow clearing of the woodland vegetation, presenting yet another obstacle to development of the area (Hayward Planning Department, 1976, p. 26). Western Hills Three predominant soil series, Los Gatos, Los Osos and Milsholm, are found in the ridgelands. These three soil types are generally very shallow to moderately deep, with many areas moderately eroded. Drainage is good to somewhat excessive. Fertility is low to moderate, primarily due to limited water holding capacity. The Los Osos soils, which predominate in the area just south of I-580, are subject to frequent shallow landsliding. Runoff is rapid and cultivation difficult on these steep slopes. All are used principally for pasture and range land. Eastern Hills The uplands east of the incorporated area are almost exclusively Diablo clays and Linne clay loams. Parent material is the soft sedimentary rocks of the Tassajara and Orinda formations, known for their slope stability problems. The Diablo series consists of deep to moderately deep, well -drained, clayey soils on rolling to very steep uplands. Linne clay loams are well -drained soils formed from soft, interbedded shale and fine-grained sandstone. Some areas are severely eroded, and the hazard of erosion in areas of over 30 percent slope is severe, as in the areas of Diablo clays. Soils are moderately fine to fine textures, with clayey and very hard surface soils. Drainage is typically good with occasional excessive drainage and poor drainage in small valleys. Fertility is moderate to high. The area just north of I-580 and east of Santa Rita, can be considered as a transitional zone from Valley floor to uplands in terms of soil type as well as slope. The area contains soils of the Diablo and Linne series, but also clear lake clays, rincon clay loams, and fine -textured alluvium, more typical of the Valley floor. Gentler terrain means greatly reduced erosion hazard. Valley The soils of the city principally belong to the Clear Lake -Sunnyvale Association, characterized by well to imperfectly drained soils with generally high fertility, and formed from unconsolidated recent alluvial sediment. Surface soils are clay to clay loam with very deep heavy clay subsoils. The western edge of the city has soils characteristic of the uplands and similar to those found east of Camp Parks and Santa Rita, principally Diablo clays and Linne clay loams. 4.1.5 MINERALS No mineral extraction takes place within the planning area. Between Pleasanton and Livermore are major sand and gravel deposits, which are the Valley's major mineral resources. Petroleum, chromite, coal, manganese, and silver have also been extracted at different times. 4-11 4.2 SEISMIC SAFETY AND SAFETY ELEMENTS 4.2.1 GEOMORPHOLOGY The Dublin planning area is located east of San Francisco Bay within the Diablo Range, a mountainous area extending from the northwest to the southeast, and a part of the California Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The range is discontinuous, being broken by erosional and structural valleys. The City of Dublin is located within a flat alluvial valley within the Diablo Range. The hills to the west are steep: the hills to the east are subdued and are approximately 1,200 feet maximum elevation. The highest point within the western portion of the extended planning area is 1,600 feet above sea level; the Dougherty Hills within Dublin are 600 feet and most of the city is approximately 400 feet. 4.2.2 GEOLOGY The Dublin valley site is underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary (less than 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 years old) deposits. These deposits are primarily alluvial and estuarine in origin, and are composed of coarsely bedded, interfingering deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These sediments are underlain by a much thicker accumulation of older, consolidated sedimentary rocks. A major discontinuity, the Calaveras Fault, separates the valley lowlands from the hill area to the west. Figure 4-1 shows the geology in the primary planning area. The hill areas east and west of Dublin are underlain by various types of sedimentary bedrock. These rocks are well portrayed by Dibblee (1980a, b, c). Sedimentary rocks in the planning area are commonly inclined at angles of 40 to 70 degrees from the horizontal, and are deformed into a series of sub -parallel folds, generally trending west-northwest. The major drainages cut, at an angle, across this structure. The hills are mantled by soil and weathered bedrock, varying in thickness from a few inches to many feet. Common thicknesses are 3 to 10 feet. Numerous shallow and deep landslides occur within the hill areas. Some of these are pre -historic ("Quater- nary"), i.e., they have not moved in historic times. Others are currently active. 4.2.3 TECTONICS Introduction Tectonics are the processes that cause deformation of the earth's crust. The most significant manifestations of tectonic processes are earthquakes, which result from the release of stored energy within the earth's crust along faults, or planes of weakness between two large masses of the earth's crust. Numerous faults exist in the San Francisco Bay Area. Several are considered to be active or potentially active, and are close enough to Dublin to cause damaging earthquakes. 4-13 /4 scale: 1"=2000' 4 ;. Ots poor gravel, sand, silt, 8 clay Qb clay in poorldrained area Qyfo fine sand, silt, and silty clay Qyf permeable, fine sand & silt Qof weak, poorly sorted sift sand & gravel Base map copied from 7-1/2" USGS sheets; 1953 Diablo quad. 81961 Dublin quad. \I Qof e. Source: DSRSD Parks and Recreation Master Plan Figure 4-1: GEOLOGIC MAP - WITHIN CITY lb) Hanging wall Left lateral normal fault (Left oblique normal fault) Normal fault Left lateral fault (Strike -slip) Reverse fault (d) (e) Left lateral reverse fault (Left oblique reverse fault) (c) lf) Fig. I.7a I. Diagrammatic sketches of fault types (a) names of components, (b) normal fault, (c) reverse fault, (d) left -lateral strike -slip fault, (e) left -lateral normal fault, (f) left -lateral reverse fault. (After California Geology, November 1971) Source: Bolt et al, 1975 Figure 4-2: TYPES OF FAULT MOVEMENT TABLE 4-3 Modified Mercalll Intensity Scale of 19311, (1956 vorsion)2 Masonry A. B, C, D. 'To avoid ambiguity of language, the quality of masonry, brick or otherwise, is specified by the following lettering. Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.: designed to resisi lateral forces. Masonry 13. Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed in detail to resist lateral forces. Masonry G. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; nu extreme weaknesses like failing to lie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal for- ces. Masonry 1). Weak materials, such as adobe; flour mortar; low siancl,lyds of work- manship: weak hurizunlally. 1. Not felt. Marginal and long -period effects of large earthquakes. II, Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake, IV. Hanging objects swing, Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frame creak. V. Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small un- stable objects displaced or upset, Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop, start, change rate. VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked, Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken visibly, or heard to rustle. VIi. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at root line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments. Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. VIII. Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys. factory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks In wet ground and on steep slopes. IX. General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged, sometimes with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. General damage to foundations. Frame structures, if not bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake foun- tains, sand craters. X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden struc- tures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly. XI. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. XII. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air. 'Original 1931 version in Wood, H. O., and Neumann, F., 1931, Modified Mercaili intensity scale of 1931: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 53, no. 5, p. 979-987. 21956 version prepared by Charles F. Richter, in Elementary Seismology, 1958, p. 137-138. W. H. Freeman & Co 4-15 TABLE 4-5 MAJOR HISTORIC SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA EARTHQUAKES Rupture Richter Date Fault Length (km) Magnitude June 10, 1836 Hayward Unknown 6.5-7.0 Late June 1838 San Andreas Unknown 7.0 July 4, 1861 Calaveras-Sunol Unknown 5.3 October 8, 1868 San Andreas Unknown 6+ October 21, 1868 Hayward 30 6.7 April 24, 1890 San Andreas 10(?) 5.9 April 18, 1906 San Andreas 430 8.2 Source: Las Positas DEIR; Shedlock, et al., 1980. 4-17 4.2.4 DOWNSLOPE MOVEMENT Several forms of downslope movement affect Dublin and the adjacent hill areas. These include landslides, rock falls, debris flows, and soil creep. The first three phenomena occur under both static and seismic conditions. Factors affecting downslope movement are groundwater conditions, rock and soil type, slope angle, proximity to erosion, seismic conditions, vegetation and alterations to the landscape by human activity, as follows: - Increased groundwater levels generally decrease slope stability, both by adding weight to the soil mass and by reducing shearing resistance to sliding. - Certain soil and rock types, such as soft sediments or surficial deposits, are more prone to sliding than other, more consolidated materials. - Steeper slopes generally increase downslope movement. - Undercutting of slopes by streams removes support, increasing susceptibility to sliding. - Earthquakes can trigger downslope movement, especially if water levels are high. Earthquake -induced downslope movement has been documented in the San Fran- cisco Bay Area. - Deep rooted vegetation increases slope stability. - Grading for development can decrease slope stability by removing support at cuts and surcharging slopes with fills or conversely, can increase slope stability by buttressing the lower parts of slopes. Downslope movement in the Dublin area varies in nature. Major, deep slides occur mainly to the west, in the steeper, higher hills. These slides cover much of the east facing escarpment west of I-680, in places covering and in turn being broken by the Calaveras Fault. At some locations, especially in the newly developed areas of west- ern Dublin, confusion exists as to whether certain discontinuities are fault or landslide related. Active deep and shallow landslides occur both east and west of Dublin. Their activity generally increases during wetter than average winters. Debris flows also occur on both sides of Dublin, although they are more common within the lower, but less resistant hills east of Parks RFTA. Landslide and debris flow occurrence has been mapped by Nilsen and other investiga- tors. Stereophotographic methods were employed, with a minimum of ground check- ing. Figure 4-4 shows landslide and debris flow distribution. It must be noted that this map gives only an indication of downslope movement. Some indicated areas may be free of significant movement; at other locations, movement may be missed due to heavy forest cover, movement more recent than the photographic coverage, or other reasons. Thus, it is not a definitive interpretation, and should not be utilized for site - specific studies, except as an indication of general conditions surrounding the site. Downslope movement commonly occurs in hillside areas subject to human activity. Examples of human -induced failure are evident along highway cuts on I-580 west of 4-21 CUT FILL \ OOL� \ - BEDROCK `\CUT CE \\ ON BEDROCK ODING. SURFACES - - " \\ Source: Leighton, 1969 Figure 4-5: DEVELOPMENT OF MAN-MADE BEDROCK LANDSLIDES: A Naturally Stable "Dip -Slope" Has Been Made Unstable By Removing The Support From Bedding Planes INITIAL CUT STEEPEN SLOPE ANGLE ry:-�: CE79P0p1 1 L 1 .' SATURATE WITH WATER 2F+MW AI IVEL INCREASE IN HEIGHT PLACE EXTRA LOAD ON SLOPE Source: Leighton, 1969 Figure 4-6: FOUR WAYS TO MAKE A STABLE CUT SLOPE UNSTABLE Debris Flows Debris or mud flows (Figure 4-7) occur under essentially the sale conditions ;!s landslides. However, they differ in that the material involved behaves as a viscous liquid, and commonly moves with greater rapidity than landslides. Debris flows are generally relatively thin, and can move significant distances from the slopes on which they originate to the adjacent stream flatlands. Some debris flows develop from highly fluid landslides; others occur directly from rainfall on a steep slope. 4.2.5 LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is a hazard in saturated loose granular material, generally when the water table is near the ground surface. It occurs when earthquake vibrations cause pore pressures within the material to increase. The water flows, and the material loses its strength, and thus its ability to support structures. Light, buried structures may float to the surface. Heavy structures on the surface may sink or rotate. Liquefaction is a potential problem in alluvial valleys. Youd, et al, (1975) classify the liquefaction potential of Holocene alluvium in the San Francisco Bay Area with the depth of water less than 10 feet as moderate. This applies to part of the Dublin low- lands. High potential zones probably also exist. Mitigative measures must be taken where geotechnical studies identify high or mode- rate liquefaction potential. In most cases, properly designed foundations will be suf- ficient. In some cases, a project might be unfeasible or uneconomic due to lique- faction potential. 4.2.6 SHRINK SWELL POTENTIAL Expansive soils are common within the Dublin area. These soils expand when wet, and contract as they dry. Shrink -swell potential is a minor problem throughout much of the planning area, and a significant problem in localized areas. Required preliminary geotechnical investigations will indicate a warning of shrink -swell conditions, and soil investigations will provide site -specific information on shrink -swell potential. Expansive soils can damage certain types of buildings, especially those which are of slab -on -grade construction. Roads, driveways, and sidewalks are also damaged by cracking caused by expansive soils, causing potential injury to pedestrians and neces- sitating early replacement. Such conditions are thus an economic burden to the city and should be mitigated by proper sub -grade preparation and structural design. 4.2.7 LURCH CRACKING AND LATERAL SPREADING Lurch cracking is commonly related to liquefaction; thus, it occurs mainly in allu- vium. It has been observed in most earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6. It can also occur in weathered rock or soil, especially on slopes. The banks of streams are especially vulnerable. 4-23 C C •.� 0 N Q) N N 0) 4-) >) S- C C 0 .a rC3 N 0 O C N U 4-) C •r- N C U E ro 0 0) •r a. to E 4- • • Lf) Cr) S •.N r . L C.) LO L.)C C.) ‹C CU 4-) O O •r CO 4-) r r r •0 0 CU t- r N ro C N•r- •r L Utf)•r L L 5-ro •r CI) E Ca_ • E E >) cv Lf) V) d ¢ �t 1- CO .- C) 1� CT) ('') -J O O Lf) i d' J ' -- it • k 0 f Cr) r- C• J •k CT Lf) CI) •::1' CO CV L0 Lf ) LO N 1.0 0 ✓ C CU L C E r- 0 C CU 0 O •r - C e0 E L L C r C rCS 4- rCf ro CU 0C E s L 0 • Q V) ro C 4-) (1) E to 4- to c -0 C 0 1!) O C L d LO ro 4- 4- 4- r- 0 0 c " • r c • 0 C4.) 0 L 4-3 CU E CU 4- C 4-) 0 .-V r0 +) r6 ITS 0 r GL' COr U r- +3 r0 CU O 0 r- C 3 C U r --) ••'- O Q) r0 C L S. 0 V) E • S.- no 4- •r O C O E N 4- L O •-' Q = 0 4- c C 4- •r C L • to 4- 0 0 C1) 4-) .c C ) .0 C 4- N r T7 L • L C = 4-) O 0 4- 4- W U C..)L) Lf) O O CU • +-) 0 •r V) N N 0) as 4, : O C C • OLf) r- r C C •r •r N 1.0 l0 LC/ C'•) C0 15 minutes Lf) r- v) a C N •r N r0 N 0. L rt S- ITS U CT CU N Cr) d Q) ro m 4-) L 'p CU c > r •r d LO E LC) 0 Lf) 15 minutes •r LC) r •• N (0 <t (U o[04-) •r•CJ a. C 1-- LC) E CV Lf) O ^ •ct CO 1.0 Lf) Lf) U) CO d CO LC) L!) LC) LI) Lf) tV r O 0 d' O M L ) O r en el in Cr) C) CO Cb CO \ \ \ \ 1".... 1. r-.. CT r- r r r \ \ \ \ Lf) L!) LO Lf) 5/17/83 10:30 pm 0) 0) 0) C C C C/) ro C rt1 C (0 CU U) r-- O r- 0 r- Cl. O O L L•C7 L-0 Lr U r0 .0 r0 C 10 N ro co co c>,>) 4- o) 4- rn 4- v) • O >) O>) orol.) r0 to L. CU L r L r- L O L C Q) Cl. CU O. CU •r O +) 4-) 4-) C C0 C C C C C 0 .0 N •r CU *I- L) 4) A. Cr) U U O • •r C C d L E c E C E cam 0 0) 0 CU 0 0 S- S- a. L 0. L F-) +) 1\ 4- i 4- 1 - 4- ..c r- . -.1‘ cr)oM • L • L • •r- 4-) f� 4-) O in 4-)O (A+J L 4- >- N 4- >- In4- m 4-) E 0 4- S.. 0 4- L 0 4- 0)) OL LC) 0 O) LC) 0 CT) L!) 0 C 4- r- r N Cti Cr) Cr) () N CU ▪ O •r- E Lf) r • r N L r0 U L0 M r LC) Lf) r CO 1'•••• Lf) E ro r CO ('•) O r Lf) .4f' N Q) 4-) C N N •r f-- E a) 0) Lf) 4.) Q) r r- C •r Q) •r 4-) N L O Q) ro U L U r0 0 r 0 J ...0 CO • C d' Q) ro Lf) -J CV 4- L!) 0 Q) - E 0 'V •)- sr- 0 +-) L •r Q) S- r-- d O LO O. 1--1 CU CU 4- - � E O rQ •r CO u/ C Lf) CU CU ro E U 5/19/83 12:38 pm tim • A r rtO L CU C N CU > •r C t. •r 0) " •.) •`‘ .0 O U 4-) 4-3 ro O. _0 CJ) 0 N 4-) C Q) Cl.) •r •0 L r L CU CU O CU • > •L7 U CU Q) X E ✓ r CU •r CU 4-) - > L- C CU O CU O r- 0 "C) 4-) N R7 0) C r 4-- CU O ro 0 •4-) O O CO N CT • -) +-3 CU C v) 03 CU 1 C N C) >) •r- (0 L -0 >, $ 0) rt) L CZ Q) ro +' 4- > ref O N 4-3 +-3 E'O Card C CU 4-) CO 10 r r0 CU O > -C C Lf) •r .4.) •r- O •C7 CTNr CO CU r0 CU •O > 0) CU >, CU 0) _c O)r- U J•.) 0) N 0),- 0) O.0 ro 0E- O 1- U •K CT ir ro * 0) 4-27 Noise Level (CNEL) TABLE 4-10 1983 AND PROJECTED 2005 NOISE EXPOSURE Persons Exposed 1983 1983 2005 2005 Total I-680 Total . I-680 Corridor Corridor 60-65 7,500 — 7,300 --- 65-70 1,400 900 2,600 1,300 70-75 400 300 1,100 1,100 75-80 -0- -0- 300 300 TOTALS 9,300 1,200 11,300 2,700 4-31 Public Facilities Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978- 1990. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978. Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978- 1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978. Murray School District. Murray School District Master Plan (Revised). Dublin: June, 1982. Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization. Dublin: December, 1982. Murray School District. Report of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for School Consolidation/Closure/Reorganization, Appendix. Dublin: December, 1982. Public Services Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Water Master Plan for Dublin. Prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Walnut Creek: December, 1981. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Water System Analysis for the Proposed Third Pressure Zone. Prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Walnut Creek: August, 1982. East Bay Regional Park District. Comments of the East Bay Regional Park District with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Reactivation and Develoment of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Pleasanton, California. Oakland: September 2, 1982. Environmental Resources Alameda County Planning Department. Conservation Element of the Alameda County General Plan. Hayward: Adopted November 23, 1976. Alameda County Planning Department. General Plan Amendment Consideration, Nielsen Ranch, Unincorporated Alameda County, Draft EIR. Hayward: April 4, 1980. Alameda County Planning Department. Livermore Amador Valley Planning Unit Plan Amendment Consideration and EIR (Draft). Hayward: November 9, 1976. Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Bay Area Air Quality Plan (Draft). Berkeley: July, 1982. City of Pleasanton. Pleasanton General Plan. Adopted 1976. Dublin San Ramon Services District. Park and Recreation Masterplan Update, 1978- 1990, Appendix Volume 2. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: 1978. 5-3 Hart, Earl W., 1983, California Division of Mines and Geology, personal communication. Lawson, Andrew C., 1908, (reprinted 1969), "The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906, Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, Washington, D.C. Carnegie Institute of Washington. Nilsen, T.H., 1973, "Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Livermore and Part of the Hayward 15-Minute Quadrangles," Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, U.S. Geologic Survey, Map MF-519 (HUD Series). Nilsen, T.H., Taylor, F.A., and Brabb, E.E., 1976, "Recent Landslides in Alameda County, California (1940-71): An Estimate of Economic Losses and Correlations with Slope Rainfall, and Ancient Landslide Deposits," U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1398. Oakeshott, G.B., 1969, "Geologic Features of Earthquakes in the Bay Area," in Goldman, H.B., Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill, Specia Report 97, California Division of Mines and Geology. Slosson, J.E., 1973, State of California, Special Studies Zones, Dublin Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:24,000, Preliminary Review Map. Woodward -Lundgren and Associates, 1973, Phase I -Preliminary Evaluation of Geologic Problems in the County of Alameda, Report to Director of Public Works, County of Alam eda. Youd, T.L. and Hoose S.M., 1978, Historic Ground Failure in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 993. Youd, T.L., Nichols, D.R., Helley, E.J., and Lajoie, K.R., 1975, "Liquefaction Potential" in Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, Edited by R.D. Borcherdt, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A. 5-5 CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 84011002 February 8, 1984 Prepared for the City of Dublin by Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners TJKM, Transportation Consultants, Walnut Creek Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Emeryville Charles M. Salter & Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants, San Francisco TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 1.1. Increased Traffic 1 1.2. Designation of Air Quality 1 1.3. Loss of Agricultural and Grazing Land 2 1.4. Loss of Open Space 2 1.5. Impacts Not Found To Be Significant 2 1.6. Alternatives 2 2.0. INTRODUCTION 3 2.1. EIR Approach 3 2.2. Project Description 3 2.3. Environmental Setting 4 2.4. Population, Housing, and Employment 4 3.0. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 6 3.1. Air Quality 6 3.2. Hydrology 7 3.3. Open Space 7 3.5. Seismic and Geologic Hazard 9 3.6. Traffic 9 3.7. Noise 11 3.8. Schools, Public Lands and Utilities 11 4.0. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 13 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW 17 5.1. Short Term Uses vs. Long Term Productivity of the Environment 17 5.2. Significant Unavoidable Environmental Change 17 5.3. Impacts Found Not Be Significant 17 5.4. Cumulative Impacts 18 5.5. Growth Inducing Impacts 18 APPENDIX A List of Persons and Organizations Consulted A-1 APPENDIX B Notice of Preparation B-1 APPENDIX C Initial Study C-1 APPENDIX D Distribution List D-1 I SONOMA San Rafael l`, NAP: SOLANO Antiocl Richmon M A R I N° Walnut Creek San Francisco 0 0 0 V) CONTRA COSTA Oakland �"---- DUBLIN — ect Location ' ALAMEDA 1^ Palo Alto SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA San Jose REGIONAL LOCATION 1.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies the impacts of buildout of the City of Dublin's planning area as envisioned by the city's draft General Plan. Mitigation measures are discussed in the Analysis of Impacts section of the EIR, and are incor- porated into the project as policies of the General Plan (Volume 1, Plan Policies Report). For purposes of this impact analysis, it is assumed that all mitigation mea- sures (policies and programs included in the Plan) will be implemented. The Summary outlines the significant adverse impacts and options for mitigation. It does not include full discussion of impacts nor discussion of all areas of impact. Reading of the Summary does not substitute for reading of the full environmental document and General Plan volumes. Except for traffic, development within the primary planning area is not judged to result in environmental changes at the scale the EIR authors believe is significant for the purpose of analysis under CEQA. 1.1 INCREASED TRAFFIC Build -out under the Plan policies will result in unacceptable levels of service at two Dublin intersections, and increased traffic volumes throughout the city. No mitigation is available at the affected intersections, as unacceptable levels of service are antici- pated even after feasible improvements are complete. Planned development in Tri-Valley communities other than Dublin will result in mini- mally acceptable (LOS D) or unacceptable service levels (LOS F) on both I-580 and I-680 regardless of Dublin's development policies, although the projected 21,000 jobs resulting from development in the extended planning area would make a significant contribution to the congestion. Mitigation measures are transit systems that would attract more than 10-15 percent of all trips includingBART, local transit, and a transportation corridor along the Southern Pacific railroad San Ramon Branch Line. Neither impact nor mitigation is within the independent discretion of the City of Dublin, and the success of mitigation efforts is predictable only within a broad range. 1.2 DFSIGNATION OF AIR QUALITY Anticipated traffic volumes over 20,000 vehicles per day would result in carbon mono- xide "hot spots" and violation of applicable standards at times during the year when calm weather and peak traffic congestion occur at several locations in Dublin. An air quality monitoring station in Dublin would provide necessary data to implement specific mitigation techniques as warranted. As individual projects are proposed for both the primary and extended planning areas the environmental review process will ensure consideration of air quality impacts and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. -1- 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 EIR APPROACH This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the probable environmental effects of the City of Dublin's General Plan as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State EIR Guidelines. The General Plan consists of two documents, Volume 1, the Plan Policies Report, and Volume 2, the Technical Supplement/EIR. Both volumes constitute portions of the EIR and are incorporated by reference into this document. This approach reduces needless repetition. Impacts associated with a General Plan cannot be predicted with the samed degree of accuracy as impacts associated with a specific development project, so analyses of impacts are necessarily general. This document assumes that all General Plan policies will be implemented and that all projected development will occur by 2005. Two alternatives to the proposed project are considered in Section 4.0 (No Project and High Density). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Dublin General Plan includes the four square miles of the incorporated city and a small adjoining area to the west (primary planning area), and a 33 square mile area extending to the east, west and southwest (extended planning area). General Plan policies, constituting the full project description, are included in the "Plan Policies Report," with supporting information and discussion included in the "Technical Supplement." For purposes of analysis, the "project" is the level of development envisioned by the General Plan at city build -out as compared to current conditions. The plan distinguishes between the primary and extended planning areas. At this time the land use plan for the extended planning area is schematic in nature. Due to the limited amount of remaining undeveloped land in the city, the General Plan for the primary planning area is in many cases site -specific. This EIR is not a substitute for project EIRs, but it provides information that can reduce the number of projects requiring EIRs and can allow project EIRs to be more narrowly focused. The primary objective of the General Plan is to provide a policy guide for decisions on future physical development. Additional functions of the plan are discussed in Section 1.3 of the Plan Policies Report. The "guiding policies" presented in each section of the Plan Policies Report present the objectives for the individual elements of the plan. The plan is also written to satisfy state planning law requirements. The EIR will be used as a tool in the General Plan review and approval process. The principal components of the project as defined by CEQA include, for the primary planning area, development of vacant land at medium and medium -high residential densities; intensification of land uses in downtown Dublin; conversion of school sites to residential use; creation of a transportation corridor on the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and other improvements to the circulation system. Principal components of the plan in the extended planning area are residential deve- lopment at single family densities and commercial/industrial development on land -3- discussed as an environmental impact. Rather, the effects of lack of jobs/housing balance are considered directly. For example, jobs/housing imbalance is expected to increase total traffic, so the EIR will consider traffic, air quality and noise and, as appropriate, note the relationship of these factors to the imbalance of Valley -wide jobs and housing. -5- 3.2 HYDROLOGY Like air quality, water quality is protected by federal, state and regional agencies. Section 7.2 of the Technical Supplement discusses the hydrology of the planning area. Given the limited amount of vacant land in the city, development in the primary planning area consistent with the proposed Plan would not significantly affect surface or groundwater quality if mitigation measures regarding erosion and siltation control are implemented. The location where stream bank erosion is most likely to become a problem is along the banks of Alamo creek, east of the Dougherty hills. In the extended planning area, water quality will be affected by the dramatic changes in land use envisioned by the Plan. The increase in impervious surfaces will cause increased runoff, and commercial and industrial activities may lead to infiltration of the groundwater supply by industrial pollutants. Residential land use results in the release of many harmful substances in everyday use, such as fertilizers and pesticides, solvents and oils. Any urbanization establishes the presence of these pollutants where previously rainwater percolated directly into the groundwater supply or flowed into streams. As groundwater is not currently part of the potable water supply, potential pollutants would not have an immediate impact on the population. However, contaminants in groundwater disperse slowly, and the potential future demand for groundwater is just one reason for continued protection of the water supply. Mitigation Several mitigation measures are included in the Plan Policies report, Section 7.2. These include enactment and enforcement of ordinances requiring control of erosion and sedimentation, as well as on -site runoff control. 3.3 OPEN SPACE The proposed General Plan would have significant effects on agricultural open space which occupies more than 90 percent of the private land in the extended planning area. Full development of the business park and single family residential areas indi- cated on the plan would occupy 2,600 acres or 12 percent of the extended planning area. Before the designated sites are fully developed, applications for amendments to the General Plan to expand the urban area would be likely. Urban development as proposed by the plan would have unavoidable adverse impacts on adjoining agricultural operations including: - Creation of incentives to plan for conversion to urban use. - Potential complaints about odor, conflicts in road use, and vandalism. - Disruption of lifestyle of owners who live on agricultural properties. Business park development on the north frontage of I-580 east of Tassajara Road would significantly affect the area's visual character by converting agricultural land to urban use. Approved business park development west of Collier Canyon Road in -7- 3.5 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Geology and seismic safety are discussed in Section 7.0 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 4.2 of the Technical Supplement. New development can create seismic and geologic hazards in one of two ways: either by increasing the potential for occurence of seismic or geologic events as a result of inadequate design, or by locating a project so as to expose people to hazards. The first type of hazard is frequently created by inappropriate site planning or construc- tion techniques, as illustrated in figure 4-6, Technical Supplement. The second type is created by designating areas with recognized geologic hazards for human occupancy. Few locations in the Bay Area are without natural hazard. While the natural constraints and hazards posed by some sites in the planning area must be recognized and taken into account in planning efforts, it is important to note that the result of development in the extended area is more likely to be movement of people from one hazardous area to another than into an area of hazards from an area with none. While specific sites designated for development on the General Plan may be discovered, through detailed geotechnical investigation, to be unsuitable for develop- ment, the project does not have a significant impact relating to exposure to seismic and geologic hazards. Mitigation The mitigation measures which form the implementation policies section of the Seis- mic Safety and Safety elements establish regulations for siting of structures and required geotechnical studies, and are intended to prevent creation of hazards through human action as well as to reduce exposure to natural hazards. 3.6 TRAFFIC If development in Tri-Valley communities other than Dublin occurs as planned, it will result in minimally acceptable or unacceptable service levels on both I-580 and I-680 regardless of Dublin's development policies, although the projected 21,000 jobs resulting from development in the extended planning area would make a significant contribution to the total. Section 5.0 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 2.4 of the Technical Supplement discuss traffic. Except for eastward extension of Dublin Boulevard, the proposed plan does not add new routes. San Ramon Road will continue to carry through traffic and Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard will serve primarily trips to and from Contra Costa County. Freeway congestion or congestion at intersections that provide access to any inter- change will cause drivers to seek alternative routes. As employment in Pleasanton and San Ramon increases, drivers wishing to avoid a congested freeway or interchange may use Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, or Alcosta Boulevard, and would increase their use of San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. Construction of the downtown I-680 interchange, as proposed by the General Plan, would attract trips with a Dublin trip end away from congested intersections on Dublin Boulevard, but also -9- are necessary to ensure a workable transportation system in the Tri-Valley, the Dublin extended planning area should be entitled to a proportional share of available capa- city. The effective mitigation measures would be major expansion and reconstruction of transportation facilities, including freeways, or substantial reduction in planned busi- ness park and residential development in the Tri-Valley. The first mitigation is infea- sible and the second is beyond the control of the City of Dublin. It should be noted that F service levels are common during peak periods at points in many Bay Area commute corridors. 3.7 NOISE Noise is discussed in Section 8.3 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 4.3 of the Technical Supplement. Noise impacts are defined by the 1983 and 2005 Noise Expo- sure Contours Maps in the Noise Element. The addition of 2,700 persons residing in areas subject to at least marginally unacceptable noise environment by 2005 is not significantly affected by the plans proposals, but is the result of development deci- sions outside the planning area that increase freeway volumes. Mitigation The General Plan proposes mitigation by constructing noise barriers where they would be effective. 3.8 SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LANDS AND UTILITIES Section 4.0 of the Plan Policies Report and Section 2.3 of the Technical Supplement discuss schools, public lands and utilities. Proposals for schools and utilities serving the extended planning area are not offered in the General Plan, and will not be consi- dered in this EIR. Schools As can be seen from Table 2-4 in the Technical Supplement, Murray School District built capacity will continue to exceed enrollment under the draft Plan or any of the alternatives considered by this EIR. However, K-6 enrollment may exceed planned capacity slightly in the eastern part of the city and more substantially in the western part of the city. The School District has flexibility in accommodating anticipated enrollment. West of I-680 the Dublin school, now leased to a private school, may be needed. As long as the District maintains the facility it will have the option of re -opening it to serve antici- pated new development. In the eastern part of the city, where planned capacity is for approximately 200 students than anticipated at city buildout, portable classrooms or shifted attendance areas could provide capacity as needed on existing sites. -11- 4.0 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The planning process leading to the draft General Plan for Dublin used an analysis of options approach to explore issues and alternatives for the city's future development. Working Paper #3, Analysis of Alternative Sketch Plans, discusses three alternatives in detail. The draft plan combines features of two of the three sketch plans considered earlier in the planning process. For CEQA purposes a "high density" alter- native and a "no project" (current zoning) alternative are compared with the draft plan. Several components of the alternative plans remained as constants throughout the planning process. These included acquisition of a five acre neighborhood park on the east side of the Dougherty Hills, as well as several implementing policies regarding conservation: prohibition of development in slide -prone areas, preservation of oak woodlands and riparian vegetation, and designation of steep slopes (generally over 30 percent) as permanent open space. All of the alternatives plans assume improved I-680 freeway access to Dublin achieved through the construction of a new interchange between Dublin and Amador Valley boulevards. Additionally, all designate a road connecting Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street, improving access to the area between Dublin Boulevard and I-580, and distribution traffic from the proposed BART station to three Dublin Boulevard intersections. In the extended planning area all of the alternatives envision commercial/industrial development on the relatively flat land in the eastern part of the planning area, but extent and intensity vary. Measurements of developable acreage in the hill areas are very rough because the true cutoff point for development on steep lands can be determined only during site planning and because access to some otherwise develo- pable land may be difficult. Some of the Plan policies could be implemented under any of the alternatives or the draft plan, as they call for programs or regulations rather than decisions on the use of specific parcels. These include housing program strategies, safety and seismic safety policies, and other programs and regulatory policies presented throughout the Plan. Description of Alternatives The alternatives to the draft Plan have identical circulation systems, but differ in their land use proposals with the main difference being residential density. No Project. The "no project" alternative is assumed to be build -out of the Primary Planning area under Alameda County zoning adopted by the City following incorpor- ation. In analyzing this alternative, zoning consistent with densities approved on adjacent parcels was assumed for sites in the primary planning area but outside of the incorporated area. The No Project alternative minimizes park acquisition by developing a portion of the Shannon Commmunity Center as a neighborhood park and by assuming that five acres of the Murray School site could function as a park by formal or informal agreement -13- growth in Tri-Valley employment, development of infill sites at low densities would increase freeway congestion and increased urbanization outside of the planning area with resulting effects on the natural environment and the agricultural land supply. Alternatives to the proposed General Plan would not signficantly affect traffic service levels. As compared with the proposed plan, the "no project" alternative would gen- erate 16 percent fewer residential trips and the high density alternative would gene- rate 9 percent more trips. Residential collector streets and Dublin arterial streets could accommodate the traffic from each alternative, but the trips added to the "no project" base would affect levels of service at the congested intersections unless it is assumed that if these trips were not made they would be replaced by through trips made by drivers avoiding freeway congestion. The 2,000 additional units in the high density alternative would generate about 1,260 more evening peak hour trips than the no project alternative —roughly two lanes worth of traffic capacity. The proposed plan would cause 470 more evening peak hour residential trips than the no project plan. In the extended planning area the choices between alternatives are more clear-cut, with only the No Project alternative retaining agricultural use throughout. The table at the end of this section, Comparison of Alternatives and Proposed Project Primary Planning Area, presents, for each of the alternatives, housing units at build - out; population at buildout; total multi -family units; and percent multi -family. It can be seen that in each of these categories the proposed project falls in between the no project and high density alternatives. No Project Alternative. With a total of 6,700 units at buildout, the No Project alter- native would introduce few major changes to the city. The cumulative proportion of multi -family units would rise from 9 percent in 1983 to 23 percent, with single family homes remaining dominant and relatively little housing choice available, contrary to the city's stated housing goals. With housing developed at low densities, opportunities for creation of affordable units are minimized, as many of the approaches described in the Housing Element are contingent on medium or medium -high densities for success. In the extended area, the No Project alternative would retain the existing agricultural designation and uses. Established grazing operations would continue. Impacts asso- ciated with loss of open space, disruption of habitats, public facilities development and geologic hazards would not be present. Under the No Project alternative, Dublin jobs/housing balance could be maintained, because new job creation would be minimal. There would be a favorable effect on the valley -wide jobs/housing balance only if it is assumed that jobs not created in the Dublin planning area would not exist elsewhere in the Tri-Valley. High Density Alternative. The High Density alternative would result in construction of 3,700 units in addition to those already built or approved, all of which would be multi -family units. With nine percent more units than anticipated at buildout under the draft plan, this option would result in new multi -family projects at up to 25 units per acre adjoining single family development. The larger number of multi -family projects and of small units would present more opportunities for development of affordable housing than either the no project alternative or the draft plan. The High Density alternative would have a higher ratio of park acreage per 1,000 -15- 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW 5.1 SHORT TERM USES VS. LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT The cumulative long-term adverse effects of the proposed project are relative decline in air quality, disruption of the natural landscape, and loss of agricultural and grazing land. The City of Dublin (project sponsor) believes the project is justified now because the "no project" alternative would exacerbate a potential housing shortage in the Tri- Valley with resulting upward pressure on housing costs and additional vehicle miles of travel by Tri-Valley jobholders who would not be able to afford to live there or could not find suitable housing there. Dublin believes additional business park space is justified because the proposed location is suited for the use and, if annexed to Dublin, would be expected to contribute municipal revenue exceeding service costs over the long term. The revenue is expected to be needed to maintain Dublin services at levels comparable with those provided by other Tri-Valley communities, thereby maintaining Dublin's desirability as a residential com- munity. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Except for traffic, development within the primary planning area is not judged to result in environmental changes at the scale the EIR authors believe is significant for the purpose of analysis under CEQA. In the extended planning area, removal of grazing land from production and construction of homes in the hill areas would cause significant unmitigatible and irreversible changes. Assuming development in other Tri-Valley com- munities will proceed as planned, the balancing factor warranting acceptance of these effects in the Dublin planning area would be avoidance of them elsewhere. For example, conversion of grazing land in the Dublin Planning Area to urban use may preserve prime agricultural land in western San Joaquin County that otherwise would be developed as a residential support area for the Tri-Valley. However, the aesthetic value of the Tri- Valley open space loss would not be balanced. 5.3 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Through the General Plan and EIR preparation processes, the project has been found to not have significant impact in the following areas: Hydrology Habitats Seismic and Geologic Hazards Noise Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Soils Historic and Archaeologic Resources Scenic Highways Soils, Historic and Archeological Resources and Scenic Highways are discussed in both volumes of the General Plan. -17- APPENDIX A LIST OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Laurence Tong, City of Dublin, Planning Director Lee Thompson, Dublin City Engineer Vic Taugher, Dublin Building Inspector Chief Philips, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Fire Department Emile Kattan, Dublin San Ramon Services District Miles Ferris, Dublin San Ramon Services District Jerry Wallace, Alameda County Planning Department Betty Croly, Alameda County Planning Department Vince Wong, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 Jerry Killingstead, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, Water Resources Harris Teshema, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, Water Supply Bob Borek, Alameda County Assessor's Office Gabrielle Swanson, Alameda County Assessor's Office Harry Hecht, Alameda County Department of' Public Works Undersheriff Vole, Alameda County Sheriff's Office Chief Cain, Alameda County Sheriff's Office Patty MacNamee, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Bud Murphy, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Kevin Galley, Contra Costa County Planning Department Sally Freedman, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Irwin Mussen, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Richard Rago, Supervisor, Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utilities District Alex Maciejiewicz, U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco A-1 TO: APPENDIX B NOTICE OF PREPARATION (Responsible Agency) (Address) FROM: City of Dublin Planning Department 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report PROJECT TITLE: Dublin General Plan PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Dublin The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to me at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. CONTACT PERSON: TELEPHONE: SIGNATURE: • aurence L. Tong, Pl.nn ng Director TELEPHONE: (415) 829-4916 DATE: December 30, 1983 cc: State Clearinghouse B-1 APPENDIX C CITY OF t7UE3LlN1 PA No. N.A. ENVAIrRC1INME TAL ASSESSMENT FORM , fl't2LM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seg.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether o Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. ISECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - ` - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF I Nome of Project or Applicant: Dublin General Plan A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures The planning area of the Dublin General Plan includes 1) the urban area 2) the eastern area and 3) the western area. The urban area is part of the flat floor of the Amador Valley. The eastern area has grassy rolling hills & occassional steep slopes. The western area has ridgelands, steep slopes, & winding canyons with some Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; oak woodlands & historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or grasslands. development. (See above for description of surrounding urban area to the north and south, the eastern areas adjacent to the planning area, and the western areas adjacent to the planning area). B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- . quired on attached sheets. 'ENT IMPACTS 1.0 WATER 1.) Hydrologic Balance 1.2 Gound Water 1.3 Depth to Victor Table 1.4 Drainage and cannel Form 1.5 Sedimentation 1.6 Flooding Will construction of the project alter the hydro- logic balance? Will the project affect the quality or quantity or ground water supplies? Will the rote of water withdrawal change the depth or gradient or the water table? Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern or cause alteration of stream channel form? Wil) construction in on oreo result in major sediment Influx into adjacent water bodies? Will there be risk of loss of life or property due to flooding? NO QUAL SCALE OF IMPACT N D1b NO UNKNOWN COMPONENT IrLPACTS 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educotional Focilities 5.2 Commercial Facilities 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal 5.5 Water Supply 5.6 Storm Woter Drainage 5.7 Police 5.8 Fire 5.9 Recreation 5.10 Cultural Facilities 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6.1 Transportation Facilities 6.2'Circulation Conflicts 6.3 Rood Safety and Design 7.0 HEALTH 7.1 Odors 7.2 Crowding and Density 7-3 Nuisances 7.4 Structural Safety 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels 8.2 Vibrations SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOtdN NO t 1No I n •I _.ti 1 ji. oIwI6'i Will projected enrollments odversely affect the ex- isting or proposed Focilities in terms of spacing for all activities, including classrooms, recreational oreos, end slotting needs? Will the project impoct the pupil/teacher ratio so os to impede the learning process? Is the school locoted such thnt it presents o hardship for o portion of the enrollment in terms of trovel time, distonce, or safety hazards? Will there be on inodegvote supply of and access to If/ commercial facilities for the project? Are provisions for sewage copocity inadequate For the needs of the project without exceeding quality standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors ossocioted with wostewoter hcotment plants? Is there inodequoto provision for disposal of solid wastes generated by the project? Is there inodegsnte quantity or quality of water supply to meet the needs of the, project? Will storm voter droinage be inadequate to prevent downstream flooding and to meet Federal Stote and local stondords? Will the project's odditionol populotion, focilities, or other features generate on increose in police service: or create o police hozord? Will the project's additional population, facilities, or other features generote on increase in Fire services or create o fire hozord? Will the project hove inadequate focilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? Will culturol focilities be unovoiloble to the project residents? Are the traffic demands on adjacent roods currently of or above capacity? if not, will the traffic gen- eroted by the project cause the adjacent roods to reoch or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation focilities which serve the project inadequate to accommodate the project's hovel demands? Will design of the project or conditions in the surround- of ing ore° increase accidents due to circulation conflicts":“ Will project residents and users be exposed to increased voit occident risks dye to roadwoy and street design or lock of traffic. controls? Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense odors? Will the residents and users be exposed to crowdino or high density in their physicol living environment? Y/ill the project be exposed to or generate foctors that rnoy be considered as nuisances? Will design and proposed construction techniques foil to meet state and locos building codes? Will the project be exposed to nr gcnerote adverse noise levels? Will the project bo exposed to vihrotinns nnnoying to humons? tio 1 1 1 voi SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNG N Other Environmental Componentr. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 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 exo-nples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) NO 0I QUAL L±.' l D NO NO YES UNKNOWN (4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human • beings, either directly or indirectly? D1STI-MTIQ4 rLI37 84011 0 u2 0 Q f/1 0 0 3 - Sent by Loci Agency ,lrr'r G rag..:t'j • Re,-..o 1rz Board 11C2Q Street 3:..- r s.-rs to , C. 95914 915 /32--5161 • Kieltuv • of Boc.ting Yeter•tys 162=3 S S:r�ct Sa: 1tr, CA 95814 C• `._itor a Ca-.tta.l Co'--. 621 Hc.,T:..-d Street, 4th Floor 3r- ?:'tnri ---1, C 9<105 41 ` �I7r^ai.-1z' C.1"or:it 3er2y C�-R`ssioc 1516 Sint'= Street, Rm. 2C0 ac-ols.mesnto, CA 95814 916/3 r-3 Say-:'dc.^. 3'i- eris - Di' s'_i of Aeronautics S:c:L to, Cl 95814 916222 3;3as W= j Kelly C! I.trarm - ?Lr:4- CA 95814 916/C23-�2= �•_� a-t D, Wit. :t C.`.nserva.tico 141.5 Sint= Street Bran S L_ eta, C. 9314 916 / -58-73 �i 0 0 Div. of Wines and Geology Div. of Oi1 sad Gas Lancj ?.e w ..' r ot.ec :. Unit Roar. ;da..-rat: DAat. of Fist Lod Came 1415 Sim= Street 5.:crperto, C; 95814 916 / 4415-12.M • r L-i tie Dept. of Food 2.^...d Agricalrart 20 3 St:eet_ s..--a..: _ CA 95514 try I 1416 of Street, .-`' 3 17 �J Cac.-c.Teozo, C1 95814 316/32 -.2 a. =_a ; tree ' s Wit. ;. Denera1 Services ices Tenth Street `--� Ci_:'3mer't.7", .A 95814 16/224209 Harz' y Collins pt. of Health 714 ? Street, ?ra 400 3acr1to, CA 55.314 0 C O O 0 Y - Sent by C1eir+se 8111 Mur ty Dept. o1 Housing 4 Dev' t. 921 - 10th Street, 5th Floor Sacz-a r+ento , CA 95814 916/32- 51;'0 Loretta Allen Xxtive ;m.:ricsn Heritage Cm*:.. 915 Capitol Y 11, Form 233 3xor1r rto, CA 95814 918/22-i ,21 Sick del Cioppo C'f:f1ce a1Historic P:-r..ser stion 1050 20th Street Sscran ento , CA 95314 916 / :45--3006 Jamee R. Doyle Dept. ot Parts and Rec-t~t on P.O. So= 2290 nr:smen:o,. Ca 95811 916/324 8421 Georg, Hersh, r-v. Section P.iblic Utilities Cnrelrisnicat 350 Vc llister Street Sa.n Frt r ci co , Ca 94102 416/557-3228 Tom Sterma P.iblic Torts Bocrd 6113 am-5 Avenue 4arrsdm'nt.o, CA 916 /9Z?- Mel Sc`^raYz Ret'_=tt.1c.. �m-•d 1418 :troth Street Ss -'aaeato , CA 95814 916/4 5-2458 R be_r t 3z tht S.?. "P!y Conserv.st;m 30 71 : S""-'g Avenue, ? :Oil Ss.: ?:-tn_iAro, CA 941C2 415/557-3688 Peggy Jenk. " Solid Tsste `h+rrgement 1020 Ni=td Street Rom 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/32C 3543 Pei ?u ,gr'- State '.2'V '3 :807 - 3 to Street 5a4r ecto, CA 95814 915/C22- 813 Ken ?e11.rs Dept. of Water Resources 1415 Siz t5 Street Sacr3tnto, CA 95814 915/445-7415 4? T1-1 �-� PROJECT STAFF BLAYNEY-DYETT, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS John Blayney, Project Manager Ellen Greenberg, Planning Analyst Nicklaus Von Rotz, Environmental Designer; Graphics Designer Nicholas Gravina, Graphics Scott Kingsley, Graphics Pamela Minet, Word Processing Daryl Hewitt, Word Processing TJKM, Transportation Consultants Chris D. Kinzel John Sun Hallenbeck & Associates, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers David Hoexter Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustical Consultants Richard Iliingworth Richard McGillis Residential . • • • Low Density Single Family . '_•. • •.I Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre) Single Family Residential (0.9 - 6.0 units per acre) Medium Density Residential 1 (6.1 4 0 units per ac re) p ) Medium -High ensity Residential (14.1 - 25.0 units per acre) Commercial/Industrial Retail/Office Retail/Office & Automotive F': • r; �: •: •: � is � a{.! :'};•: ,,:...:.:.::...::.::..:....: Business Park/Industrial Business Park/Industrial: P • Outdoor Storage Business s ne ss Park / I ndu srit ' I• a. �a Low Coverage Public- / Se m• � P u li b c/ O pen _770_0 Public / Semi- Pu lic Facility ili c t Y { 5 Park / s R r ec eati n 0 Open Space a Stream Corridor Public Lands •••6 • �•c•.� rl ac. LU• '.'''. 'Jr UJ Ve •J �" ,•� �._ G J y + \ 's �,:,. U'�°r '•� fir: o \' 1 G 1 � N j F~ ,.i , "•. _'Jri Oar. ,J .; �`•,' trCY' °� ++S'',•,q. .SOS .0 J� "a.• �►\ t \ t^ e o C` J J G' ♦ Y .J{• �l' •U uJ r• �l J+ 't\ 1' - lt� r • t' •S • ••7 'i• •k _ . •� �rT' J'a' 4 •s' . 1. t •f • 1' _ •r l' .Y ••r. w- • T' •o L 4 .1. '.•,. f •1 0 1 •�. 00 °oe ooe ' , i• 0 o oe °0 o 0 r e00 opo ' r o o• . o °o - •ti • r o 0 � 't• o � ° :�• t• L t Y • rr. •R' J 1 �• r' X: t .y• 7. art rr `- '>la•nitr r'' • :�: 16 ey .1 'r• :S a' .1• 'i• r .1 'a •f. .4 J ..1 c ti i r,N•S' ram' • o x r• .�t !� ti •f . • Y / t' .0 •.J^ Y• t• •4' .4 . Y' r' `r .r a r •r •,t' J .:J• vY :• ry, 1'L • JJ' r .F •I• °p o •r. i J• r� . i. •f • •1, ti. •t' 7' •1. r� .r. ° .i� .i. ♦r l• C :J - G f. j- . i• _•; :tI v` L l� Jc • M• f .r r` t u .mow / 'r F. l' I• C n - - aI V C� t- °Y _ ♦J • • 4 r r.] cr • G t 'sr . - ,�' t` , f.r C. mot. , • • • • _ - ' iy� �, • � • y P \ 44, Nkffi Wo .fit �J • �, ' //� v y� Vrrr" � I / _ r R IMP N "ING I MAP i ARM •,� , Apr ------------ ------------------------- no� Collector Street III loll 1#11 Bart (proposed) toommoseemons Proposed Street 000000000000 Downtown Intensification Area Freeway 00000090*00 Transportation .. Planning Area Boundary "fly IW4, 811 �.• ,.fit ,,.., ;. , ;.�.,.,.• NOTE: See Table on opposite page for descriptions of numbered Public/Semi-Public Facilities and Parks/Recreation. Figure 1-1 OW LAND USE & CIRCULATION Primary Planning Area t r O G�VMtr ►MiiaA G M • • ................ .. • ... E .. • .. • • t • • • ... : • • • • • • • • • • }1 • l�_1J_ a r '� saata Meta • • • • • a • • • • >__y • • • • • • •• •• •• • • • • 0 pook&•i*tatton • • • T� • • 4roos000000 • • • • • • Captor cafw ►a . IC•wt .. • • ` •1 •r A - a • •i•a•rvat' t • • L • • • • • • • • • • •I 000000000000000 ••••••••• • • t 0000006009000600000 �r t� • • • • • ...... 310, •. • • • • M s ••• • •. • 00000000 • • • • • • • • . . • . . n x L : rr: > • • • , • • • SEE BELOW 311, to J ZL C APPR OXIMATE 117E INSET E SCALE- w - _ NS SC 69 82 1490' DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN Revised February 1992