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