HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1990 PC Agenda 0m..�
AGENDA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Dublin Civic Center Monday - 7:30 p.m.
100 Civic Plaza, Council Chambers May 21, 1990
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - May 7, 1990
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted
to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the
Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If
any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her
concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have
his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 90-028 Marg-Ett Arts & Crafts Conditional Use
Permit request to operate two arts and crafts
shows at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center on July
19-22 and December 6-9, 1990
8.2 PA 89-124 Villages Conditional Use Permit and
Variance request for tract signage for four
directional tract signs and three subdivision
sale/rent/lease signs located at Dougherty Road,
Amador Valley Boulevard, Willow and Willow Creek
Road
8.3 General Plan Amendment to revise the Housing
Element of the General Plan as required by
Section 65588 of the Government Code
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
12. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedures Summary)
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21, 1990
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff fkk.01 N
PREPARED BY: Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner � 1
SUBJECT: PA 90-028 Marg-Ett Art & Craft Fairs - Marietta
Lewis (Applicant) and Dublin Plaza Shopping
Center Merchants Associates (Sponsor)
Conditional Use Permit
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit for two Art & Craft Fairs
at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center (July 19-22,
1990 and December 6-9, 1990).
APPLICANT AND
REPRESENTATIVE: Marg-Ett Art & Craft Show
Attn.: Marietta Lewis
1377 Wylie Way
San Jose, California
Steve Heath
Dublin Plaza Shopping Center
Merchants Association
P. 0. Box 2661
Dublin, California 94568
PROPERTY OWNER: Regional Street Joint Venture
P. 0. Box 10055
Palo Alto, CA 94303
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION: Development Zone 6 Central Block West Retail
PROPERTY LOCATION
AND ZONING: Dublin Plaza Shopping Center
C-1; Retail Business District
(APN 941-305-16 & 17-2)
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. • , File PA 90-028
PAGEL-OF.1 -
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: The properties to the north, south, east and
west are zoned C-1, Retail Business District
with Commercial Retail uses
ZONING HISTORY:
Since November 13, 1984, fourteen separate Arts & Crafts Fairs have been
conducted during the summer and winter months with Conditional Use Permit
approvals.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-61.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by City Ordinance
18-84, requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained from the Planning
Commission for the operation of two separate arts and crafts fairs, for up to
four days each, per a twelve month period per lot when sponsored by a Dublin
based non-profit, non-restrictive civic or service organization, for the sale
of handmade or handcrafted items for sale by the original artist.
Section 8-94.0 of the Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses must
be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public
need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the
use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the
specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption, Section 15304, Class 4(e), of
the CEQA Guidelines, temporary use of land having
negligible or no permanent effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 21, 1990, hearing was published in
the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property owners, and
posted in public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate
two Art and Craft Fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center, to be held
July 19-22, 1990 and December 6-9, 1990.
The Applicant's request complies with the City's adopted Ordinance relating to
Arts and Craft Fairs in that the request is for two four-day fairs within a
12-month period as stipulated in the Ordinance.
The request, to set up the two fairs along the pedestrian walkway area
stretching from the Albertson Market to the Mervyns Department Store, is being
coordinated with and sponsored by the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center Merchants
Association. The fairs are not anticipated to create any special problems for
the existing commercial tenants at the shopping center. There have been no
zoning violations associated with previous fairs operated by the Applicant.
-2-
P„G OFIL.
The fairs will consist of 20 to 25 booths with the individual artists or craft
persons exhibiting their wares. The proposed hours of operation for the fair
are between 9:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m.
Additionally, the last three previous years the Applicant requested the
Commission to allow exhibitors to sleep over night in their recreational
vehicles on site. The Commission permitted overnight use of the RV's subject
to approval by the Planning Director. There is no record of any problems
occurring from the sleep overs; therefore, Staff has included this same
provision in the draft Resolution of Approval.
The Applicant's proposal has been reviewed by the applicable public agencies
and conditions of approval have been included in the draft Resolution of
Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take Testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue
the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution (Exhibit B) approving Conditional Use Permit PA 90-028
Marg-ett Art & Craft Fairs.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Site Plan and Written Statement
Exhibit B - Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit PA 90-028
Background Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Dublin Plaza Shopping Center - Merchants Association, Letter and Agreement
dated February 6, 1990
3. City Ordinance 18-84 relating to Arts & Crafts Fairs
-3-
PAGE 3 OF 11
P 7 R dote vciiEy , .5 L vd.
/ 377d
pI 6p[ F�eire,/
/., a r.
e Z.It
�,` 13 Lr,Nc '/., 'Eir
�
u� 4 a cL.Ry CIE,a4d7
tk
b ., I
Z r,, i spec ER 4..dim,
rti
E ~i . - r .y LpuA► y ITAT.
b i+ t 2 b - c,, p•sKi✓1P•ii4,3
r 1:3`c4. - . -p
U y,si•iiCcKfiijt
►... (., Z ^ E. . p4.7;tp•p y c.A
a '1 a N r L piv1Es sA
j fi h y Iy a yx7Rdp•9.s
•1 w c'
° Fo"4;l.y f/T,vfss
t
u
Zt //!li 7,77f1
ki a
4
b i /4•1f it/iFii DEpT•
Nal y
Na P4iK1W" A APE APA ,oag
pK bL/N A RECEIVE[ •
APR 23 1990"
PAGE..OF..I1._
nt HRIIN PLANNING
F4ARG -ETT
ART AND CRAFT SHOWS
1377 WYLIE WAY
SAN JOSE. CA. 95130
r //
^ �� y � l
6._ , ,_„ t✓1 , r-' T/tom, . ,�.G1^,,- ' �,_.
a,j,,e e.2_,,,L 6_,./lz ..si,,,) .„,;,,_ ,, ,/._,- . _/_,,--frAZ, C-1,_ ,4.,
.r.: .'/G ✓ / _,L G L 1rc� z2G yt� ic� .�t '?c_C J f-
,,,:oh71/
-7")-2- --t-ca,a0-7.-&/ ‘I 'L-- - ---/-e---' a-;-- /:,--L. zi--- Z,/__.(..;,:_&-__,,
_,: ter. -. ,_-..,z_ . u-4.L.) L(--;-/1 . Ll---./Z U L�
J-Z ..v.L 4‘ _./:_-<. fi,-„ C._ c_....,L ej Z. _,,, -f eL.‹,)
v - _e_. fye.L-.. d-z._L.,, .7.-n.:- e_ .. ,1.� ._Gw
- --) k--T.,1--e---- //7 >r-../-e- .1/1.1-.-Z•Ze;P-<:- __Zz Cz.., i
r-1----7 /
.6 - . . --/G _ --e-i-.-e-- .., 1. ,.,,,_ -,, .
L'y/1-- }.-,._- ./�-&i.26syr��, z-, Lv-/��� Lam ,, ty /��yw 1t .
.'�'/` c- 7-7, dl/ ,/7-,-- et--/_?�4.d, te-"- Lt% G t'JLt �,�.4- //--^__'-c..c..e7.-e- a�Za_!(___,
...6i.-liSiL.. Lt;- _IL . 11k.-1.— G+..Z1-I_.'`i,1_ ,24' A ,2,5 .--1,--=-`L-- --L->
C z-C__ ._je. w .. eL-yam i` - %'GG P./`'l . . 'G'c PA-1
"----c-2-- /E-�/2� e a 7 rCi---ems _,-,___/
zieA-e_,...L.e .!;,/ _ .pAcio ,02,s,""
RECEIVE?
EXHIBIT Ape, 23 990
oPt544641
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 90-028 MARG-ETT ART AND CRAFT FAIRS - MARIETTA LEWIS (APPLICANT)
DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION (SPONSOR)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO ART AND CRAFT FAIRS AT THE
DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
WHEREAS, Marietta Lewis and Dublin Plaza Shopping Center Merchants
Association request approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow two Art and
Craft Fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center (July 19-22, 1990 and
December 6-9, 1990); and
WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
provides for the operation of arts and crafts fairs for up to two separate
events of a maximum of four days each, per a twelve month period, through the
Conditional Use Permit process; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on May 21, 1990; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to
be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Conditional Use Permit application be conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above setforth; and
WHEREAS, the proposed land use, if conditionally approved, is
appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing
land uses in the area and will not overburden public services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission finds:
a) Use of the pedistrian store front areas of this portion of the
Dublin Plaza Shopping Center for two short-term arts and crafts fairs serves
the public need by providing an opportunity for the community to see and
purchase specialty handmade and handcrafted items not typically available
elsewhere in the community.
EXHIBIT 8
PAGE . OF 1L
b) The use, as conditioned by this Resolution, will be properly
related to other land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the
vicinity, and will not conflict with existing commercial uses in the Dublin
Plaza Shopping Center.
c) The use will not materially adversely affect the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met.
d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or
performance standards established for the District in which it is to be
located, as the proposed use will be compatible with adjoining retail uses and
will serve to promote additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the
Dublin Plaza Shopping Center.
e) The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
f) The proposed dates for the Art and Craft Fairs are consistent with
the City Ordinance No. 18-84 in that the proposal will not exceed two 4-day
fairs within a 12-month period.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve said application as shown by materials labeled Exhibit A
and stamped approved on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Layout and operation of the two arts and crafts fairs shall be as
generally depicted on the partial center site plan submitted with the
application and as described by the Applicant's written statement
(Exhibit A).
2. The arts and crafts fairs shall be held on July 19-22, 1990, and
December 6-9, 1990, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
3. The items sold at the show shall be restricted to handmade or
handcrafted items by the original artist. The density of the display
setups shall be graphically portrayed on an exhibit prepared by the
Applicant and submitted for review and approval by the Dublin Planning
Department and the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority a minimum of four
working days prior to the event. Displays shall be set up in such a
manner that pedestrian traffic is not shifted into the adjoining
driveway/fire-lane aisle.
4. The display areas shall not obstruct pedestrian movement on the side-
walk, block fire protection appliances or fire lanes and shall be kept
clear of all store entrances.
5. Signage shall be restricted to a maximium of two 24 square foot signs.
All said signs, including A-frame signs, shall be located on site.
Signage shall not be located within the public right-of-way. Temporary
no-parking/no-stopping signs shall be posted along the curb line.
-2-
PAGE?OF IL
6. Any trash or litter resulting from the event shall be removed
immediately after the show.
7. No arts or crafts items shall be left on the premises overnight.
8. A Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Dublin as additional
insured in the amount of one million dollars shall be posted with the
City prior to conducting the shows.
9. Assigned recreational vehicle parking for the Art & Craft Fair
exhibitors shall be provided on the premises with the number and
location subject to review and comment by the Dublin Plaza Shopping
Center Merchants Association and subject to review and approval by the
Dublin Planning Department. Said review shall occur a mininum of two
weeks prior to the Art & Craft Fair.
10. All activities shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the
existing retail businesses within the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center.
11. This Conditional Use Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of
the terms of condition of this permit shall be subject to citation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-3-
PAGE OF L
. /4,...,:,,,,-;-•:i,:./....,:.,:.....L.T.::„A ,--,• -. ,•••..,
' ...... .,__,.0112 / ..... ..
,..: .
__
:: i \ s MI 'Ell.' '_
•
! � ER �I.t, I i ) .' ... !'Em 0 1111�, '
1.....:
i i I, 4.._, \AL
•
f• FA ��'�\� �An APO ..F4� _
or ?L �' •O. c A�
f ~O �A 'y\ ,
1��5 = NN jp _ i7 4:•a
.4:1
; sit
es ,:,..4
r- ti
.19
\
> f
2 ..Xn
Fa• '1'.t to i A
f.. _ __ 2�05; ^ '^'^'^ A PART OF THE
.n: I.. CITY OF r7 SANTINA _„_, ZONING MAP
L`q: Y\ \: gyp. I e DUBLIN I THOMPSON.. THE CITY OF
;*' �1 f _ •w.^. ....v.+.�.....�. DUBLIN
.--._ SEE SHEET'IC ._
ATTACHMENT I
LGlastfltt4 Woe?
PAUL OF_
AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are /c,1„J- gaz u-/-e-- ,andMarg-ettShows.
Center is the owner or lessor of the premises known ds' Lj ✓ ,
(hereinafter referred to as the"Center"). Marg-ett Shows desires to use a portio l of the
premises for certain periods of time,for the purposes hereafter specified.
The parties agree as follows:
I. The type of activity is as follows:
2. The date of the activity is pi -
3. The Center agrees that Marg-ett Shows may use and occupy that portion of
the premises which is designated on Exhibit A for the purpose of selling arts and crafts
on the dates above specified during the hours of to L,.•coPri on said dates.
This location shall not be changed without the prior consent of Marg-ett Shows.
4. Marg-ett Shows will maintain location in a clean condition.
5. Marg-ett Shows shall obtain any and all permits that may be lawfully required
by the appropriate governmental authorities with respect to the activities.
6. Marg-ett Shows shall obtain, or has /obtained, the following insurance in
connection with the activity: 'f/G%co Ge0 r Gc/•'f c •
7. Any party to this agreement may cancel or terminate this agreement by giving
notice thereof to the remaining parties so long as said notice is given at least
(3v )days prior to the first day the activity is set to take place.
8. Marg-ett Shows shall pay the Center a lump sum in consideration of this
agreement,in the amount of ,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
INNWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement, this
day of F.4,P�.„.4.? , 19 FO
enter
Marietta Lewis
A-g0.0215
RECEIVE['
AP 3 1991;
ATTACHMENT 2 DUBLIN PLANNING
RAGES OF 11
•
ORDINANCE NO. 18-84
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OP DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE REGARDING ARTS AND CRAFTS FAIRS
•
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as
• follows:
Section 1. Section 8-50.60.1 of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of
the Dublin Ordinance Code regarding Administrative
Conditional Uses is hereby amended by adding to the listing
of Administrative Conditional Uses the following wording:
"Two separate one day arts and crafts fairs per twelve
• month period per lot, sponsored by a Dublin based bona fide
church, school, neighborhood group, or Dublin based non-
• profit, non-restrictive civic or service organization, for
the sale of handmade or handcrafted items for sale by the
original artist"
• Section 2. Section 8-61.0 of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the
Dublin Ordinance Code regarding Conditional Uses, All
Districts is hereby amended by adding to the listing of
•
Conditional Uses the following wording:
•
• "Two separate arts and crafts fairs, for up to four days
each, per twelve month period per Iot, sponsored by a Dublin
• based bona fide church, school, neighborhood group, or Dubin
based non-profit, non-restrictive civic or service
•
organization, for the sale of handmade or handcrafted items
• for sale by the original artist"
. • Section 3. Applications for permits to conduct any of the
Arts and Crafts Fairs defined in Section 2 hereof, shall not
• be considered a temporary Conditional Use as that term is
•
defined in Ordinance number 23.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days
after its final passage and adoption by the City Council.
Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage,
it shall be published once, with the names of the
Councilmembers voting for and against the same, in the Tri-
Valley Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
•
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of
Dublin, on this 13th day cf November, 1984, by the following
votes:
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffat,
Vonheeder, and Mayor Snyder
NCES: None
` - ABSENT: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT
� , 3
City Clerk
PAGE 4._OF_�.L
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21, 1990
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff 4
OlkC
�f
PREPARED BY: Ralph Kachadaurian, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: PA 89-124 Villages at Willow Creek Tract and
Subdivision Signs Conditional Use Permit/
Variance
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit/Variance request to
maintain four directional tract signs and two
subdivision sale/rent/lease signs located on
Tracts 5511, 6258, 6052 and 5872
APPLICANT/OWNER: Ron Nahas
Rafanelli & Nahas
20211 Patio Drive, Suite 215
Castro Valley, CA 94546
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to continue PA 89-124
Villages Signs Conditional Use Permit and Variance application to the June 18,
1990 Planning Commission Meeting (see Attachment 1). The request for
continuance is to provide time for the Applicant to review tract signage
options, to meet with Staff to review the Sign Ordinance, and to submit
revised site and sign plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Since this item was noticed as a public hearing item for the May 21,
1990 Planning Commission meeting, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission open the public hearing and accept any public testimony
before continuing the hearing to the June 18, 1990 Planning
Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Letter from Applicant to Staff dated and received by Planning
Department on May 17, 1990.
ITEM No. ISO*t COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner
File PA 89-124
MRY-17—'90 THU 08:54 ID:RRFRNELLI/NRHRS 8195 0961 P01
Rafanelli and Nahas CIA,/
Real Estate Development
May 17, 1990
Mr. Ralph Kachadourian
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: PA 88-003, Conditional Use Permit and Variance, Master
Tract Temporary sign Program, Villages at Willow Creek
Dear Ralph:
We are requesting a continuance on the review of the
conditional use permit and variance for the Willow Creek
signs. In light of the information just provided, more time
is necessary so we may meet with the planning department to
review the sign ordinances and to reconsider our sign
requirements and proposal.
Sincerely,
Dianna Starr
/ds
cc: Larry Tong
RECEIVED
MAY 17 1990
DU3LN PLANNING
ATTACHMENT I
20211 PATIO DRIVE.SUITE 215.CASTRO VALLEY,CA 04646 (415)537-0446
h
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21, 1990
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner '�
SUBJECT: General Plan Housing Element Revision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Housing Element revision as required by Section 65588
of the Government Code
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
LOCATION: City-wide and extended planning area
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
prepared for the draft revised Housing Element.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 21, 1990, hearing was
published in the local newspaper and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
Section 65588 of the Government Code requires that all cities and
counties within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area
Governments revise their housing elements by July 1, 1990. The housing
element is "an identification and analysis of existing and projected needs and
a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, scheduled programs for
the preservation, improvement and development of housing which shall make
adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic
segments of the community." The draft revised Housing Element must analyze
the current needs for housing for all income groups and special groups
identified. The demand and supply of housing in Dublin must be compared with
any shortages of housing for income groups. Where unmet needs have been
identified, the draft revised Housing Element must propose programs which will
meet those unmet needs during the five year life of the housing element
(1990-95).
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65351 and 65583(c)(6) duly noticed
community meetings were held on March 5 and 6, 1990, to explain the statutory
requirements for the Housing Element revision and to solicit citizen input on
ITEM NO. 13.3 COPIES TO: Planning Files
the housing problems and issues facing the City. Questionnaires were filled
out by all in attendance. The input received at the public meetings was
considered in the preparation of the draft revised Housing Element.
The draft revised Housing Element was prepared and sent to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for review. In adopting the
draft revised Housing Element, State law requires that the Planning Commission
consider the comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development
(Government Code Section 65585). Comments from the Department of Housing and
Community Development have been received (refer to the attached letter from
the Department of Housing and Community Development dated April 30, 1990,
Attachment 2) and have been incorporated into the Draft Revised Housing
Element.
The analysis of the demand for, and supply of, housing in Dublin has
revealed unmet housing needs for the following income groups (1990 - 1995):
Regional
Projected Housing Projected
Units Needs Unmet
to be built (ABAG) Needs
Very low -0- 678 -678
Low -0- 475 -475
Moderate 457 499 - 42
Above Moderate 1448 819 +629
1,905 2,471 -566
As shown above, very low and low income dwelling units are not projected
to be constructed. Moderate income dwelling units to be constructed will come
close to meeting the projected demand. These unmet needs will result in a
shortfall of 1,195 dwelling units in the very low, low and moderate income
groups. The total number of dwelling units for the income groups will be
approximately 556 below the identified need.
Therefore, the programs in the updated (1990) Housing Element emphasize
the achievement of housing affordable to very low and low income households.
In addition, there are new State requirements regarding: 1) subsidized units
at risk of conversion to non-low-income housing; and 2) emergency shelter.
New programs are proposed to address both of these requirements (refer to
Programs I.F., II.D. and II.E.).
The State Housing Element Guidelines are advisory in order to assist the
City in preparing the draft revised Housing Element (Government Code Section
65585). The City is not required to expend revenues for the construction of
housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition (Government Code Section
65589). However, the City has a responsibility to use its vested powers to
"make provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community" (Government Code Section 65580(d)). In addition, a recent
newspaper article has indicated that certain groups are considering filing
lawsuits against communities that have not produced any low-income housing
(refer to the attached newspaper article, Attachment 3).
-2-
The programs summarized below are proposed in order to address Dublin's
unmet housing needs (for more details refer to Housing Element Section 6.3,
Goals, Quantified Objectives, Policies and Programs). The proposed programs
have been successfully implemented in other Northern California communities.
I. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF NEW REGULATIONS
A. Adopt an Ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those
called for by State law (e.g., a 30% bonus for 20% of the units
set aside for lower income/senior citizen households). Currently,
State law requires cities to grant a 25% density bonus if 20% of
the units are set aside for lower income households, if 10% of the
units are set aside for very low income households or if 50% of
the units are set aside for senior citizens. In addition, the
density bonus incentive must be combined with at least one other
incentive (fee waiver, local subsidies, etc.). The purpose of the
program would be to enhance the feasibility of constructing
housing for very low and low income households by allowing a
density bonus above that which is normally permitted on the site
in exchange for the provision of some below market rate housing
units. In effect, a density bonus allows a City to create greater
land value in a project which can then be used to subsidize
affordable housing. Another benefit is that bonus units
incorporate lower income households into substantially market rate
housing projects.
Despite the presence of the State law, successful density bonus
programs have depended on local modification which provided more
incentives. In combination with other land use concessions, a
density bonus can provide a valuable tool for affordable housing.
The City would follow through with a monitoring program to assure
that all units are inhabited by eligible occupants. Northern
California cities which have implemented similar programs include
Santa Rosa, Napa and San Rafael.
Implementation of the program would require the adoption of a
density bonus ordinance. The draft housing element states that
the ordinance would be adopted in 1991.
B. Adopt an inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a minimum
percentage (e.g., 10%) of low and moderate income housing in new
developments with 20 or more units. The ordinance would provide
for alternatives (such as in-lieu fees) for developments that
cannot satisfy the inclusionary requirement due to an unusually
high cost of construction for a particular site. Any in-lieu fees
collected under the program would go into an exclusive fund to be
spent directly on creating new affordable housing opportunities in
Dublin. Such in-lieu fees are ususally required to be spent
within a limited time frame. Inclusionary zoning could be applied
to both rental and ownership units and single and multiple family
projects. Criteria would be established regarding the pricing of
the units and screening the applicants for the low cost units.
Cities which have implemented inclusionary requirements include
Livermore, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and Yountville.
-3-
Implementation of the program would require the adoption of an
inclusionary housing ordinance. The draft housing element states
that the ordinance would be adopted in 1991.
C. Review development standards to determine whether changes should
be made to reduce development cost. Site planning and building
innovations can cut the cost of housing construction. Changes in
site design which result in higher densities or reduce parking
requirements can significantly reduce construction costs. Caution
must be taken to avoid increasing liability.
City Staff would contact the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing
(JVAH) which provides technical assistance to Cities interested in
modifying development standards to encourage the construction of
affordable housing. The City Staff would then review the codes
for unnecessary or costly requiements which contribute to
construction costs, including permit fees and/or excessive parking
requirements. Numerous cities have successfully used this
program. Any necessary changes to City ordinances would be
adopted in 1992.
D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with
low intensity land uses to build housing. In order to increase
opportunities for development, some communities are using air
rights over parking lots, roadways, other public sites and even
private development. Sites with low intensity land uses may offer
the opportunity to build housing above existing uses. Air rights
projects have no land costs, and because land is the major cost of
development, air rights projects can be significantly less
expensive. However, additional design and construction costs may
reduce some of the cost savings.
City Staff would initiate a study to determine the feasibility of
using air rights downtown (as encouraged by the Downtown Specific
Plan) and/or above public parking lots. The study would be
completed in 1992. Cities which have implemented similar programs
include the Cities of San Mateo, Palo Alto, and San Francisco.
E. Encourage higher density residential development near the proposed
Dublin BART station. In addition to increasing housing
affordability, higher densities near BART could help reduce
traffic congestion.
City Staff would initiate a study to determine the feasibility of
increasing densities near the proposed BART station. The study
would be completed in 1992. Any rezonings would be accomplished
in 1993.
F. Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing emergency
shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use.
To ensure that the regulatory process does not discourage the
development of, or conversion to, or use of an emergency shelter
for homeless persons, the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to
allow emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
-4-
Implementation of this program would require an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance. The draft housing element states that the
ordinance would be adopted in 1992.
II. STRATEGIES REQUIRING OTHER CITY ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION
A. Provide priority processing for senior housing projects and
development providing 10% or more units affordable to very low,
low and moderate income households. Recognizing that
administrative delay adds to development cost, some cities (e.g.,
Sunnyvale, San Rafael and San Francisco) have provided for
priority processing for certain residential projects. Developers
estimate that every month required for processing adds at least 1%
to 2% to the overall project cost.
City Staff would review senior housing projects and developments
with low income units in advance of other planning applications.
In addition, applicants for these projects would be provided with
an opportunity to meet informally with City Staff to present
proposals and get early feedback before submitting formal
applications.
Implementation of the program would require the completion of a
study by the Planning Department. The study would be presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council in 1992.
B. Reduce application fees for senior housing projects and
developments providing 10% or more below market rate units. High
fees levied on new residential development can result in higher
cost homes. To entice the development of lower cost housing,
Fremont has initiated a fee waiver program.
Implementation of the program would require the completion of a
study by the Planning Department which would be presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council in 1992.
C. Encourage shared living arrangements. Shared living occurs when
people live together for social contact, mutual support and
assistance and/or to reduce housing expenses. City Staff would
work with the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) and/or
the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development
to establish a county-wide shared housing referral and placement
program, primarily for low income residents. Outreach could be
conducted through the senior center, libraries, City Hall and the
media. The program would be implemented in 1992.
D. Work with the owner of The Springs Apartments and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties to
negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if necessary, work
with a non-profit entity to consider the aquisition of the project
and maintain the rent subsidies. Government Code Section
65583(a)(8) enacted in 1989 requires that the Housing Element
include an analysis of existing housing developments that are
eligible to change to non low income housing uses during the next
ten years. The program would be implemented in 1990.
-5-
E. Fund existing emergency shelter progams in the Tri-Valley area to
house citizens in need of emergency shelter. Ninety-two people
who were either residents of Dublin or transients, spent a total
of 756 bed nights in Tri-Valley emergency shelters in 1989. The
services cost those shelters and the citizens of Alameda County
$24,100.00. The Housing Element contains programs to support the
shelters by;
1) Consider reviewing all Federal and State funding sources and
applying for necessary funding.
2) Providing financial assistance to the existing motel voucher
system, administered by the Good Samaritan Committee.
3) Providing funding and/or personnel support to encourage
churches in Dublin to provide winter relief to homeless
persons in the form of food and shelter.
III. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ON-GOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING PROGRAMS
A. Annex and rezone additional land for residential use. The intent
of this program is to support efforts to annex East and West
Dublin into the City and adopt General Plan Amendments, Rezoning,
Specific Plans and Site Development Reviews for future development
in these areas. The annexations may be completed around 1992 and
the Specific Plans and Site Development Reviews may be completed
around 1993.
B. Treat one bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75% of a
housing unit when computing allowable density, provided that the
maximum number of units permitted on a site shall not be increased
by more than 25%. The Planning Department Staff has informed
developers of large projects that this policy is available.
However, developers of projects such as the Villages and Amador
Lakes decided not to request increased densities because the land
use regulations allow the number of units proposed.
City Staff would continue to inform developers that this policy is
available. Combined with other proposed incentives (e.g., density
bonuses), the program may be more effective during the next five
year planning period.
C. Encourage residential development in the Downtown Intensification
area. This policy was included in the Dublin Downtown Specific
Plan which was adopted by the City in 1987. To date there have
been no proposals submitted for residential development in the
downtown area. The program is augmented in the draft revised
Housing Element by providing additional development incentives
(e.g., reduced site design standards, priority processing and fee
reductions). In addition, City Staff will contact residential
developers to encourage joint venture projects with commercial
developers. The program would be implemented in 1992.
-6-
D. Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable
housing to their sites. The City has not received any proposals
from private organizations for affordable housing projects. The
City should actively work with developers to make them aware of
affordable housing projects which have been implemented in other
Bay Area cities. This program is also augmented in the draft
revised Housing Element by providing additional development
incentives. In addition, City Staff will contact owners of semi-
public property to inform them of this policy. The program would
be implemented in 1992.
E. Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects
(i.e., projects with more than 10 units) to be rented for a
specified period of time. The majority of recent residential
projects have been rented during the initial occupancy phase.
F. Encourage development of second units in existing single family
homes. 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. However,
during the past five years, there have been only four requests for
second units (all four requests were approved).
The City should consider reviewing the requirements for approval
of second units; publicize and promote the program; and consider
implementing a program to give City recognition to good designs
for second units. The Planning Department would review the
requirements in 1991. The program would be implemented in 1992.
G. Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop below market
rate units. During the planning period (1985 - 1990), the City
did not receive any proposals for housing projects by non-profit
groups. The City should actively work with non-profit housing
providers such as Eden Housing and BRIDGE to make them aware of
development opportunities in Dublin.
City Staff will contact Eden Housing and other non-profit housing
providers to make them aware of development opportunities in
Dublin. In addition, the City should consider providing
development sites within East Dublin for this program.
H. Encourage development of additional units on Dublin Housing
Authority land in Dublin. The Arroyo Vista site includes two
vacant parcels of undeveloped land suitable for development. The
first parcel (approximately three acres) is being considered for a
low-income project with up to 20 units. Recently, the Dublin
Housing Authority retained a consultant to study the feasibility
of the two projects. City Staff will provide assistance as
requested by the Dublin Housing Authority.
I. Monitor availability of rental housing. If deemed necessary,
consider enactment of a condominium conversion ordinance. Only
one condominium conversion project has been approved by the City.
The developer did not follow through with implementation of the
project. Consequently, the City does not have a program for
ongoing monitoring of rental vacancy rates (i.e., there is no need
for continuous monitoring due to the low interest in condominium
conversion). However, after an application for a condominium
conversion is received by the City, the city-wide rental vacancy
rate is evaluated as part of the review process.
J. Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial
assistance for the purpose of including below market rate units in
proposed projects; and assist developers in obtaining information
on available programs. The Planning Department Staff has
monitored available public financial assistance programs for below
market rate units. To reduce the burden on developers created by
this requirement, the City will prepare a packet of information on
available programs, including a list of agency contact persons
responsible for program implementation. This information will be
given to developers as early as possible in the project approval
process. The information will be developed in 1992.
K. Promote equal housing opportunities for all Dublin residents and
others seeking housing in Dublin. The City participates in the
Alameda County Small City Block Grant Program which provides
assistance to the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO).
ECHO provides services to victims of housing discrimination.
In addition, Operation Sentinel, a fair housing program of the
Urban Coalition established in 1971, provides fair housing
services, landlord-tenant counseling, and rental remediation. It
also seeks to educate both the real estate industry and community
citizens as well as investigate and/or refer housing complaints.
L. Promote energy conservation. During the five-year planning
period, the percentage of multi-family units in the City has
increased from 9% to 29%. Multi-family units are energy efficient
due to minimal exterior walls. In addition, developers of large
residential projects have been required to demonstrate that solar
orientation has been considered.
M. Support Alameda County Minor Home Repair and Housing
Rehabilitation Programs. A portion of the City's CDBG funds are
currently being used to support two housing rehabilitation
programs administered by the Alameda County Department of Housing
and Community Development. In 1990, a total of $3,559 from a
total budget of $12,100 was expended in Dublin for the minor home
repair program and $38,180 was expended from the housing
rehabilitation program. The City should continue to use City CDBG
funds to support the rehabilitation programs.
N. Participate in the Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) Program. Through the use of a MCC, eligible first-time home
buyers increase their eligibility to qualify for a mortgage loan
and reduce their effective mortgage interest rate by approximately
2% points. MCC recipients may take 20% of their annual mortgage
interest payments as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their
Federal income taxes. The home buyer adjusts Federal income tax
-8-
withholdings, increasing income available to pay the mortgage.
Under the program, the City currently has two reservations issued
worth $230,900 and seven MCC's remaining worth $769,100. The City
should continue participation in the program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from the public.
3) Question Staff and the public.
4) Close public hearing.
5) Adopt 1) a resolution recommending City Council certification
of the Negative Declaration; and 2) a resolution recommending
City Council approval of the draft revised Housing Element.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council certify the Negative Declaration and adopt the draft
revised Housing Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Revised Housing Element
Exhibit B: Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Negative
Declaration.
Exhibit C: Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the draft
revised Housing Element.
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Negative Declaration and Initial Study.
Attachment 2: Letter from State Department of Housing and Community
Development dated April 30, 1990.
Attachment 3: Article from March 20, 1990, San Francisco Chronicle.
-9-
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
SECTION 6 .0 : HOUSING ELEMENT
DRAFT: MAY 1990
PREPARED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6.0 HOUSING ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6.1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY
6.1.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND
HOUSING NEEDS 1
6.1.2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 10
6.1.3 INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 22
6.1.4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 27
6.1.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 31
6.1.6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 34
6.1.7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 39
6.2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE
TO NON LOW-INCOME HOUSING USES 40
6.3 GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 42
6.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 61
6.5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS 62
6.6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT 63
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT TABLES
APPENDIX C - SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MAP
APPENDIX D - RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAP
6.0 HOUSING ELEMENT
Section 65583 of the State Government Code requires that the
Housing Element consist of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals,
policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement and development of housing. It must
identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing,
factory-built housing and mobile homes. Finally, it must make
adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.
6.1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY [65583(a)]
The needs analysis consists of an assessment of housing needs and
an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those
needs, including the following:
1) population and employment trends and housing needs;
2) household characteristics;
3) inventory of land suitable for residential development;
4) governmental constraints;
5) non-governmental constraints;
6) special housing needs; and
7) opportunities for energy conservation.
6.1.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND HOUSING NEEDS
[65583(a)(1)]
This section consists of an analysis of population and employment
trends, documentation of projections and a quantification of
Dublin's existing and projected housing needs for all income
levels. This analysis includes the entire area within the extended
planning area of the City of Dublin. The existing and projected
needs include Dublin's share of the regional housing need.
Except where noted otherwise, the information contained in this
section was obtained from Projections '90 and Housing Needs
Determinations by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG,
1989). Where information is available, Dublin statistics and
projections are compared to regional statistics and projections.
POPULATION TRENDS
Existing Population and Short Term Projections (1990 - 1995)
The current population of Dublin is estimated to be approximately
25,500 persons (ABAG, 1989). Between 1980 and 1990, Dublin's
population increased by 10,201 persons, or a 67% increase (an
annual increase of 1,020 persons). The population of Alameda
County increased by 166,621 persons, or a 15% increase. ABAG's
population estimates and projections are summarized below.
1
1980 1990 1995
Dublin 15,299 25,500 29,500
Livermore-Amador Valley * 100,230 144,600 160,300
Alameda County 1,105,379 1,272,000 1,330,800
* The Livermore-Amador Valley, or East County, includes the
cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton.
Long Term Projections (1990 - 2005)
The cumulative historical and projected population growth in
Alameda County and the City of Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989).
Alameda County Dublin
1980 1,105,379 15,299
1985 1,191,450 17,600
1990 1,272,000 25,500
1995 1,330,800 29,500
2000 1,387,900 37,100
2005 1,444,600 46,200
Dublin is expected to continue to have the greatest subregional
percentage change in Alameda County with a projected 81% increase
in population between 1990 and 2005 (or 20,700 additional
residents, an annual increase of 1,380 persons). This would bring
the total population in Dublin to 46,200 by the year 2005.
During the period 1990-2005, the Livermore-Amador Valley area (East
County) will experience the greatest increase in population within
Alameda County. Between 1990 and 2005, ABAG estimates that East
County will add about 65,000 new residents, or a 45% increase in
population.
The projected change for Alameda County between 1990 and 2005 is
172,600 persons, or a 14% increase compared to a 15% increase for
the Bay Area.
Age and Ethnic Characteristics
Dublin's population is relatively homogeneous in terms of age and
ethnic characteristics. The short span of time during which most
of the City's housing was constructed, and the low original housing
prices resulted in a predominance of young families in the 1960's
and then a slowing of growth and overall aging of the population.
In 1980, 92.4% of the population was white, the remainder were
Black, Japanese, Chinese, Native American and persons of Spanish
origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). Below is a summary of the age
characteristics of Dublin's population.
2
Current
Percent Estimated
(1980) Population*
persons under 18 38.9 9,919
persons 18 - 61 57.8 14,739
persons 62 and over 3.2 800
*The population estimates were derived by applying the
percentages from the 1980 Census to the current
estimated population of Dublin.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Dublin
Existing Employment
There are currently about 12,210 jobs in Dublin. Between 1985 and
1990, the number of jobs increased by 2,600, a 27% increase. This
includes 870 additional retail jobs (21% increase), 860 additional
manufacturing and wholesale jobs (63% increase), 770 service jobs
(47% increase) and 100 additional other types of jobs (4%
increase).
ABAG estimates that 12,000 Dublin residents are currently in the
labor force (ABAG, 1989). This represents approximately 77% of the
Dublin residents over age 16. The majority of persons are employed
in retail jobs, followed by persons in service jobs, manufacturing
and wholesale jobs and agricultural and mining jobs. Between 1985
and 1990, the number of employed residents in Dublin increased by
4,000, a 50% increase.
Employment Projections
Between 1990 and 1995, Dublin is projected to have 2,000 additional
employed residents, a 17% increase. Dublin is projected to have
3,000 new jobs during this period, or a 25% increase. This
represents an existing ratio of jobs to employed residents of 1.0
and a projected (1995) ratio of 1.1. The greater the ratio
deviates from 1.0, the greater the jobs/employed residents
imbalance (i.e., a ratio of 1.0 represents a numerical balance
between the total number of jobs and the total number of employed
residents).
The historical and projected cumulative job growth and additional
employed residents in Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989).
Employed Jobs/Employed
Jobs Residents Residents Ratio
1980 8,168 6,497 1.26
1985 9,640 8,000 1.20
1990 12,210 12,000 1.02
1995 15,210 14,000 1.09
2000 17,880 17,500 1.02
2005 20,560 21,700 .95
3
eN
The cumulative total historical and projected number of new jobs by
type in Dublin is as follows (ABAG, 1989):
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Agricultural and Mining 52 40 10 10 10 10
Mfg & Wholesale 1196 1370 2230 2850 3430 3820
Retail 3173 4230 5100 5730 6920 7890
Service 1567 1640 2410 4000 4670 4910
Other Jobs 2180 2360 2460 2620 2850 3930
Total 8,168 9,640 12,210 15,210 17,880 20560
Alameda County
Existing Employment
Alameda County has reversed the trend of job loss that occurred in
the 1970's. The County had a large portion of its employment base
in heavy industries that were either declining or not growing.
Since 1980 the industry mix has shifted increasingly toward office
and service-related industry, with a long-term potential for high
technology jobs.
In 1990, there are approximately 608,480 jobs and 647,500 employed
residents in Alameda County (ABAG). During the period 1985 to
1990, the number of employed residents in Alameda County increased
by 68,100 (12% increase). The number of jobs increased by 58,600
(11% increase). The largest increase in jobs for Alameda County
was in the service sector (23,430 new jobs, or a 14% increase),
followed by manufacturing and wholesale (15,590 new jobs, or a 14%
increase), retail (12,710 new jobs, or a 13% increase) and all
other types of jobs (7,580, or a 5% increase). Alameda County led
the Bay Area in its increase in manufacturing and wholesale jobs.
Employment Projections
The projected increase in jobs within Alameda County between 1990
and 1995 is 11% which is the same projected change for the Bay Area
as a whole (ABAG, 1989). The cumulative historical and projected
job growth and additional employed residents in the County are
shown below.
Employed Jobs/Employed
Jobs Residents Residents Ratio
1980 511,133 522,069 .98
1985 549,850 579,400 .95
1990 608,480 647,500 .94
1995 675,410 707,000 .95
2000 740,600 752,400 .98
2005 783,350 778,900 1.00
4
For the period 1990 to 2005, Alameda County is projected to have
131,400 additional employed residents, or a 20% increase. Alameda
County is also projected to have 174,900 new jobs, or a 29%
increase. This represents a 1.3 ratio of new jobs to additional
employed residents. For the Bay Area, the ratio of new jobs to
additional employed residents is 1.5.
In recent years, commercial and industrial development has
increased dramatically in the Tri-Valley area, largely due to the
relocation of businesses from San Francisco seeking relief from
land scarcity, high lease rates, high housing costs and strict
planning controls. ABAG projects a continuation of this trend.
Below are the estimated existing and projected numbers of jobs and
employed residents in the Livermore-Amador Valley (ABAG).
1990 1995
Employed Employed
Jobs Residents Ratio Jobs Residents Ratio
Dublin 12,210 12,000 1.02 15,210 14,000 1.09
Livermore 27,860 31,200 .89 33,540 35,300 .95
Pleasanton 29,180 32,100 .91 36,620 36,400 1.01
However, despite the current and projected (1990 - 1995) relative
balance between jobs and employed residents in Dublin and the
remainder of the Livermore-Amador Valley, one of the transportation
corridors with the most serious imbalance of jobs to employed
residents in the San Francisco Bay Area is the I-680 Corridor
(Dublin, Alamo-Blackhawk, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Livermore,
Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Walnut Creek and the
remainder of Alameda County).
For the period 1990 - 2005 the projected labor supply deficit for
the 1-680 Corridor is 27,840 (i.e., 76,600 new employed residents
compared to 104,440 new jobs). Livermore is expected to add
approximately 25,000 new jobs, or a 91% increase over 1990
employment. Pleasanton will increase its 1990 employment base by
about 21,000 jobs, or about a 71% increase by 2005. During the
same period, San Ramon is expected to add about 16,700 new jobs
between 1990 and 2005.
Tables 1 - 6 in Appendix A contain the following information for
the City of Dublin, the Tri-Valley (Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton in the Livermore-Amador Valley and San Ramon and
Danville in the San Ramon Valley), Alameda County and the San
Francisco Bay Region (Source: WPM Planning Team, 1990, based upon
ABAG data):
Table 1 - ABAG's Population, Household, Employment & Income
Projections
Table 2 - Average Annual Changes in ABAG's Projections
Table 3 - Projections: Percentage of Larger Geographic Area
Table 4 - Projections: Per Household & Employment Ratios
5
Table 5 - Average Annual Changes in Per Household &
Employment Ratios
Table 6 - Projections: Per Household & Employment Ratios -
Percentage of Larger Area
No annexations, significant changes in land uses or other factors
have occurred in Dublin which would affect the ABAG population and
employment trend estimates and projections.
HOUSING NEEDS
To assist localities in evaluating their regional housing share,
the State requires area wide planning agencies to prepare regional
housing needs assessment numbers. Government Code Section 65583
(a)(1) requires a quantification of the locality's existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels. The existing and
projected needs must include the locality's share of the regional
housing need. Government Code Section 65584 defines regional
housing need as "a locality's share of the regional housing needs
includes that share of the housing needs of persons at all income
levels within the area significantly affected by the jurisdiction's
plan." ABAG has estimated existing affordable housing needs as of
1988 for communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and the
projected housing needs in 1990 and 1995 (ABAG, 1989).
Existing Need (including regional need) is the difference between
the number of units actually built and the number that "should have
been available calculated from the optimal vacancy rate." Thus, if
the available housing stock were increased by the existing need,
the market would have been nearer to a balance between housing
supply and demand. A balanced housing market depresses
inflationary pressures that reduce housing affordability. ABAG
estimated the existing (1988) housing demand for Dublin to be zero
units. This means that, in general, there was a relative balance
between Dublin's housing supply and demand in 1988 (ABAG 1989).
Projected Need (including regional need) is the total number of
units needed to accommodate anticipated growth in the city and
provide a desirable vacancy rate. The "projected need" figure is
the number of additional units that would ideally be developed in
the City by 1995, based on the household projections developed by
ABAG. Government Code Section 65584 requires that the distribution
of regional housing need by ABAG take into account the market
demand for housing, employment opportunities, availability of
suitable sites and public facilities, communing patterns, needs of
farm workers, the type and tenure of housing in the jurisdiction
and the loss of units in assisted housing developments (ABAG 1989)
In 1983 ABAG's determination of Dublin's "projected need" was 1,956
housing units. During the five year planning period for the 1985
Housing Element (January 1985 - January 1990) a total of 2,645
housing units were constructed in Dublin. Thus, the projected need
was exceeded by 689 dwelling units.
6
� n
ABAG's housing needs determinations are for the seven year period
from 1988 through 1995. Since the planning period for the Housing
Element is from 1990 through 1995, it was necessary to adjust
ABAG's housing needs determinations to consider the housing units
that were constructed in 1988 and 1989.
ABAG projected the housing need for 1988 - 1990 in Dublin to be
1,479 units. The projected need for the period 1990 - 1995 is
1,912 units which results in a total projected housing need of
3,391 units for the period 1988 - 1995. The adjusted housing needs
determinations are as follows:
ABAG's Projected Need 1988 - 1995 3,391 units
Total Units Constructed in 1988 and 1989 920 units*
Projected Need 1990 - 1995 2,471 units
*Refer to page 8 for a breakdown of the units produced by
income category
Projected Need by Income Category is not a continuation of current
patterns but rather a figure that includes a redistribution of
households by income category throughout the region. The objective
is to "avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high
proportions of lower income households" (Government Code Section
65584). To generate the figures, ABAG averaged existing city
percentages in each income category with the existing county and
regional percentages.
Definition of Income Categories for Dublin. Four income categories
("very low," "low," "moderate" and "above moderate") were used by
ABAG in allocating projected housing needs. These terms are
defined in State law (Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California
Administrative Code), and establish the categories used in
determining eligibility of housing consumers to a variety of
housing programs, as well as availability of public funds and
assistance to housing providers. State law bases the definitions
on a household of four, and does not relate income definitions to
different household sizes.
In February, 1990, the estimated median income for a family of four
in Alameda County was $44,100 (State Department of Housing and
Community Development, 1990). This estimate is used to determine
eligibility for various state and federal housing programs. A
current median income estimate was not available for the City of
Dublin.
Current (February, 1990) income categories for Alameda County are
defined as follows:
Very low income - $22,050 and below
Less than 50% of the County mean income
Low income - $22,051 - $35,280
Between 51% and 80% of the County mean income
7
n n
Moderate income - $35,281 - $52,920
Between 81% and 120% of the County mean income
Above moderate income - $52,921 and above
Above 120% of the County mean income
ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an
absolute number of units and a percentage of units in each income
grouping. Below are the current desired distribution of households
by income category for Dublin (from ABAG's 1989 report, Housing
Needs Determinations) compared to Dublin's actual household income
distribution in the 1980 Census and the current distribution of
households by income category (ABAG's 1989 Housing Needs
Determinations).
Number of Units
1980* 1989** Needed for 1990 - 1995
Very Low 9% 20% 678
Low 11% 14% 475
Moderate 26% 23% 499
Above Moderate 54% 43% 819
Total Projected Need 2,471
* Household income by percent distribution, 1980 Census
** Current distribution of households by income
category (ABAG, 1989)
The number of units included in the above table is based upon the
following:
Adjusted
ABAG Units Produced Needs
(1988-1995)* (1988-1989)** (1990-1995)
Very Low 678 0 678
Low 475 0 475
Moderate 780 281 499
Above Moderate 1,458 639 819
Total 3,391 920 2,471
* Housing Needs Determinations, ABAG, January 1989.
** Final inspections issued by Dublin in 1988 and 1989
(refer to Housing Costs in Section 6.1.2, Household
Characteristics, for breakdown of sales prices and
rents for units which received final inspections from
the Dublin Building Department in 1988 and 1989).
8
r'ti n
ABAG's regional redistribution of household needs 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. Planned and
projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types
than has previously been available in Dublin, which means greater
opportunity for production of affordable units. However, it is
unlikely that 34% of the units produced in Dublin over the next
five years could be made affordable to low and very low income
households. This percentage seems particularly unrealistic in
light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for
housing, which would be necessary for production of affordable
units at such a large scale.
9
6.1.2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS [65583(a)(2)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(2) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to
pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition.
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Between 1985 and 1990, the number of total households in Alameda
County increased by 39,860 (9% increase). During the same period,
the number of households in Dublin increased by 2,062, a 43%
increase (ABAG, 1989).
The projected increase in households within the County between 1990
- 1995 is 27,910 households, or a 5.7% increase. The cumulative
historical and projected household population growth and persons
per household in Alameda County is shown below (ABAG, 1989).
Household Persons per Total
Population Household Households
1980 1,077,339 2.53 426,093
1985 1,156,150 2.56 451,750
1990 1,232,900 2.51 491,610
1995 1,290,200 2.48 519,520
2000 1,344,200 2.46 547,320
2005 1,397,100 2.44 527,420
The current number of households in Dublin is 6,862, including
5,215 in owner occupied units and 1,647 rental units (Dublin
Planning Department, 1990).
The projected increase in households within Dublin between 1990 -
1995 is 1,600, or a 23% increase. The cumulative historical and
projected household population growth and pers per household in
Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989).
Household Persons per Total
Population Household Households
1980 13,772 3.40 4,039
1985 16,000 3.34 4,800
1990 22,800 3.21 6,862 *
1995 26,800 3.16 8,470
2000 34,300 3.14 10,940
2005 43,400 3.10 13,990
* Planning Department estimate (1990) based upon number
of existing housing units and vacancy rate.
ABAG's Projections '90 report assumes a 1.25% decrease in the
average household size between 1990-1995 in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Over the 15-year period from 1990-2005, regional household
10
r'1 r1
size is expected to decline from an estimated average of 2.54
persons per household in 1990 to 2.46 persons in 2005. This
represents a 3.1% decline in household size. In the 1990's it is
estimated that Dublin will continue to attract the larger size
households which have characterized its historical growth.
INCOME
In 1990, ABAG estimates that the mean (average) household income in
Dublin was $49,100 in constant 1988 dollars. The historical and
projected mean household income for Alameda County and Dublin is as
follows (the projected increase for the Dublin is 2% between 1990
and 1995):
Alameda County Dublin
1980 $35,609 $44,942
1985 37,800 46,600
1990 40,100 * 49,100
1995 43,000 50,100
2000 45,100 52,600
2005 46,900 55,200
* In February, 1990, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development estimated that the median income for a
family four in Alameda County was $44,100. Median income is
used for state and federal housing programs.
HOUSING COSTS
Owner Occupied
In 1989, the average cost of a home (both resale and new) in Dublin
was $225,855, compared to $272,016 for the San Francisco Bay Area.
The recent trend has been rapidly upward in the price of housing in
Dublin and the remainder of the Tri-Valley area. Below are the
historical average sales prices in Dublin (Southern Alameda County
Board of Realtors, 1990):
1983 $109,568
1984 $122,849
1985 $134,657
1986 $144,841
1987 $153,409
1988 $173,566
1989 $225,855
During the past two years, building permits were issued for 949
units in Dublin, including 211 single family units and 738 multi-
family units. The sales prices of these new homes varied from
$120,000 for a two bedroom townhouse in a 174 unit development to
$425,000 for a single family home on a view lot. Below is a
summary of the sales prices and rents for the new homes in Dublin
which received final inspections during the past two years:
11
Price/Rent Range Year Number of Units
Multi Family:
$695 - 1,135 (rental) 1989 186 *
$120,000 (average) 1988 118
$130,000 - $149,000 1988 92 **
$150,000 - $179,000 1988 172
$171,000 - $199,000 1989 78
$179,000 - $200,000 1989 63
Total 709
Single Family:
$210,000 - $255,000 1988 78
$230,000 - $360,000 1988 & 1989 120
$325,000 - $425,000 1988 13
Total 211
* Includes 156 units with rents below $992/month.
** Includes 7 units which sold for less than $136,500.
The average price per square foot in 1990 for new single family
homes is just under $190 (West Dublin Study). Multi-family units
cost about $150 per square foot.
However, despite the historical increases in housing costs in
Dublin, sales prices have dropped slightly during recent weeks.
Average prices in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton fell by 7.2% to
23% in February 1990 compared to the previous month (Southern
Alameda County Board of Realtors). The decrease in prices is
believed to be due to a heavy current supply of housing. In July
1989, there were 1,734 homes for sale in Southern Alameda County.
In February 1990, there were 1,918 homes for sale, a 10.6%
increase.
Rental Housing
Although owner occupied housing unit costs far exceed ability to
pay for most families, many rental units are still within the
ability of moderate income household's ability to pay. The 1980
Census indicated that the median contract rent in Dublin was $353.
Currently, one bedroom apartment units in older buildings rent for
$500 to $550/month (Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners
Association, 1990). Two and three bedroom apartment units in older
building rent for $600 to $700. Two and three bedroom apartment
units in new buildings rent for about $700 to $1,100 per month.
Single family houses rent for about $900 to $1,200 (three bedrooms,
two baths with a double car garage).
DETERMINATION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME UNIT PRICES
Determination of a unit price affordable to low and moderate income
households is important because the State requires cities to give
developers density bonuses if 20% of the units in a project are
12
affordable to lower income or 10% very low income households or 50%
senior households. The units must be affordable for 30 years. The
City must also provide one or more other incentives. The maximum
price of a housing unit affordable to a low income household in
Alameda County is $97,500 and the maximum price of a unit
affordable to a moderate income household is $136,500 (based upon
the following method for determining housing cost affordable by a
low income household).
a. Low income definition (80% of Alameda County's median income)
_ $35,280
b. $35,280 X .9 = $31,752 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% of the calculated income.
c. $31,752/12 = $661, maximum monthly mortgage payment
4 25% of gross income (property taxes,
utilities and insurance not included)
d. $661 payment at 10.25% fixed rate, 30 year term and 10% down
payment = $97,500 mortgage (Schriber, 1990).
The maximum monthly rent for an affordable rental unit (moderate
income household) in Alameda County is $992. Below are affordable
rents for the income categories.
Monthly Rent
Very Low Income $0 - $413
Low Income $414 - $661
Moderate Income $661 - $992
Above Moderate $992 and above
LEVEL OF PAYMENT COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY
According to State law, a lower-income household that pays more
that 25% of its income for housing is living in unaffordable
housing and is "overpaying" for housing (the federal threshold to
measure overpaying is 30%). For the purpose of determining housing
affordability, the City of Dublin uses 25% to measure overpaying.
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. There is no evidence to suggest that all, or
even a majority, of overpaying households in Dublin would relocate
if additional affordable housing units were available in the City.
Determining exactly how many renter and owner households overpay
for housing must await the completion of the 1990 Census. However,
ABAG has calculated the proportion of households in 1980 who paid
13
more than 25% of their income for housing. These ratios were then
applied to the current counts of the number of households.
Below are ABAG's estimated total numbers and proportions of low
income households overpaying for housing in Dublin (ABAG, 1989).
Percentage
Total of Dublin's
Number Population
low income households (HH) owning 420 1.6%
low income HH renting 361 1.4%
low income HH overpaying (owners) 266 1.0%
low income HH overpaying (renters) 266 1.0%
There is a slightly greater proportion of lower income renter
households overpaying for housing than lower-income owners as shown
below (ABAG).
Proportion of low income owners overpaying 63%
Proportion of low income renters overpaying 74%
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Dublin's housing stock has become more diversified since the 1985
Housing Element was adopted. At that time, the City's housing
stock was characterized by single family detached homes with
relatively homogeneous prices and sizes. However, with the
completion of recent residential projects, the overall nature of
the housing stock has begun to change.
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowded housing is an indication of an unmet need for housing
from families unable to afford adequately sized accommodation. An
overcrowded housing unit is defined by the Census Bureau as one in
which there are more than 1.01 persons per room. The 1980 Census
reported 109 overcrowded units in Dublin, 2.6% of the City's
housing units. Applying this same percentage to the current
estimate of 7,073 existing (1990) housing units, results in an
estimated 184 existing overcrowded units. Applying the percentages
of renters to owners in Dublin's population, results in an
estimated 44 overcrowded rental units and 140 overcrowded owner
occupied units.
While overcrowding has been declining state wide since the 1960's,
the 7.4% overcrowding in California reported in 1980 represents a
substantially higher incidence of overcrowding state wide than in
the City.
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
Dublin's housing stock is characterized by homes built within the
last 30 years (approximately 95% of the entire housing stock), as
14
shown below (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and Planning Department
estimates, 1990).
Units Percent of
Built Existing Units
1980 to 1989 2,940 41.7%
1970 to 1979 462 6.5%
1960 to 1969 3,314 46.8%
1950 to 1959 156 2.2%
1940 to 1949 186 2.6%
1939 or earlier 15 0.2%
The predominance of buildings constructed within the past 30 years
means that the housing stock is in very good condition.
Maintenance varies from poor to excellent, but instances of poor
maintenance are few and scattered. Dublin's Building Inspector
reports few violations. There are no substandard units needing
replacement. There have been no homes demolished in the past five
years.
The City provides information to the public regarding the Alameda
County Home Improvement Loan Program which is administered by the
Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development.
The program provides low interest home improvement loans to
homeowners who have low or moderate incomes. Very few households
in Dublin have applied for assistance from the program (refer to
Program III.M. in the Goals, Quantified Objectives Policies and
Programs Section).
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
Between January 1985 and January 1990, a total of 2,645 housing
units were constructed in Dublin, including 1,011 single family
units and 1,634 multi-family units. Approximately 62% of the new
housing units were multi-family and there was an increase in
multifamily units within the City from 9% of the total housing
stock in 1985 to 29% in 1990. There are no manufactured homes or
mobile homes in Dublin. However, manufactured homes and mobile
homes are permitted in all single family zoning districts. Below
are the total number of existing housing units in Dublin:
Single Family* Multi-Family** Total
1/1/89 Estimate *** 5,024 1,693 6,717
Final Inspections 29 327 356
in 1989
Total Existing Units 5,053 2,020 7,073
as of 12/31/89
* Single family detached
** Includes single family attached units
*** California Department of Finance, 1989
15
TENURE*
Approximately 76% of the City's units are occupied by owners while
24% are occupied by renters (1980 Census). Applying these
percentages to the total number of existing households (7,073)
results in an estimated 5,375 owner households and 1,698 renter
households in 1990.
Dublin currently has the lowest proportion of single family houses
in its housing stock (71%) compared to the other cities in the Tri-
Valley which range from 76% to 93%. By comparison, the Tri-Valley
average is about 80% and the County average is 59% (ABAG 1989).
Dublin's housing growth rate during the first nine years of the
1980's has been greater than for the Tri-Valley area, Alameda
County or the San Francisco Bay Area as shown below (WPM Planning
Team, 1989).
Area Growth Rate
City of Dublin 62%
Tri-Valley Area 39%
Alameda County 13%
Bay Area 13%
A total of 2,365 building permits for new homes were issued in
Dublin from January 1985 through December 1989, including 803
single family homes (34%) and 1,562 multi-family homes (66%). The
building permits issued for new homes in Dublin from 1985 through
1989 are shown below (Dublin Building Department, 1990).
Single Family Multi-family Total
1985 195 43 238
1986 259 129 388
1987 251 756 1,007
1988 25 204 229
1989 73 430 503
Total 803 1,562 2,365
*Tenure means the type of occupancy within a housing unit (renter
or owner-occupied).
VACANCY RATES
Vacancy rates are a commonly used indicator of the adequacy of the
existing housing stock in meeting market area needs. The
difference between current and optimal vacancy rates is a good
measure of existing need.
The 1980 census reported vacancy rates in Dublin as follows:
Vacant Units Percent of Total Units
Vacant for Sale 28 .9
Vacant for Rent 17 1.8
16
r1 /'1
ABAG has used a vacancy goal of 4.5 percent for housing need
calculations. In 1988, the vacancy rate for the Bay area was
3.58%. According to the State Department of Finance, as of January
1989 there were 6,516 occupied units in Dublin and an overall
vacancy rate of 2.99%. Thus, the overall vacancy rate for Dublin
in January 1989 was below the region's vacancy goal as well as the
average vacancy rate. This would indicate a need for additional
housing to satisfy demand.
A 5% rental vacancy rate is considered necessary to permit ordinary
rental mobility (Local Housing Element Assistance Project, 1989).
A 2% vacancy rate for owned housing is considered normal. A sample
survey in 1983 found virtually no vacancies in Dublin apartments,
with waiting lists typical (Blayney-Dyett). However, the
relatively low cost of renting and the absence of a requirement of
a large down payment makes rentals an important source of
affordable market rate housing.
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
The Arroyo Vista project in Dublin is a 150-unit housing complex
for low income families. The Arroyo Vista project was approved by
a two-thirds majority vote in the unincorporated area of Alameda
County under Article 34 of the California Constitution, as required
for publicly owned subsidized housing.
In 1986 the Dublin Housing Authority was formed and the title to
the Arroyo Vista project was transferred from the City of
Pleasanton Housing Authority to the City of Dublin Housing
Authority. The management of Arroyo Vista was transferred from the
Pleasanton Housing Authority to the Alameda County Housing
Authority (Basgal, 1990).
The Arroyo Vista project houses very low income tenants. There are
some existing tenants who are above 50% of the median income limits
but admission requirements are 50% of the median income or below.
Income eligibility is only one criterion for tenant selection at
Arroyo Vista. Eligible applicants must also meet one of the
following federal preferences:
1. Involuntary Displacement, e.g. owner terminates tenancy for
reasons beyond the control of the tenant, domestic violence
which requires tenant to leave violent circumstances, or
government action or a natural disaster requiring tenant to
leave the dwelling.
2. Substandard Housing, e.g. unit does not provide safe and
adequate shelter, and homelessness.
3. Paying 50% or More of Income for Rent, the amount paid
includes a reasonable amount for utilities.
17
Other subsidized housing in Dublin is available through two Section
8 programs which provide rent subsidies to qualified households.
Section 8 certificates provide the difference between one third of
a household's income and the monthly cost of an apartment up to a
certain standard price. Section 8 new construction funds were used
in the construction of The Springs apartments, a 176-unit complex
including 36 subsidized units. The Section 8 certificate program
is administered by the Alameda County Housing Authority.
Currently, the Housing Authority contracts for seven Section 8
units in Dublin (as of December 1, 1989).
Below is a summary of subsidized housing in the Livermore! Amador
Valley (Dublin Planning Department, 1990):
Type
City Complex Total Age Group Rent
(# of units) of Tenants Subsidy
Dublin Arroyo Vista 150 Elderly Q.I.
Family
Handicapped
Dublin The Springs 176 Elderly Q.I.
(36 subsidized) Family
Handicapped
Livermore Hillcrest 54 Elderly Q.I.
Gardens Handicapped S.I.
Livermore Leahy Square 125 Family Q.I.
Elderly
Handicapped
Livermore Livermore 96 Family Q.I.
Gardens S.S.
Livermore Meadowlark 47 Elderly Q.I.
Family
Handicapped
Livermore Vineyard 74 Elderly Q.I.
Village Handicapped
Pleasanton Kottinger 50 Elderly Q.I.
Place Handicapped
Pleasanton Pleasanton 39 Elderly S.S.
Gardens Handicapped
Pleasanton Pleasanton 131 Elderly S.S.
Greens Family
Handicapped
Q.I. = 25% of income
S.S. = Sliding Scale
18
/'1
Tenants at Arroyo Vista, The Springs (subsidized units), Livermore
Leahy Square and Pleasanton Kottinger Place pay 30% of their income
for rent. The same may be true for the other projects listed
depending on the type of project financing.
Persons on Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing
One index of immediate need is the length of waiting lists for
subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley. Households on waiting lists
are in need of affordable housing and actively seeking to relocate.
There is probably some overlap between projects, with a number of
households on lists for more than one housing complex. Below are
the waiting lists for subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley area as
of January 1990 compared to the number on waiting lists for the
same projects in June 1983 (Planning Department survey).
City Complex Total on Waiting Total on Waiting
List - 1/90 List in 1983
Dublin Arroyo Vista 86 187 *
Dublin The Springs 22 N/A **
Pleasanton Kottinger Place 15 29
Pleasanton Gardens 22 27
Pleasanton Greens 54 57
Livermore Hillcrest Gardens 100 110
Livermore Leahy Square 75 150
Livermore Gardens 180 50
Livermore Meadowlark 250 70
Livermore Vineyard Village 146 86
Total 950 766
* At the time that the waiting list was checked for the
Arroyo Vista project in 1983, only 85 of the 150 units
were completed.
** A waiting list was not maintained by The Springs in
1983.
Based upon the survey results, the number of persons on waiting
lists for subsidized housing has increased by 24% since 1983.
19
n n
HOUSING SERVICES
The City of Dublin participates in a voucher program in which
homeless persons who are referred to the Police Department are
given a voucher by the police, for a hotel located in the City of
Pleasanton. For Dublin residents in need of housing counseling or
emergency shelter, a variety of services exist. Below is a summary
of the services that are available (City of Pleasanton and City of
Livermore, 1989) .
For Seniors Alameda County Department of Aging
- housing services for seniors, San
Leandro.
General Advisory and
Counseling Service,
Shared Housing Placement ECHO Housing Assistance Center -
Housing advisory services, housing
counseling services, discrimination
investigation, Section 8, tenant/
landlord problems, Senior Citizens,
shared housing placement mediation
services. Livermore.
Emergency Shelter Tri-Valley Haven For Women -
Services for victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault.
Housing, shelter, counseling and
child care program. Pleasanton.
Shepard's Gate - emergency shelter
for women and children. Livermore
Family Crisis Center for Men -
emergency shelter for men.
Livermore.
Family Crisis Center for Families -
emergency shelter for families.
Livermore
Emergency Fund Center - Casework,
disaster, infant supplies, food,
clothing, appliances, material
needs, transportation. Livermore.
Buenas Vidas Ranch - Emergency
Housing for youth (wards of the
court, not homeless) ages 10 to 19
years. Livermore
20
n n
Emergency Shelter Program, Inc. -
Emergency services include crisis
counseling, temporary shelter for
women and children, meals provided,
advocacy services, children's
program, housing search, job
training. Hayward.
21
r1 n
6.1.3 LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
[65583(a)(3)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires that the Housing
Element include an inventory of land suitable for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment. It must also include an analysis of the
relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these
sites. During the five year planning period (1990 - 1995), it is
projected that 1,905 total additional housing units, 381
units/year, will be constructed in Dublin.
INCORPORATED AREA
Vacant Land
Within the incorporated portions of the City, there are 29 vacant
acres, which could yield a total of 202 (maximum) units including
107 single family homes and 95 multiple-family units. The
following vacant sites are located within the incorporated portions
of the City (refer to Sites for Housing Development Map in
Appendix).
Projected No. of Units
Single Multi- Current No. on
Acres Family Family Zoning Map
Arroyo Vista * 6+ 0 42-95 PD 2
Fallon School 8 17 0 R-1-B-E** 9
Valley Christian 15 14-90 0 Agricultural 12
Total 29 107 95
* Includes two sites for multi-family housing: a four acre site
and a two acre site.
** R-1-B-E allows sites from 5,000-7,500 square feet.
Projects Currently Under Construction
There are 646 units which have been approved within the city limits
but have not received final inspections, as summarized below
(Dublin Planning Department, 1990). The locations of the projects
are shown on the map of recent residential projects in the
Appendix.
Total # of Units Building
Single- Multi- Permits
No. or Map Name family family Issued Unoccupied
3.a Bordeaux Estates 175 175 9
3.b Ahmanson 69 69 69
8. Kildara 174 174 132
16a Heritage Commons 303 73 230
16b Dublin Meadows 206 206 206
Total Unoccupied Units 646
22
Redevelopment Sites
Sites having potential for redevelopment are zoned for a higher
residential density than the development that currently exists on
the site. If these sites were redeveloped at the current land use
density, then more units could be developed on the lots. However,
with very few units over 30 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.
In addition, residential designations have been considered for
several commercially zoned sites and rejected. Planning Commission
and City Council members chose to retain commercial designations
because of concerns regarding traffic and land use compatibility
and in recognition of anticipated demand for commercial sites.
The only sites having potential for redevelopment within Dublin are
those in the downtown intensification area where mixed
commercial/residential uses are allowed (refer to Site 13 on the
Sites for Development Map in the Appendix). The Downtown Specific
Plan which was adopted in 1987 allows up to 200 additional multi-
family units within the downtown area. It should be noted that
while the potential for density increases in the downtown area, not
all property owners redevelop their property, or develop it to the
maximum density permitted. To date no property owners in this area
have proposed residential units on their sites.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
The available vacant land designated for residential development
within the City's Sphere of Influence is 179 acres with a potential
yield of 497 units. All of this area is within the Hansen Hill
Ranch annexation area which is currently being reviewed by the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
Dublin has designated an extended planning area, largely within its
sphere of influence, that "bears relation to its planning"
(Government Code Section 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 Rehabilitation Center, and
Tassajara Regional Park. These areas include Hansen Hill, Donlan
Canyon, East Dublin and West Dublin. Portions of East Dublin and
West Dublin also lie within the City's sphere of influence.
The total number of projected units within the extended planning
area is 12,697 to 24,897 units, including 7,960 to 15,620 multi-
family units and 4,737 to 9,277 single family units (Planning
Department, 1990). Below are the projected total number of units
in areas under consideration by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the City and the projected
annexation dates.
23
r1 r1
Estimated Projected
# of Units Year of
Area Multi-family Single Family Total Annexation
Hansen Hill - 180 180 1990
Donlan Canyon 300 17 317 1990
East Dublin * 7,000-14,000 3,000-6,000 10,000-20,000 1992
West Dublin * 660-1,320 1,540-3,080 2,200-4,400 1992
Total 7,960-15,620 4,737-9,277 12,697-24,897
* It is currently unknown how many housing units will be
produced in East Dublin or West Dublin during the
planning period because zoning has not been established
for residential development in these areas (i.e., the
estimated number of units shown above may be revised
during the review process).
If East Dublin and West Dublin are annexed to the City by the
projected year (1992), construction could begin in 1994, thereby
producing units within the five year planning period of the Housing
Element. Prior to the year 2005, the demand for units is projected
to be 3,725 total units (about 350 units/year). It is possible
that a total of approximately 350 units could be built in East
Dublin and/or West Dublin during the five year planning period.
The projected total number of units in the extended planning area
during the five year planning period is 847 to 857 units, including
475 multi-family units and 372 to 382 single family units as
summarized below.
Estimated Number of Units
Area Multi-family Single Family Total
Hansen Hill - 180-190 180-190
Donlan Canyon 300 17 317
East and West Dublin 175 175 350
Total 475 372-382 847-857
RELATIONSHIP OF ZONING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TO HOUSING SITES
The sites described above within the city limits currently have
adequate services available to accommodate their potential
development. In addition, the existing General Plan land use
designations and zoning for these areas would allow the potential
development discussed above, with the exception of the Valley
Christian Center property. It is currently within the Agricultural
District. The zoning has not been changed on the Valley Christian
24
n
Center site. The property owner has not submitted a proposal for a
residential project.
General Plan designations for the extended planning area are
schematic in nature. General Plan Policy 2.1.4 calls for
consideration of residential development on moderate slopes with
multi-family densities on flatter land and next to business park
areas. The potential number of units cannot be determined until
utility plans for extension of urban services are prepared and
further studies are completed. For example, the capacity of
existing sewerage facilities must be expanded. Infrastructure
needs for West Dublin also include the construction of on and off
ramps from I 580 at Schaffer Canyon.
LAND INVENTORY SUMMARY
The total number of projected units in the five year planning
period is 1,905, as summarized on the next page.
25
SITES SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FIVE YEAR PLANNING PERIOD
Density Dwelling Projected Projected Projected
General Plan Existing Proposed 11 of Range Unit Year of Year of Year Services
Project ({/ on Map) Designation Zoning Zoning Acres (units/acre) Capacity Annexation Rezoning Available
Vacant Sites Within City Limits
Arroyo Vista (#2) Medium Density PD N/A 6+ 6.1 to 14 95 N/A N/A Available
Fallon School (#9) Single Family R-1-B-E N/A 8 .9 to 6 17 N/A N/A Available
Valley Christian (#12) Pub/Semi-Pub Ag R-1-B-E 15 .9 to 6 90 N/A N/A Available
Projects Under Construction
Bordeau Estates (//3a) Single Family PD N/A 89 .9 to 6 9 N/A N/A Available
Ahmanson (#36) Single Family PD N/A 34 .9 to 6 69 N/A N/A Available
Kildara (#8) Medium Density PD N/A 13 6.1 to 14 132 N/A N/A Available
Heritage Commons (//16a) Medium Density PD N/A 21.7 6.1 to 14 230 N/A N/A Available
Dublin Meadows (#16b) Medium Density PD N/A 16.5 6.1 to 14 206 N/A N/A Available
Redevelopment Sites )
Downtown (#11) Commercial/ C-1 , M-1, N/A
Light Indust C-2 & PD N/A * N/A 200 N/A N/A Available
Extended Planning Area
Hansen Hill (#7) Single Family PD N/A 57.2 .5 to 3.8 190 1990 1990 1991
Donlan Canyon (#25) Single Family,
Medium to High
Density Ag 197 .5 to 25 317 1990 1990 1991
East Dublin (#26) Open Space/Res Unknown Unknown 7,400 N/A 175 1992 1992 1993
West Dublin (#27) Open Space/Res Unknown Unknown 3,40D N/A 175 1992 1992 1993
TOTAL 1,905
-The extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the area of future intensification is not known at this time.
**The proposed zoning of Donlan Canyon is as follows: Land Use Designation - Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) 13 acres;
medium-high density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acres) 19.1 acres; open space; stream corridor 164.9 acres
Ni )
Ch
r1 /1
6.1.4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS [65583(a)(4)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including land use controls,
building codes, and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and
other exactions required of developers, and local processing and
permit procedures.
Local governments are empowered with the authority to regulate,
among other things, the location, density, timing, and type of
residential development which occurs in their jurisdiction. This
authority is exerted in several ways, from controlling land uses
through zoning to levying development fees and exactions to pay for
municipal improvements. While intended to protect the interests of
residents, local regulations can have effects which present
potential barriers to the production of housing.
LAND USE CONTROLS
The Municipal Code Zoning Districts correspond to the General Plan
land use designations. Each general plan designation and its
implementing zone specify allowed or conditionally permitted land
uses and set forth property development standards such as maximum
density, minimum lot size, setbacks, and building height
requirements.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides five basic residential
districts; single-family, two-family, four-family, multiple and
suburban residential. The general lot size requirements for each
district are described below. More complete details on the
requirements for each district are contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
The single family residential district (R-1) requires a
separate 5,000 square foot lot for each residence. Only one
residence may be constructed on a lot. R-1-L, R-1-L-B-E, and
R-1-B-E districts also permit only one residence per lot but
the minimum lot size is specified. The required front yard
and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet. The maximum building
height is 25 feet (two stories).
- The two-family residential district (R-2) also has a 5,000
square foot building site requirement, but on this building
site may be located one two-family or two one-family
residences. The required front and rear yard setbacks are 20
feet. The maximum building height is 25 feet (two stories).
- The four-family residential district (R-4) requires a 6,000
square foot lot minimum building site area and allows one unit
for each 1,200 square feet. The required front and rear
setbacks are 20 feet. The maximum building height is 45 feet
or 75 feet, depending upon the lot coverage.
27
r1
- The suburban residence (R-S) district has a basic density
requirement of one unit for each 5,000 square feet of lot
area, but unlike the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, each unit (or
group of units) does not have to be on a separate lot. The
required front and rear setbacks are 20 feet. The maximum
building height is 25 feet (two stories).
- Planned Development (PD) zoning is another category that
permits greater flexibility in addressing site-specific or
project objective issues. The overall density generally falls
into the range of one of the regular zoning categories but
site layout and other matters are permitted greater
flexibility.
Since the amount of vacant land within the City limits is minimal
(29 acres), the densities allowable under the existing residential
zoning districts are not considered to be a constraint to
providing adequate housing for all income levels. In addition, the
present zoning reflects the land uses that have existed in Dublin
for over 20 years. Recent construction over the past ten years has
been primarily multi-family development. However, the City will
review the development standards (setbacks, building height,
parking, etc.) to determine whether changes should be made to
reduce development costs (refer to Program I.C. in the Goals,
Quantified Objectives, Policies and Housing Programs Section).
Zoning could be a constraint to housing if the density categories
are low in an area that could support higher density residential
development. To encourage higher density development, the City
will 1) consider higher densities near the proposed BART station,
2) the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with low
intensity land uses to build housing, 3) an ordinance allowing
density bonuses in excess of those called for by State law, 4) an
inclusionary housing ordinance and 5) other incentives (refer to
Programs I.A., I.B., I.D., and I.E. in the Goals, Quantified
Objectives, Policies and Housing Program Section). These programs
will provide incentives for constructing affordable housing units.
BUILDING CODES
Dublin uses the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Housing Code as
the basis for the City's building standards. These codes are
enforced by the Building Department as new projects are proposed or
completed, or existing housing is upgraded to current standards.
The City does not have a systematic code enforcement program.
Existing units are inspected only when complaints are received by
the City. If code violations are discovered, owners are only
required to make improvements which bring the property up to
minimum code requirements. Because the City has not adopted more
stringent standards, the enforcement of the UBC does not pose a
significant constraint to the production or improvement of housing
in Dublin.
28
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The provision of on-site improvements is a standard condition of
all new development in Dublin. These improvements usually include
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, drainage, water,
sewer, power and communications utilities. In some cases, off-site
improvements may be required (e.g., drainage or flood control,
street widening, etc.). These requirements are not excessive and
are comparable to provisions in neighboring cities.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
One often cited constraint is the high cost of development fees and
permits. These include fees for planning services, building
permits, sewer and water hookups and park land dedication.
Development fees raise housing costs diminishing the pool of
possible buyers for any given project.
Though fees act to reduce the rate of residential development, they
are an essential means of funding necessary services for new
development. Given the choice made by Californians in 1978 when
Proposition 13 passed, Dublin (like other jurisdictions) has no
practical alternative resources with which to fund basic
improvements to serve new residences.
Planning Fees and Processing Time
Planning Department fees for major projects (e.g., rezonings,
planned development projects and subdivisions) are on a fee for
service basis. The applicant submits a deposit with the City and
pays the actual costs for processing the project. For smaller
projects the fees vary from $25 for a variance in an R-1 District
to $350 for refiling a previously approved subdivision map.
Processing time for planning applications vary depending upon the
completeness of the application the complexity of the request and
various State and local processing requirements. For example,
recent zone change applications have gone to public hearing within
about one month after submittals were found to be complete.
Allowing two additional months for City Council hearings and the
30-day effective period, the estimated overall processing of a zone
change would be three months from the time that the application
submittal was completed. Recent conditional use permit
applications have gone to public hearings within about five weeks
after the submittals were found to be complete. Recent variance
and subdivision applications have gone to public hearing within an
average of two months after the submittals were found complete.
Program II.B. would reduce application fees for senior projects and
developments providing 10% or more units affordable for very low,
low and moderate income households (refer to the Goals, Quantified
Objectives, Policies and Housing Programs Section).
29
� n
Building Fees and Processing Time
The current building permit fees for residential uses are
$56.50/sq. ft. of living area plus $15/sq. ft. for the garage. For
example, a new home costing $137,000 would have a building permit
and plan check fee of $1,164. The processing time for building
permits varies depending upon the quality of the plans submitted by
the applicant.
Other Fees
Engineering fees are charged on a time and material basis, similar
to other cities in the area. Park dedication requirements are
based upon .011 acres/unit for single family subdivisions and .009
acres/unit for multi-family subdivisions. In-lieu fees are
calculated by multiplying the acreage requirement by the value of
the undeveloped land.
PROCESSING TIME AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
Depending on the complexity and magnitude of the development
proposal, the time which elapses from application submittal to
project approval may vary considerably. Examples of factors which
affect the duration of development review are whether the land to
be developed requires annexation or rezoning or whether a Negative
Declaration, rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), is
sufficient.
Generally, all developments undergo an environmental review and
design review to ensure the continuity of design throughout the
City. This process can take anywhere between six weeks for a small
design review application, up to six months or longer for a
subdivision application requiring and Environmental Impact Report.
Fees for processing development proposals can be significant and
combined with long processing time can add to the cost of housing.
Dublin has made every effort to minimize processing times and fees.
Program II. A. would provide priority processing for senior
projects and developments providing 10% or more units affordable
for very low, low and moderate income households (refer to Goals,
Quantified Objectives, Policies and Housing Programs Section).
30
n
6.1.5 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS [65583(a)(5)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
While local government actions can have a significant effect on the
production of housing, there are several market related factors,
acting independently and beyond a local government's immediate
control, which may pose barriers to housing production.
The inventory of non-governmental constraints can be separated into
two groups: those that increase housing cost to the consumer and
those factors that reduce or slow down housing development. In the
first category are financing, land prices and construction costs.
In the second category are community opposition to high density
housing, possible lack of infrastructure capacity and competition
of different land uses for undeveloped land.
AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
The cost of borrowing money to finance the construction of housing
or to purchase a home can have a large impact on the amount of
affordable priced housing produced and subsequently purchased in a
community. Fluctuating interest rates can eliminate many potential
home buyers from the housing market or render infeasible a housing
project which, at lower interest rates, could have been
successfully marketed. Rental housing costs are also affected by
higher interest rates, since the owner will pass added costs
directly to the tenant in the form of higher contract rents.
Financing is generally available in Dublin. There are no mortgage
deficient areas in Dublin.
Interest rates are not significantly different than other areas in
Northern California. Current prevailing interest rates for a
conventional single-family mortgage are about 10% to 11%, assuming
a 30-year fixed rate loan with an 80% loan to value ratio. These
rates represent a noticeable decline from the mid-1984 rates of 13%
to 14% for comparable loans.
PRICE OF LAND
The cost of land is one housing constraint where local government
actions and market forces are closely related. Land prices in
Dublin depend on a number of factors, including: the allowable
density and type of residential development suitable for the
property, the proximity to the freeway and commercial developments,
and the quality of nearby existing development. Because the City
is relatively built out, there is not an abundant supply of
undeveloped land, a factor which pushes up prices further.
31
n
COST OF CONSTRUCTION
An ongoing survey of construction costs in the San Francisco Bay
Area conducted by the Bank of America reveals that materials and
labor costs are continually increasing. In July 1983, the per
square foot construction cost of a typical, three-bedroom/two-bath,
standard quality, single-family home was $46.73. By July 1987, the
per square foot construction cost of an identical home had risen to
$53.67, an almost 15% increase in four years (Bank of America,
1987).
COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING
Two multi-family residential projects proposed in Dublin were
delayed and finally were approved at reduced densities as a
consequence of opposition of nearby residents to multi-family
dwellings at high densities. Community concerns that have been
raised centered 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 developers. However, despite density
reductions resulting from community sentiment, medium-high density
has been approved in Dublin since 1985.
POSSIBLE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
The most prominent public facilities issue faced in Dublin and
other Tri-Valley cities is limited sewer capacity (refer to the
Dublin General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, Section 4.3).
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 Water
Management Agency (LAVWMA). DSRSD owns and operates its own sewage
treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipeline used by
member jurisdictions, DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and
Livermore.
DSRSD's treatment plant can be expanded to four times its present
size, but the LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated effluent through
Dublin Canyon to the Bay is nearing capacity. Development of
additional LAVWMA capacity in the form of another pipeline in the
Valley would require Valley-wide voter approval.
Thus, the capacity of existing sewerage facilities is a potential
constraint to the growth of both East Dublin and West Dublin.
Infrastructure costs for West Dublin will also be relatively high
due to the required construction of on and off ramps from I 580 at
Schaffer Canyon. Other potential long term constraints include
solid waste and water supply and distribution (ABAG).
32
The analysis of capital/infrastructure costs for the East Dublin
planning alternatives found that the magnitude of the capital cost
load estimated would not be totally insupportable, but it would be
among the highest for recent Bay Area development (Wallace, Roberts
& Todd, East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Studies,
1990). This is due largely to the limited sewer capacity, the
required improvements to Interstate 580, and the fact that
infrastructure is currently not available to the area.
Consequently, absorption rates in East Dublin may be slowed by this
cost disadvantage.
COMPETITION AMONG LAND USES
Closely related to the limited availability of land in Dublin is
the tension between competing uses for what limited undeveloped
land does exist. For example, in deciding on General Plan
designations for the Fallon School site, the need for housing was
weighed against the growing need for recreation facilities as the
city's population grows. The resulting plan devotes a portion of
the site to park land while designating the remaining acreage for
residential development.
CONCLUSION
With a total of 2,645 housing units constructed between January
1985 and January 1990 (approximately 37% of Dublin's existing
housing stock), it becomes clear that, overall, neither
governmental nor non-governmental constraints are impeding the
total number of housing units which are being produced.
Furthermore, since the City's development fees and exactions are
comparable to surrounding jurisdictions, governmental constraints
do not appear to be unreasonably increasing housing costs. The
problem has been the high cost of housing caused primarily by non-
governmental constraints which have resulted in limited housing
available for low and moderate income households.
33
n
6.1.6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS [65583(a)(6)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(6) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis of any special housing needs, including
those of the following population groups:
Handicapped
Elderly
Large families
Farm workers
Families with female heads of households
Families and persons in need of emergency shelter
HANDICAPPED PERSONS
The Valleys Corridor Project which was prepared by United Way of
the Bay Area in 1982 reports the number of persons in Dublin and
the Valley corridor with major disabling conditions (United Way of
the Bay Area, 1982). The two categories likely to include the
greatest portion of people with special housing needs are "Amputees
and Others" and Other Physical Disorders" which total 803, or 5.9%
of Dublin's 1980 population.
This figure can be compared with the 1980 Census counts of those
with work place and public transportation disabilities, totaling
722, or 5.3% of Dublin's residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). The
figure double counts an unknown number of people who have both work
place and public transportation disabilities.
In sum, 5% represents the high end of an estimated portion of
Dublin's households with special housing needs related to disabling
conditions. Applying this percentage to the estimated 1990
population results in an estimated 1,275 handicapped persons in
Dublin. Applying the percentages of renters to owners in Dublin's
population, results in an estimated 306 handicap persons renting
and 969 handicap persons owning.
The special housing needs of the disabled population are accessible
housing units, housing within convenient access of services, and
special design features to mitigate the disability. State law
requires handicap provisions in all rental apartment units. All
recent construction of apartment units has incorporated these
provisions.
ELDERLY PERSONS
The 1980 Census reported 429 Dublin residents over age 62,
representing 3.2% of the City's population, considerably below the
Bay Area total of 12.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). Applying the
1980 percentage to the 1990 population would result in 816
residents over age 62. Applying the percentages of renters to
owners in Dublin's population, results in an estimated 196 elderly
persons renting and 620 elderly persons owning.
34
r1
Unfortunately, data is not available which indicates the portion of
Dublin's elderly households that are overpaying. The generally low
incidence of overcrowded and unsafe housing units in the city
suggests that these are not problems for the elderly or other
groups with special housing needs.
Access to services is another concern for the elderly. The
shopping opportunities in Dublin's relatively compact downtown are
attractive to those with mobility problems, but may be offset by
delays associated with bus transit.
Low and moderate income elderly households have greater
opportunities to find subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley area
than do families. This is probably attributable to the relative
ease of gaining acceptance for affordable housing when it is
provided for seniors instead of families with children. Five of
the Tri Valley's ten subsidized housing complexes are for elderly
and disabled households only.
Recent studies have shown that seniors are living longer and as
they age require some form of assisted living care when they are no
longer able to, or wish to, live independently. To address these
needs, housing for seniors is changing and more congregate living
facilities are needed. Senior housing facilities and shared
housing are discussed in more detail in the housing program
section.
LARGE FAMILIES
A family with five or more persons is considered a large family.
The 1980 Census reported a total of 746 large families, 19% of the
total number of families in Dublin (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980).
Applying this percentage to the 1990 population results in an
estimated 4,845 large families in Dublin. Applying the percentages
of renters to owners in Dublin's population, results in an
estimated 1,163 large families renting and 3,682 large families
owning.
Though data is not available that relates family size to ability to
pay, the frequency of large families living in unsuitable housing
units would presumably be evident by a high incidence of
overcrowding. Since overcrowding is reported to occur in less than
3% (188 units) of Dublin's housing units, it appears that large
families are not facing severe housing problems in the city.
FARMWORKERS
State law requires analysis of the special needs of Farm workers.
Dublin does not contain any land which is currently used for
agricultural purposes, other than some land used for grazing in
East Dublin and West Dublin. To the best of our knowledge, there
are virtually no Farm workers in Dublin who require special housing
assistance.
35
FAMILIES WITH FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
The 1980 Census reported 222 female headed households with children
present, 5.3% of the City's population (U. S. Census Bureau, 1980),
as compared with almost 10% reported for the Bay Area. The number
of female headed households with children living below poverty was
22, 0.6% of all Dublin households. The corresponding figure for
the Bay Area was 44,061, or 2.2% of all households. Applying the
1980 percentages to the estimated 1990 population in Dublin, there
would be 1,352 single parent female headed households and the
number of female headed households with children living below
poverty would be 43.
FAMILIES AND PERSONS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTER
State legislation (AB 2579) enacted September 30, 1984 requires,
among other provisions, local governments to assess in the housing
element the need for temporary or emergency shelter in their
community (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(6). Effective
January 1, 1988, housing elements are required to identify
"adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards and with public services and
facilities needed to facilitate the development of ... emergency
shelters and transitional housing" (Government Code Section 65583
(c)(1).
Homebase, a regional support center for homeless policy and
programs, reported approximately 6,000 homeless persons in Alameda
County in 1989. It also reported 535 shelter beds which represents
a ratio of 11 homeless persons for each shelter bed (this does not
include vouchers to house people on an emergency basis in low-rent
hotels). The ratio for the Bay Area is 15 homeless persons for
each shelter bed (Homebase, 1989).
A survey of emergency shelter providers in the Tri-Valley area
(including a conversation with Reverend Earl Heverly of the Good
Samaritan Committee in Dublin which issues emergency shelter
vouchers) revealed that in 1989 a total of 92 individuals from
Dublin spent 756 bed nights in emergency shelters in the Tri-Valley
area. Below is a summary of number of beds available, the number
of persons from Dublin that were provided with shelter and the
costs of providing shelter.
36
No. No. No. Bed Cost Per
Program Beds Persons Nights Bed Night Total
Tri-Valley Haven 30 11 217 $44 . 85 $9, 732
for Women
Sheperd' s Gate 16 15 180 $37 . 47 $6 , 745
Family Crisis
Center for Men 6 0 0 $10 . 00 0
Family Crisis 15 11 237 $15 . 37 $3, 643
Center for
Families
Emergency Shelter 44 4 71 $32 . 00 $2 ,272
Good Samaritan
Committee Motel/
Hotel Vouchers 0 51** 51 $33 . 50 $1, 709
Total 111 92 756 $31 . 88* $24 , 101
* Average cost per night bed (all providers ) .
** Reverend Heverly estimates 60% of these persons were
transients .
According to the Dublin Police Department, Dublin does not have a
permanent population of homeless persons living outside of shelters
similar to the situations in larger cities in Alameda County. When
the Police Department was contacted in February 1990, they
indicated that there are currently no known homeless persons living
in Dublin (Clouse, 1990 ) . The homeless are usually either
individuals from Dublin who normally have homes and jobs but lose
their homes due to financial reasons or family stress, or are
transients passing through Dublin to large urban centers to the
west. Homeless persons are directed to emergency shelters or are
offered hotel vouchers for a hotel in Pleasanton. Locations where
homeless persons have stayed include under the overpass between
Clark Avenue and Sierra Court and in cars parked in the rear of
parking lots .
Due to the low numbers of homeless persons in Dublin, it is
generally felt that there are adequate number of existing programs
in the Tri-Valley area to adequately accommodate existing needs .
However, residents from Dublin and a small percentage of transients
did cost emergency shelter providers $24 , 101 in 1989 . The City
will consider supporting the existing programs to the extent of its
resident ' s needs by purchasing bed spaces and/or providing
financial assistance (refer to Program II .E. in the Goals,
Quantified Objectives, Policies and Housing Program Section) .
37
� n
Other potential means of providing support would be to 1) provide
financial assistance to the existing motel voucher system
administered by the Valley Christian Center, and 2) providing
funding and/or personnel support to encourage churches in Dublin to
provide winter relief to homeless persons in the form of food and
shelter (refer to the Housing Program Section). In addition, the
City will consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency
shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use
(refer to Program I.F. in the Goals, Quantified Objectives,
Policies and Housing Programs Section).
38
6.1.7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION [65583(a)(7)]
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis of opportunities for energy
conservation with respect to residential development.
Rapidly rising energy costs over the past decade have focused
attention on the patterns of energy consumption and the
opportunities for energy conservation in all sectors of society.
Residential-related energy use is one area where opportunities for
modifying energy consumption exist. Once considered an
insignificant factor of housing costs, the energy needed to fuel
residential heating and cooling systems and household appliances is
consuming and increasing share of a household's income devoted to
housing expenses.
Recognizing the potential for saving through energy conservation
techniques, the California Energy Commission developed standards
for new residential construction and additions to existing
dwellings. These regulations are contained in Title 24 (State
Building Standards Code) of the California Code of Regulations.
The City of Dublin currently enforces the State Energy Conservation
Standards. In addition to the Mandatory Features and Devices which
all new construction must include, the regulations establish
minimum levels of wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, maximum
glazing area, minimum glazing U-values (e.g., single, double, or
triple glazing), and minimum space conditioning and water heating
system efficiencies. Credit for thermal mass, shading,
infiltration control, and solar space and water heating is also
considered.
It is in approving site plans and subdivision maps that the City
can assure that new developments will have energy efficient
designs. Prior to project approval, the City requires developers
to demonstrate that solar orientation and access has been a
consideration in site design.
39
6.2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE TO NON-LOW-
INCOME HOUSING USES (Government Code Section 65583(a)(8))
Government Code Section 65583(a)(8) enacted in 1989 (SB 1282)
requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of existing
housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low-income
housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions.
The Housing Element must identify all federal, state and local
subsidized housing in the city, note when the subsidies expire and
determine the cost of replacing that housing.
In the 1960's, the federal government provided low-interest loans
and rent subsidies through various programs administered by the
federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the
Farmers Home Administration (FHA). In return, private
developers/owners agreed to build or operate rental projects which
were protected by 40-year low income use restrictions. In order to
stimulate private participation, the owners were given the option
to terminate their contracts prior to the loan maturity dates. As
owners exercise their options, the units may be sold or converted
to market-rate units. In many cases the tenants are displaced and
the inventory available to lower-income rental units declines.
SUBSIDIZED DEVELOPMENTS
There are two federally subsidized low income projects in Dublin.
Arroyo Vista is also a federally funded low income project located
at 6700 Dougherty Road, Dublin, CA 94568. The subsidy terminates
40 years after the permanent financing was issued on the project
(i.e., in the year 2003). Thus, Arroyo Vista is not at risk to
convert to non-low income housing uses during the next ten year
period.
The Springs Apartments complex is located at 7100 San Ramon Road,
Dublin, California 94568. The Springs was constructed with 20-80
tax exempt bond financing in 1981. The Springs complex includes
176 total units including 36 Section 8 units. The 36 Section 8
units are occupied by 18 families and 18 elderly households. The
Section 8 units include 7 one bedroom units and 29 two bedroom
units (Giordano, 1990).
The earliest date of Section 8 subsidy termination for the Springs
is September 25, 1991. If the owner does not choose to opt out of
the Section 8 contract in 1991, he or she may renew it in five year
intervals for a total of ten additional years (California Coalition
of Rural Housing Projects, 1989) or HUD could issue Section 8
Certificates to the Alameda County Housing Authority. The Dublin
Housing Authority does not have a Section 8 program (Basgal, 1990).
The City will work with the property owner and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to encourage the parties to
negotiate a contract renewal. However, in the event that the
property owner decides to opt out of the Section 8 contract, the
City will work with a non-profit entity (such as the Volunteers of
40
America, BRIDGE or Eden Housing) to consider acquiring the Springs
Apartments and provide equivalent rent subsidies.
The Volunteers of America, BRIDGE and Eden Housing have expressed
interest in providing low income housing in Dublin. Eden Housing
and Bridge possess the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and
manage a project such as the Springs. Eden Housing has been in
operation since 1963. BRIDGE has been in operation since 1983.
There is no redevelopment agency in the City of Dublin. Neither
the Dublin Housing Authority nor the Alameda County Housing
Authority have any administrative fees (reserves) available for
funding new programs within the City of Dublin (Dross, 1990).
In addition to federally subsidized units, State law (Government
Code Section 65583 (a)(8) requires the City to identify and gather
information on any projects developed with assistance from any of
the following programs, and which are subject to low-income use
restrictions which could be terminated within the next ten years:
- FmHA Sec. 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans
- HUD Community Development Block Grant Program
- State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond programs,
- redevelopment programs
- local in-lieu fees,
and units that were developed pursuant to:
- a local inclusionary housing program
- Government Code Section 65916, a density bonus project which
has direct financial assistance and affordability controls.
However, there are no existing housing units within the City which
were developed with assistance from any of the above-referenced
programs.
COST OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING
Eden Housing recently built Ridge View Commons, a 200 unit
subsidized multi-family project in the City of Pleasanton. The
total construction cost was approximately $75,000/unit (Truesdale,
1990). Assuming similar construction and land costs in Dublin, 36
new rental units would cost approximately $2,700,000. The
estimated cost of preserving (i.e., providing rent subsidies from
funding source(s) other than Section 8) of the 36 units over a four
year period (1991 through 1995) is approximately $640,000. This
estimate is based upon an average monthly rent subsidy of $370/unit
(Giordano, 1990). Preservation of the 36 Section 8 units until the
year 1995 would provide time for new replacement housing to be
constructed (e.g., through implementation of the programs to
provide new units for very low and low income households, such as
the inclusionary housing program).
41
n
6.3 GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES [65583(b)] AND HOUSING
PROGRAM [65583(c)]
Government Code Section 65583(b) requires that the Housing Element
include a statement of Dublin's goals, quantified objectives, and
policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement and
development of housing. The quantified objectives should establish
the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over the five-year planning period.
State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified may
exceed available resources and the City's ability to satisfy this
need within the General Plan. Under these circumstances, the
quantified objectives need not be identical to the identified
existing housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of
housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over a five-year time frame.
Government Code Section 65583(c) requires that the Housing Element
include a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions
to implement the housing goals, objectives and policies through the
administration of land use and development controls, provision of
regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of
appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when
available and the utilization of moneys in a low and moderate
income housing fund of an agency which has established a
redevelopment project area pursuant to community redevelopment law.
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, the program must do all of the
following:
1. Identify the agencies and officials responsible for the
implementation of the various actions and the means by which
consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements
and community goals;
2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through
appropriate zoning and development standards and with public
services and facilities needed to meet the needs of all income
levels; including rental housing, factory-built housing,
mobile homes, emergency shelters and transitional housing;
3. Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate-income households;
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing;
5. Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock; and
6. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin
or color.
42
n
In addition, SB 1282 requires the Housing Element to address
whether a program to preserve subsidized housing for lower income
households is feasible. However, a provision of current law
specifically provides that local governments are not required to
allocate funds to subsidize housing for low income persons
(Government Code Section 65589). Therefore, the implementation
program should identify use of redevelopment programs, and federal
and state grants and loans for development and preservation of low
income housing.
This section outlines Dublin's housing programs over the next five
year period. Programs are linked with goals and policies as well
as the identified housing needs which they address. For
appropriate programs, quantified objectives over the next five year
term (into 1995) are stated. Programs are also linked with
potential funding sources, and those agencies or City officials
responsible for implementation.
HOUSING OBJECTIVES
The objectives for the City's housing programs are both qualitative
and quantitative. Quantitative objectives, where applicable, are
identified for each program both under "Housing Program
Description". Quantitative objectives are related to the overall
quantitative targets identified for the City and the region in
ABAG's Housing Needs Determinations report.
Below is a summary of the City's housing needs during the five year
planning period (ABAG).
Number of Units
Needed for 1990 - 1995
Very Low 678
Low 475
Moderate 499
Above Moderate 819
Total Projected Need 2,471
The total number of projected units within the existing city limits
in the five year planning period is 1,905, as summarized below.
Multi- Single
Family Family Total
Vacant Sites 95 107 202
Projects Under Construction 436 210 646
Redevelopment Sites (Downtown) 200 0 200
Extended Planning Area 475 372-382 847-857
Total Units 1,206 689-699 1,895-1,905
43
n
Thus, the total projected unmet demand during the five year
planning period is approximately 566 units. However, after 1995,
proposed developments in East Dublin and West Dublin would supply
adequate total numbers of units to meet the demand.
Unmet needs during the five year planning period are expected to be
concentrated in the low and very low income categories. In 1988
and 1989, 24% of the units produced in Dublin were affordable to
moderate income families and the remaining 76% were affordable only
to above moderate income households (Planning Department, 1990).
Applying these percentages to the projected number of units during
the planning period results in the following number of projected
new units and projected unmet needs:
Housing Projected
Projected Needs Unmet Quantified
Units (ABAG) Needs Objectives* Programs
Very low -0- 678 -678 285 IB/ID/IIIH
Low -0- 475 -475 170 ID/IIIA/IIID/IIIF
Moderate 457 499 - 42 570 IA/IIIA/IIIB/IIIC/
IIID/IIIF
Above Mod 1,448 819 +629 880 IIIA
1,905 2,471 -566 1,905
In addition to the quantified objectives for new housing units,
there are objectives for housing rehabilitation and preservation.
The quantified objective for Alameda County's Minor Home Repair
and Housing Rehabilitation Programs is 25 units (refer to Program
(III.M.) There is also a quantified objective to preserve the 36
existing Section 8 units at The Springs Apartments.
Thus, given the recent housing production in Dublin and the
projected number of units, the housing need of the very low, low
and above moderate income families are not expected to be met
during the five-year planning period. For example, even if 90
units affordable to very low and low income families were
constructed at Arroyo Vista, a total of 1,063 units would be needed
to satisfy the housing needs of these income categories. Thus, the
programs emphasize housing assistance to very low and low income
families.
HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING SOURCES
State law recognizes the various realistic limitations which keep
housing needs from being met. These include the limitations of
private market-driven housing development, environmental
limitations on land use, and a lack of adequate federal and state
funding for housing assistance programs.
Housing program funding is a key factor for many of the programs
outlined in this section. The City must be realistic in setting
numerical objectives for programs which require funding. Thus, the
44
n n
program objectives set forth below are subject to available
funding, and are set at a realistic level based on expectations of
non-guaranteed funding.
Below is a discussion of potential program funding sources. This
is not intended as an exclusive listing of funding. Other sources,
as they may become available, will be pursued by the City.
A. City General Fund - Can be applied at the City's discretion to
any program. The amount of funds available which are not
already obligated to other City services and operations will
be limited.
B. City Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) Funds - Annual
allocation expected to be approximately $40,000, depending on
the continuation of this federal program.
C. Urban County CDBG Operational Funds - As long as the City is a
"non-entitlement City", the City's participation under the
County's "Urban County" CDBG program should continue. This
affiliation provides a percentage of funding for the Alameda
County Housing and Community Development's operation of a
variety of programs available to apply within the City.
D. Dublin Housing Authority Operational Funds - The Dublin
Housing Authority receives no funds from anyone to operate the
Arroyo Vista project. Operating expenses are paid for from
operating income. The federal government paid for the
construction of the project only.
E. Special Federal/State Project Funding - The federal and state
governments provide funds for a variety of specified programs.
Some are on a continuing basis. For example, federal funds
for Section 8 certificates or housing vouchers are provided by
HUD to local housing authorities. Some are limited, one-time
grants for specific purposes. Examples of the latter are
State Propositions 77 and 84, which through sale of State
bonds will generate one-time funds which can be applied to
owner-occupied or rental rehabilitation (Proposition 77), or
for new construction, emergency shelters, or limited
rehabilitation (Proposition 84).
F. Lending Institution Housing Funds - Private lending
institutions in California have created various funds ear-
marked for affordable housing. These include SAMCO (Savings
Association Mortgage Co.), a savings and loan institutional
fund; CCRC (California Community Reinvestment Corp.), a bank
fund; and a fund created through FIRREA, the federal savings
and loan "bail-out" program. the money available through
these funds is required to be spent in a way to lower the
finance costs of housing production or rehabilitation. and
therefore increase affordability. It cannot be spent for
administration or for support services related to housing.
Money will also be allocated only on a project-by-project
basis, and therefore cannot be guaranteed for programs.
45
n
HOUSING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The following describes a range of housing programs to be
implemented by the City of Dublin. Several of the programs will be
accomplished through adoption of new regulations. Others require
additional City action for implementation. Still others assume
ongoing City efforts based on existing programs.
I. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF NEW REGULATIONS
A. Adopt an ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of
those called for by state law (e.g., a 30% bonus for 20%
of the units set aside for lower-income/senior citizen
households). The State legislature recently adopted AB
1863 which amends the density bonus law (Government Code
Section 65915). The bill requires cities to grant a
density bonus of at least 25 percent, and an additional
incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a
developer of a housing development agreeing to construct
at least 1) 20% of the units for lower-income households;
or 2) 10% of the units for very low-income households; or
3) 50% of the units for senior citizens.
Policy Objective: Provide incentives for affordable
units
Quantified Objective: 100 units affordable to moderate
income households
Actions to be
Undertaken: Adopt ordinance; inform developers of
density bonuses; and require
developers who are granted a density
bonus to enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement with the City to
ensure the continued affordability of
the units
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1991 (adopt ordinance)
B. Adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring a
minimum percentage (e.g., 10%) of low and moderate income
housing in new developments with 20 or more units. Such
an ordinance could include:
- income-eligibility criteria for defining
affordability;
- pricing criteria for affordable units;
46
r'1 n
- restrictions on resale and re-rental of affordable
units;
- provisions for in-lieu fees;
other provisions regarding on-site or off-site
construction requirements and transfer of excess
affordable housing credits;
- time limit within which any in-lieu fees must be
spent; and
- incentives, such as fee waivers, priority processing
and reduced site design standards.
Any in lieu fees collected under the program will go into
an exclusive fund to be spent directly on creating new
affordable housing opportunities in Dublin (i.e., fees
could be paid to the City in lieu of the direct provision
of affordable units). Such in-lieu fees usually are
required to be spent within a limited time frame (e.g.,
three years) and could be used for landbank, rent
writedowns, etc.
Policy Objective: Require the development of lower
income housing
Quantified Objective: 190 units (affordable to low and
very low income households)
Actions to be
Undertaken: Adopt an inclusionary ordinance
Financing: Minor administrative cost (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time frame: 1991 (adopt ordinance)
C. Review development standards to determine whether changes
should be made to reduce development costs. The Joint
Venture for Affordable Housing (JVAH) provides technical
assistance to local governments interested in modifying
development standards to encourage the construction of
affordable housing. Site planning and building
innovations can cut the costs of housing construction.
Changes in site design which result in higher densities
or reduced parking requirements can significantly reduce
construction costs. Caution must be taken to avoid
increasing liability.
Policy Objective: Modify development standards to
encourage the construction of
affordable housing
47
r1 �1
Actions to be
Undertaken: Contact JVAH to obtain information on
design and land use techniques to
reduce development costs; and review
City codes for unnecessary or costly
requirements which contribute to
construction costs
Financing: Minor administrative cost (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time frame: 1992 (adopt any necessary changes to
City regulations)
D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and
sites with low intensity land uses to build housing. Air
rights projects have no land costs, and because land is a
major cost of housing development, air rights projects
can be significantly less expensive. However, additional
design and construction costs may reduce some of the cost
savings.
Policy Objective: Provide affordable housing through
reduced land costs
Actions to be
Undertaken: Initiate a study to determine the
feasibility of using air rights
downtown (as encouraged by the
Downtown Specific Plan) and/or above
public parking lots; amend the Zoning
Ordinance and rezone the sites, if
necessary to allow use of air rights
for housing
Financing: Minor administrative cost (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: 1992 (complete study)
E. Encourage higher density residential development near the
proposed Dublin BART station. Higher densities can
improve the affordability of housing because per unit
land costs are lower and construction can be performed
more efficiently. Density increases near employment
centers and transit nodes can also help to reduce traffic
congestion.
48
n
Policy Objective: Improve housing affordability with
higher densities near BART
Actions to be
Undertaken: Initiate a study to determine the
feasibility of increasing densities
near the proposed BART station;
rezone surrounding properties, if
appropriate
Financing: Minor administrative cost
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: 1992 (complete study); 1993
(rezonings)
F. Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing
emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a
conditional use. To ensure that the regulatory process
does not discourage the development of, or conversion to,
or use of an emergency shelter for homeless persons, the
Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow emergency
shelters in multi-family zoning districts with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Policy Objective: Allow emergency shelter for the
homeless
Actions to be
Undertaken: Adopt amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Financing: Minor Administrative Cost to the City
(A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1992 (adopt ordinance)
II. STRATEGIES REQUIRING OTHER CITY ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION
A. Provide priority processing for senior housing projects
and developments providing 10% or more units affordable
for very low, low and moderate income households.
Developers estimate that every month required for
processing adds at least 1% to 2% to the overall project
cost (Local Housing Element Assistance Project, 1989).
49
n n
Policy Objective: Simplify and coordinate the means of
obtaining project approvals for
senior projects and those with below
market rate units
Actions to be
Undertaken: Review senior housing projects and
developments with units affordable
for very low, low and moderate income
households in advance of other
pending applications; give applicants
for these projects the opportunity to
meet informally with City staff to
present proposals and get early
feedback before submitting formal
applications
Financing: Minor administrative cost (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: Ongoing implementation
B. Reduce application fees for senior housing projects and
developments providing 10% or more units affordable for
very low, low and moderate income households. To
encourage the use of fee waivers, a policy should be
adopted stating the City's willingness and procedures for
waiving fees. This would provide the City with an
opportunity to encourage the inclusion of affordable
housing in new developments.
Policy Objective: Use fee waivers to encourage the
development of affordable housing
Actions to be
Undertaken: Review all planning fees and
determine which can be waived
Financing: Minor administrative cost (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time frame: 1992 (complete study)
C. Encourage shared living arrangements. Shared living
occurs when people live together for social contact,
mutual support and assistance, and/or to reduce housing
expenses. State law requires that small shared living
facilities (serving six or fewer persons) be permitted in
all single family and multi-family districts.
50
n n
Policy Objective: Encourage reduction of housing
expenses through shared living
arrangements
Actions to be
Undertaken: Work with ECHO and/or the Alameda
County Department of Housing and
Community Development to establish a
County-wide shared housing referral
and placement program primarily for
low-income residents. Outreach could
be conducted through the senior
center, libraries, City Hall and the
media.
Financing: Minor administrative cost; and CDBG
funds (A, B and C)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: 1992 (implement referral and
replacement program
D. Work with the owner of The Springs and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties
to negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if
necessary, work with a non-profit entity to consider the
acquisition of the project and maintain the rent
subsidies. Government Code Section 65583(a)(8) enacted
in 1989 requires that the Housing Element include an
analysis of existing housing developments that are
eligible to change to non low-income housing uses during
the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy
contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use
restrictions (refer to Section 6.2 of the Housing
Element).
Policy Objective: Preserve low income housing
Quantified
Objective: 36 units (very low and low)
Actions to be
Undertaken: Contact owner of The Springs to
discuss options and encourage renewal
of the contract; if the owner opts
out of the contract, work with a non-
profit entity to acquire The Springs
Apartments and provide equivalent
rent subsidies.
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
51
r1 i'1
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1990
E. Fund existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri-
Valley area to house citizens in need of emergency
shelter. Ninety-two people who were either residents of
Dublin or transients, spent 756 bed nights in Tri-Valley
emergency shelters in 1989 (survey by City of Dublin).
The services cost those shelters and the citizens of
Alameda County $24,100. Support of these shelters by
Dublin will be necessary to defray these costs.
Policy Objectives: Support existing emergency shelter
programs in the Tri-Valley area.
Actions to be
Undertaken: 1. Review all Federal and State
funding sources (such as the McKinney
Program and the Emergency Shelter
Program - AB 2579) and apply for
necessary funding.
2. Consider providing financial
assistance to the existing motel
voucher system administered by the
Good Samaritan Committee.
3. Consider providing funding
and/or personnel support to encourage
churches in Dublin to provide winter
relief to homeless persons in the
form of food and shelter.
Financing: Federal, State, local and private
funds (A, B, C and E)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time Frame: 1991
III. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ONGOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING
PROGRAMS
A. Annex and rezone additional land for residential use.
The inventory of land suitable for residential
development (Section 6.1.3) includes two areas within the
extended planning area (East Dublin and West Dublin)
which the City is currently considering annexing and
52
n
rezoning for residential development. These areas are
currently zoned for agricultural use and are designated
for residential/open space use in the General Plan. The
proposed zoning densities for these annexation areas have
not been determined.
Policy Objective: Increase total number of units
produced in Dublin by providing
additional sites for residential use
Quantified Objective: 350 units (affordable to low,
moderate and above moderate
households)
Action Undertaken: Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
and General Plan Amendment Studies
currently being prepared for both
areas
Actions Needed: Annexation of areas into City and
adoption of General Plan Amendments,
rezonings, specific plans and site
development reviews
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City
Council
Time Frame: 1992 (Annexation may be completed)
1993 (specific plans and site
development reviews may be completed)
B. Treat one-bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75%
of a housing unit when computing allowable density,
provided that the maximum number of units permitted on a
site shall not be increased by more than 25%.
Policy Objective: Avoid unintentional incentive to
build large units; increase
profitability of small lower cost
units; and provide additional
incentives to encourage low and
moderate income housing
Quantified
Objective: 100 units (affordable to moderate
income households)
Action Undertaken: Flexible definition included in
General Plan
Action Needed: Continue to inform developers that
this policy is available.
53
n /1
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: Ongoing implementation
C. Encourage residential development in the Downtown
Intensification Area.
Policy Objective: Increase units produced in Dublin;
increase sites appropriate for
affordable housing and accessible to
downtown.
Quantified Objective: 200 units (affordable to
moderate income households)
Action Undertaken: On July 21, 1987 the City Council
adopted the Downtown Specific Plan
which allows for residential uses
(i.e., with approval of a use permit)
in most of the downtown area.
Actions Needed: Contact residential developers to
encourage joint venture projects with
commercial developers; and grant
additional incentives such as reduced
site design standards, priority
processing and fee reductions
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: 1991 (adopt additional incentives)
and 1992 (contact developers)
D. Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add
Affordable Housing to 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 portion 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.
54
(-1 /'1
Policy Objective: Encourage development of affordable
housing by private organizations not
primarily engaged in housing
construction or management
Quantified
Objective: 90 units (affordable to low and
moderate income households)
Action Undertaken: Inclusion of "Semi-public use"
definition in the General Plan that
allows housing
Actions to be
Undertaken: Contact owners of semi-public
property to inform them of this
policy; and grant additional
incentives such as reduced site
design standards, priority processing
and fee reductions
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementing
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: 1991 (adopt incentives) and 1992
(contact owners)
E. Require a percentage of units in large multi-family
projects (i.e., projects with more than 10 units) be
rented for a specified period of time. The difficulties
of first-time home buying make rental units the only
affordable housing for many moderate income households
that do not have the assets to make a down-payment on a
home. Other households may chose to rent for other
reasons.
Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units
in Dublin
Action Needed: Require that a minimum of 10% of the
units in large multi-family projects
be maintained as rental units for a
period of five years.
Financing: No cost to City
55
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning
Commission and City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing implementation
F. Encourage development of second units in existing single
family homes. 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. However,
during the past five years, there have been only four
requests for second units (all four requests were
approved).
Policy Objective: Encourage efficient use of existing
housing stock; promote development of
small units at low cost
Quantified
Objective: 50 units (affordable to low and
moderate income households)
Action Undertaken: Adoption of second unit ordinance
Actions to be
Undertaken: Consider reviewing the requirements
for approval of second units;
publicize and promote the program;
and consider implementing a program
to give City recognition to good
designs for second units
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementing
Responsibility: Planning Department and Planning
Commission
Time Frame: 1991 (review requirements) and 1992
(implement program)
G. Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop
units affordable to very low and low income households.
Private non-profit housing organizations often have
advantages in securing funds for development of housing
as well as in reducing housing cost to the consumer. In
56
eTh
the Tri-Valley area, Eden Housing has been active in
developing affordable housing, and has worked with the
cities of Livermore, Hayward, Union City and Pleasanton
as well as Alameda County. Other non-profit developers
(e.g., BRIDGE and Volunteers of America) have also been
active in the area, and may be interested in working in
Dublin.
Policy Objective: Promote development of affordable
housing in Dublin
Actions to be
Undertaken: Contact Eden Housing and other non-
profit housing providers to make them
aware of development opportunities in
Dublin; and annex and rezone land to
provide development sites within East
Dublin for this program
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: 1991 (contact providers) and 1993
(provide sites)
H. Encourage development of additional units on Housing
Authority land in Dublin. The Arroyo Vista site includes
approximately six acres of undeveloped land on two
parcels suitable for additional development. One parcel
(approximately four acres) is being considered for a
senior housing project or a low income project for
families. The other parcel contains approximately two
acres.
Policy Objective: Promote development of units
affordable to very low income
households
Quantified
Objective: 95 units (affordable to very low
income households)
Actions
Undertaken: The Dublin Housing Authority has
retained a consultant to study the
feasibility of the two projects.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Provide priority processing and
reduced application fees; change
development standards; if appropriate
57
Financing: Housing Authority fund and minor
administrative cost to City (A and D)
Implementation
Responsibility: Housing Authority and Planning
Department
Time frame: Ongoing implementation
I. Monitor Availability of Rental Housing. If deemed
necessary, consider enactment of condominium conversion
ordinance. Only one condominium conversion project has
been approved by the City. The developer did not follow
through with implementation of the project.
Policy Objective: Assist in maintaining rental stock
as housing affordable to moderate
income Dublin households
Actions to be
Undertaken: After an application for a
condominium conversion is received by
the City, evaluate the City-wide
rental vacancy rate; pass a
condominium conversion ordinance, if
necessary
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: Ongoing implementation
J. Require evidence of developer effort to receive public
financial assistance for purpose of including below
market rate units in proposed projects; and assist
developers in obtaining information on available
programs. The range of available state and federal
programs designed to increase housing affordability
varies from year to year. To insure that developers are
participating in appropriate programs when possible, the
City will require evidence that developers of multi-
family housing have investigated program availability and
are using available assistance whenever possible. To
reduce the burden on developers created by this
requirement, the City will prepare a packet of
information on available programs, including a list of
agency contact persons responsible for program
implementation. This information will be given to
developers as early as possible in the project approval
process. This requirement will apply only to developers
of projects that contain 75 or more multi-family units.
58
n
Policy Objective: Promote use of available funds and
funding mechanisms in private sector
housing development
Actions to be
Undertaken: Collect and prepare information for
developers, develop review process
for implementation
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time Frame: 1992 (information development,
ongoing implementation)
K. Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin
residents and others seeking housing in Dublin.
Operation Sentinel, a fair housing program of the Urban
Coalition established in 1971, provides fair housing
services, landlord-tenant counseling, and rental
mediation. It also seeks to educate both the real estate
industry and community citizens as well as investigate
and/or refer housing complaints. In the Tri-Valley, the
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) provides
services to victims of housing discrimination. Services
are provided to Dublin residents through the
organization's Livermore office.
Policy Objective: Support services and programs which
fight housing discrimination; direct
persons towards agencies which
provide assistance to victims of
discrimination
Actions To Be
Undertaken: Continue using a portion of the
City's CDBG funding has been used to
support ECHO
Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: 1992 (information development,
ongoing implementation)
L. Promote energy conservation. In reviewing and approving
site plans, the City can assure that new developments
will have energy efficient design.
Policy Objective: Promote energy efficiency in new
projects
59
n n
Actions to be
Undertaken: Prior to project approval, require
developers to demonstrate that solar
orientation and access have been
considered in site design
Financing: No cost to City
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: Ongoing implementation
M. Support Alameda County's Minor Home Repair and Housing
Rehabilitation Programs. A portion of the City's CDBG
funds are currently being used to support two housing
rehabilitation programs administered by the Alameda
County Department of Housing and Community Development.
Policy Objective: Provide subsidies for housing
rehabilitation
Quantified
Objective: 25 units
Actions Undertaken: In 1989, a total of $3,559 from a
total budget of $12,100 was expended
in Dublin from the Minor Home Repair
Program and $38,180 was expended from
the Housing Rehabilitation Program
Actions to be
Undertaken: Continue to use City CDBG funds to
support the rehabilitation programs
at levels similar to the past
Financing: City CDBG funds (B)
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: Ongoing implementation
60
N. Participate in the Alameda County Mortgage Credit
Certification (MCC) Program. Through the use of a MCC,
eligible first-time home buyers increase their
eligibility to qualify for a mortgage loan and reduce
their effective mortgage interest rate approximately 2
percentage points. MCC recipients may take 20% of their
annual mortgage interest payments as a dollar for dollar
tax credit against their federal income taxes. The home
buyer adjusts federal income tax withholdings, increasing
income available to pay the mortgage. Under the program,
the City currently has two reservations issued worth
$230,900 and seven MCC's remaining worth $769,100.
Policy Objective: Increase the eligibility of first
time home buyers to qualify for
mortgage loans
Actions Undertaken: On January 23, 1989, the City
indicated its interest in
participating in the MCC Program.
Two reservations for Dublin residents
have been issued.
Actions to be
Undertaken: Continue participation in the program
Financing: Minor administrative cost
Implementation
Responsibility: Planning Department
Time frame: Ongoing implementation
6.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (65300.5)
Government Code Section 65300.5 requires that the general plan and
its elements comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies of the City. The other elements
of the General Plan are being revised in conjunction with the
preparation of the revised Housing Element. Revisions will be
required to Section 1.0 (Background), 2.0 (Land Use Element) and
6.0 (Housing Element Summary) of the Dublin General Plan.
61
..^
6.5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS [65351 and
65583(c)6)]
Government Code Sections 65351 and 65583(c)(6) require that during
the preparation of an amendment to the general plan, the City must
provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public
agencies, and civic, education, and other community groups.
Community meetings were held on March 5 and 6, 1990, to explain the
statutory requirements of the housing element and to solicit
citizen input on the housing problems and issues facing the city.
Public Notice of the meetings was posted in public buildings,
published in the Valley Times, advertised on Viacom Channel 30 and
mailed to:
1. the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors,
2. the Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners Association,
3. the Bay Area Council,
4. the Alameda County Housing Authority,
5. the manager of the Arroyo Vista housing project,
6. all homeowners associations in the City, and
7. the Chamber of Commerce membership list.
The following issues were discussed at the public meetings:
1. the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in the 1985 Housing Element;
2. the effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of
Dublin's housing goals and objectives;
3. the progress of Dublin in implementing the Housing Element;
4. Dublin's housing needs that can be met over the next five
years;
5. what existing and new goals, objectives, policies and programs
should be included in the revised Housing Element.
Questionnaires were filled out by all in attendance. The input
received at the meetings was considered in the preparation of the
Housing Element.
62
n n
6.6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT [65588]
Government Code Section 65588 requires that the Housing Element
evaluate:
1. the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives and
policies in contributing to the state housing goal;
2. the effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of
Dublin's housing goals and objectives; and
3. the progress of the City in implementation of the 1985 Housing
Element.
The 1985 Housing Element did not include development in Hansen
Hill, Donlan Canyon, East Dublin and West Dublin. This omission
was due to the fact that development of these areas was not
projected within the five year timeframe of the 1985 Housing
Element.
The 1985 Housing Element projected that the City would be built-out
by 1995. However, due to the future development of these four
areas which contain approximately 11,144 acres, build-out will not
occur by 1995.
One of the major policy goals of the 1985 Housing Element was to
produce more units and greater variety in unit types than would be
achieved if previous policies were continued. Under Alameda County
policies, most of Dublin's residential land was zoned for single
family detached houses. Therefore, many of the strategies in the
1985 Housing Element were intended to increase residentially zoned
land in the city and raise permitted residential densities (i.e.,
higher densities generally result in smaller units and lower land
costs per unit).
The 1985 Housing Element projected construction of half of the
City's remaining dwelling units (which was 950 units at that time),
during the five year planning period. It also projected that over
70% of these would be multi-family units.
Between January 1985 and January 1990, a total of 2,645 housing
units were constructed, including 1,011 additional single family
units and 1,634 multi-family units. Approximately 56% of the new
housing units were multi-family (compared to 7% projected). There
was an increase in multi-family units within the City from 9% of
the total housing stock in 1985 to 29% in 1990.
Below are each of the housing strategies from the 1985 Housing
Element followed by a discussion of actions taken since 1985 to
implement each strategy.
63
r'1
Increase Residential Densities.
Policy Objective: Allow construction at higher
densities to increase number of
units constructed and lower land
price per unit.
Quantified Objective: Additional 250 units within five
years; at buildout 500 units above
number that would be produced under
previous policies.
Discussion: The 1985 General Plan changed the land use designation
of the 79 acre area at the northwest corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Dougherty Road (i.e., the Villages 2 - 7) from single
family residential to medium density with required mixed dwelling
types, including single family detached and permitting up to 25
units per acre on portions of the site. Under the single family
residential land use designation (i.e., which allows 0.9 to 6.0
units per acre), the maximum allowable density would have permitted
up to a total of 474 units. The Villages projects which have been
approved by the City provide a total of 1,084 dwelling units,
including 939 multi-family units and 145 single family units, as
shown below.
Single-family Multi-family
Village 2 248
Village 3 216
Village 4 135
Village 5 204
Village 6 145 -
Village 7 136
Total 145 939
The change in land use designation on the Villages 2 - 7 resulted
in at least 610 additional units compared to the previous single
family residential designation on the site.
Thus, the objective of 250 units during the planning period was
exceeded by 360 units.
Designate Additional Land for Residential Use.
Policy Objective: Increase total number of units
produced in Dublin by providing
additional sites for residential
development.
Quantified Objective: 93 units over next five years.
Discussion: The 1985 Housing Element identified five sites
available for development of housing which were not designated for
residential use at that time. Of the five sites identified, four
were designated for residential use during the planning period, as
64
r1 /1
shown below (the quantified objectives shown below are from the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, which pertain to build-out of
the City).
# of Units Approved by the City Quantified
Area Multi-family Single Family Total Objective
Village 1 56 - 56 56 - 100
Fallon School - 17 17 8 - 48
Vista Green
Terrace - 88 88 22 - 88
Valley Christian - - - N/A
Center *
Downtown ** - - - 200
Total 161 286 - 436
* The zoning on the Valley Christian Center property
has not been changed. The property owner has not
submitted a proposal for a housing project to the
City.
** On July 21, 1987 the City Council adopted the
Downtown Specific Plan which allows for residential
uses (i.e., with approval of a use permit) in most
of the downtown area (refer to page 37 of the plan).
The plan encourages residential uses above the
ground floor. To date, there have been no proposals
submitted to the City for residential projects
within the downtown area.
There was one site which was not identified in the 1985 Housing
Element that received approval for additional housing units during
the planning period. On February 27, 1989, the City Council
approved a General Plan Amendment for Hansen Hill Ranch (west of
Silvergate Drive) which allows increased density. The approved PD
Rezoning allows 110 units compared to 72 units allowed under the
previous land use designation.
In conclusion, the quantified objective for the planning period was
exceeded by 106 units (i.e., 199 additional units achieved compared
to 93 projected).
Treat One-bedroom and Studio Units as Equivalent to 75 Percent of a
Housing Unit When Computing Allowable Density, Provided that the
Maximum Number of Units Permitted on a Site Shall not be Increased
by More Than 25 Percent.
Policy Objective: Avoid unintentional incentive to build
large units; increase profitability of
small, lower cost units.
65
/1
Discussion: The Planning Department staff has informed developers
of large projects that this policy was available. However,
developers of projects such as the Villages and Amador Lakes
decided not to request increased densities because the land use
regulations allowed the number of units proposed.
Allow Residential Development in the Downtown Intensification Area.
Policy Objective: Increase units produced in Dublin; increase
sites appropriate for affordable housing and
accessible to downtown.
Quantified Objective: 200 units
Discussion: This policy was included in the Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan which was adopted by the City in 1987. To date there
have been no submitted for residential development in the
proposals
downtown area. This strategy is discussed in more detail above
under the heading "Designate Additional Land for Residential Use".
The program is augmented in the revised Housing Element by
providing additional development incentives.
Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable
Housing on Their Sites.
Policy Objective: Encourage development of affordable housing by
private organizations not primarily engaged in
housing construction or management.
Discussion: The City has not received any proposals from private
organizations for affordable housing projects. The City should
actively work with developers to make them aware of affordable
housing projects which have been implemented in other Bay area
cities. The program is augmented in the revised Housing Element by
providing additional development incentives.
Require a Percentage of Units in Large Multi-family Projects to be
Rented for a Specified Period of Time.
Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units in the City.
Discussion: The majority of recent multi-family projects have been
rented during the initial occupancy phase.
66
n n
Encourage Development of Second Units in Existing Single Family
Homes.
Policy Objective: Encourage efficient use of existing
housing stock; promote development of
small units at low cost.
Quantified Objective: 350 second units.
Discussion: The 1985 Housing Element overstated the demand for
this type of unit. During the past five years, there have been
only four requests for approval of second units in the City. All
four of the applications were approved. Due to the lack of
requests for approval of second units, the quantified objective was
not met (i.e., 346 additional second units would be required to
meet the objective).
To make this program more effective, the City should consider
relaxing the requirements for approval of second units. In
addition, the City should publicize and promote the program. One
option would be to implement a program to give City recognition to
good designs for second units.
Cooperate with Non-Profit Housing Provider to Develop Below-Market
Rate Units.
Policy Objective: Promote development of affordable
housing.
Discussion: During the planning period, the City did not receive
any proposals for housing projects by non-profit groups. The City
should actively work with non-profit housing providers such as Eden
Housing and BRIDGE to make them aware of development opportunities
in Dublin. The program is also augmented in the revised Housing
Element by providing additional development incentives.
Work with Pleasanton Toward Establishing a Joint Housing Authority.
Policy Objective: Share control of Housing Authority
activities in Dublin; support housing
information and referral services.
Discussion: In 1986 the Dublin Housing Authority was formed and
the title to the Arroyo Vista project, Dublin's only public housing
project, was transferred from the City of Pleasanton Housing
Authority to the City of Dublin Housing Authority. The management
of Arroyo Vista was transferred from the Pleasanton Housing
Authority to the Alameda County Housing Authority. This action
made it unnecessary to establish a joint housing authority.
The Dublin Housing Authority includes two residents of Arroyo Vista
as well as the full membership of the City Council. The Housing
Authority generally meets once a month.
67
n n
Encourage the Development of Additional Units on Housing Authority
Land in Dublin.
Policy Objective: Promote development of below market-rate
units affordable to low income
households.
Discussion: The Arroyo Vista site includes two vacant parcels of
undeveloped land suitable for development. The first parcel
(approximately three acres) is being considered for a senior
housing project with up to 75 units. The other parcel
(approximately two acres) is being considered for a low income
project with up to 20 units. Recently, the Dublin Housing
Authority retained a consultant to study the feasibility of the two
projects.
Encourage Development of Rental Housing. If deemed Necessary,
Consider Enactment of Condominium Conversion Ordinance.
Policy Objective: Assist in maintaining rental stock as
housing affordable to moderate income
Dublin households.
Discussion: Only one condominium conversion project has been
approved by the City. The developer did not follow through with
implementation of the project.
Consequently, the City does not have a program for ongoing
monitoring of rental vacancy rates (i.e., there is no need for
continuous monitoring due to the low interest in condominium
conversions). However, after an application for a condominium
conversion is received by the City, the City-wide rental vacancy
rate is evaluated as part of the review process.
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.
Policy Objective: Promote use of available funds and
funding mechanisms in private sector
housing development.
Discussion: The Planning Department staff has monitored available
public financial assistance programs for below market rate units.
To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the
City will prepare a packet of information on available programs,
including a list of agency contact persons responsible for program
implementation. This information will be given to developers as
early as possible in the project approval process. This
requirement applies only to developers of projects that contain 75
or more multi-family units. The program is augmented in the
revised Housing Element by providing additional development
incentives.
68
Grant 25 Percent Density Bonuses for Provision of 25 Percent
Affordable Units as Required by State Law.
Policy Objective: Provision of incentives for providing
affordable units; compliance with State
law.
Discussion: No developers have requested density bonuses. A
revised program will consider an additional density bonus and other
incentives for producing affordable housing.
Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Dublin Residents and
Others Seeking Housing in Dublin.
Policy Objective: Support services and programs which
fight housing discrimination; direct
persons towards agencies which provide
assistance to victims of discrimination
as needed.
Discussion: The City participates in the Alameda County small
cities block grant program which provides assistance to the Eden
Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO). ECHO provides services to
victims of housing discrimination.
Continue City Code Enforcement Program; Aid Low Income Households
in Obtaining Financial Assistance for Housing Rehabilitation.
Policy Objective: Enforce building and zoning codes.
Discussion: The City does not have a systematic code enforcement
program. Existing units are inspected only when complaints are
received by the City. If code violations are discovered, owners
are only required to make improvements which bring the property up
to minimum code requirements.
The City provides information to the public regarding the Alameda
County Home Improvement Loan Program which is administered by the
Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development.
The program provides low interest home improvement loans to
homeowners who have low or moderate incomes. The City of Dublin is
participating in the funding of this program with funds from the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
Promote Opportunities for Energy Conservation.
During the five year planning period, the percentage of multi-
family units in the City has increased from 9% to 29%. Multi-
family units are energy efficient due to minimal exterior walls.
In addition, developers of large residential projects have been
required to demonstrate that solar orientation has been considered.
69
l\ /'\
CONCLUSION
The quantified objectives for the five year planning period were
exceeded by 120 units. Below is a summary of the quantified
objectives from the 1985 Housing Element and the additional units
that resulted during the planning period.
Additional
Objective Units Difference
Increase densities 250 610 +360
Designate additional land 93 199 +106
Encourage second units 350 4 -346
Total 693 813 +120
Below is a list of the projects which were included in the 1985
Housing Element. It includes the total number of approved or
potential units and their status as of February 1990 (Appendix C
contains a map showing the location of each project):
SITES CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE:
Total # of Units Building
Single- Multi- Permits
Map # & Name family family Issued Occupied
Site 1
19 Village 2 248 248
20 Village 3 216 216 0
21 Village 4 135 SDR approved PC 8/15/88,
building permits have not been issued.
22 Village 5 204 204 163
24 Village 7 136 136 102
Site 2 *
17 Arroyo Vista Per City's Development Policies, a range of 42
to 95 additional multi-family units are
possible
Site 3
12 Coral Gate 26 26 26
Site 4
9 Pulte Homes 25 25 25
Site 5
4 acres - Portion of Hansen Hill
70
Sites 6 and 7 *
Hansen Hill - 180 single family units are approved, but the Final
Map(s) is not recorded.
SITES NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE:
Site 8
18 Village 1 56 56 56
Site 9 *
13a Brighton Meadows (Fallon School Site - 17 single family units
are approved, but the Final Map has not been recorded
Site 11
2 Vista Green Potential for 18 - 42 multi-family units
Site 12 *
Valley Christian Center - plans have not been submitted to the
City.
Site 13 *
Downtown Intensification Area - plans have not been submitted to
the City.
* Projects identified in the 1985 Housing Element which are
currently vacant but could provide housing during the five
year planning period (1990 - 1995). Below is a summary of
those projects and the number of additional units they could
provide.
Approximate
Acreage Potential # of Units
Site 2 5 42 - 95 multi-family
Sites 6 and 7 147 180 single family
Site 9 8 17 single family
Site 12 6 21 single family
Site 13 Unknown 200 multi-family
Total 166 469 - 513 units
In 1988 and 1989, 24% of the unites produced in Dublin were
affordable to moderate income families and the remaining 76% were
affordable only to above moderate income households (Planning
Department, 1990). Applying these percentages to the total number
of units constructed between 1985 and 1990, results in the
following distribution of housing units affordable to the various
income categories (compared to the City's quantified objectives and
the regional share allocation for the same period):
71
n /'1
Units Housing Needs Quantified
Constructed (ABAG) Objectives
Very Low 0 391 N/A
Low 0 274 N/A
Moderate 635 450 N/A
Above Moderate 2,010 841 N/A
TOTAL 2,645 1,956 950
The total number of units constructed between 1985 and 1990
exceeded the project need for housing units (ABAG, 1983) by 689
units and the City's quantified objectives by 1,695 units.
However, no units were constructed which were affordable to very
low or low income households.
Therefore, the programs in the updated (1990) Housing Element
emphasize the achievement of housing affordable to very low and low
income households. The following new programs have been included
to better achieve the new construction needs of the very low and
low income groups (refer to the Goals, Quantified Objectives,
Policies and Housing Program Section):
I.A. Adopt an ordinance allowing density bonuses in
excess of those called for by State law (e.g.,
a 30% bonus for 20% of the units set aside for
lower-income/senior citizen households).
I.B. Adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance
requiring a minimum percentage (e.g., 10%) of
low and moderate income housing in new
developments with 20 or more units.
I.C. Review development standards to determine
whether changes should be made to reduce
development costs.
I.D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking
lots and sites with low intensity land uses to
build housing.
I.E. Encourage higher density residential
development near the proposed Dublin BART
station.
I.F. Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
allowing emergency shelters in multi-family
zoning districts as a conditional use.
72
/1 /1
II.A. Provide priority processing for senior housing
projects and developments providing 10% units
affordable to very low and low income
households.
II.B. Reduce application fees for senior housing
projects and developments providing 10% or more
units affordable to very low and low income
households.
II.C. Encourage shared living arrangements.
II.D. Units at risk. Work with the owner of The
Springs and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to encourage the parties to
negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program;
if necessary, work with a non-profit entity to
consider acquisition of the project and provide
equivalent rent subsidies
II.E. Fund existing emergency shelter programs in the
Tri-Valley area to house citizens in need of
emergency shelter.
73
n n
APPENDIX A:
REFERENCES
6.1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY
6.1.1. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND HOUSING NEEDS
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Needs
Determinations, January 1989.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections '90,
December 1989.
6.1.2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections '90, December
1989.
Basgal, Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing
Authority, January 9, 1990 - telephone communication.
Blayney-Dyett, City of Dublin Housing Element, September 10, 1984,
printed January 1985.
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit,
Alameda County Population and Housing Estimates for January 1,
1989, printed April 25, 1989.
City of Pleasanton and City of Livermore, Valley Human Services
Directory, January 1989.
Farias, Cece, City of Dublin Building Department, January 22, 1990
- personal interview.
Kanalakis, Mike, Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners
Association, January 29, 1990 - telephone communication.
Schriber, Larry, Key Financial Services, telephone communication,
March 22, 1990.
Spano, Jeff, California Department of Housing and Community
Development, telephone communication, March 21, 1990.
Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors, Monthly Sales Statistics
(1983-1989).
U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census.
WPM Planning Team, Inc., West Dublin General Plan Amendment
Specific Plan Study, Study Report 1: Environmental Setting/Planning
Considerations, November 27, 1989.
WPM Planning Team, Memorandum dated February 12, 1990, ABAG's
Revised Estimates For Dublin and Tri-Valley.
6.1.3 INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Dublin Planning Department, Recent Residential Projects, February
1990.
Gillarde, Brenda, Planning Consultant, City of Dublin Planning
Department, telephone communication on February 15, 1990.
6.1.4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
City of Dublin Building Department, 1990.
City of Dublin Engineering Department, 1990.
City of Dublin Planning Department, 1990.
Kattan, Emil, Dublin-San Ramon Services, telephone communication on
April 2, 1990.
Wallace, Roberts & Todd, East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment Studies, 1990
6.1.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Bank of America, Bay Area Construction Cost Survey, 1987.
Economic Research Associates, Memorandum dated February 27, 1990 to
Wallace, Roberts & Todd.
6.1.6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Cantelow, Alice Ann, Shepard's Gate, telephone communication on
February 14, 1990.
Clouse, Deputy Doug, City of Dublin Police Department, telephone
communication on February 15, 1990.
Dublin Planning Department, Survey of Emergency Shelter Providers
in the Tri-Valley Area, March, 1990.
Emergency Services Network, 1989 Unduplicated Count Study.
Beverly, Earl, Valley Christian Center, telephone communication on
February 14, 1990.
Homebase, Homelessness in the Bay Area: Ten Points, Spring, 1989.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census.
United Way of the Bay Area, Valleys Corridor Project, November,
1982.
6.1.7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
City of Dublin, 1985 Housing Element.
6.2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE TO NON-LOW-
INCOME HOUSING USES
Basgal, Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing
Authority, March 8, 1990 - Telephone Communication.
California Coalition of Rural Housing Projects, Inventory of
Federally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion,
March 1, 1989.
Dross, Jach, Alameda County Housing Authority, May 9, 1990 -
Telephone Communication.
Giordano, Neck, Administrator, The Springs, May 9, 1990 - Telephone
Communication.
Truesdale, Tim, Eden Housing, telephone conversation, March 8,
1990.
6.3 GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Local Housing Element Assistance Project, Blueprint for Bay Area
Housing, December, 1989.
6.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
6.5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS
6.6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT
Association of Bay Area Governments, Housing Needs Determination,
1983.
City of Dublin, Planning Department, July, 1989, Recent Residential
Projects.
Basgal, Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing
Authority, January 9, 1990 - telephone communication.
Rankin, Paul, Assistant City Manager, City of Dublin, January 8,
1990 - personal interview.
APPENDIX B
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT TABLES
ABAG'S POPULATION,HOUSEHOLD,EMPLOYMENT&INCOME PROJECTIONS
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region
1980-2005
Year Population Households Employed Total HH lobs in Area
Residents Income Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
$Mil Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade lobs
CITY OF DUBLIN
1980 15,299 4,039 6,497 $182 8,168 52 1,196 3,173 1,567 2180
1985 17,600 4,800 8,000 $224 9,640 40 1,370 4,230 1,640 2360
1990 25,500 7,100 12,000 $349 12,210 10 2,230 5,100 2,410 2,460
1995 29,500 8,470 14,000 $424 15,210 10 2850 5,730 4,000 2,620
2000 37,100 10,940 17,500 $575 17,880 10 3,430 6,920 4,670 2,850
2005 46,200 13,990 21,700 $772 20,560 10 3,820 7,890 4,910 3,930
TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK
1980 160,367 51,386 76,876 $2,714 48,775 1,126 7,313 10,773 17,222 12341
1985 185,100 60,220 93,000 $3,393 67,850 1,000 11,390 14,510 22,910 18,040
1990 235,600 79,500 124,800 $4,742 106,580 1,080 18,770 21,440 36,810 28,480
1995 266,900 91,040 145,400 $5,719 131,740 1,030 24,170 27,450 47,450 31,640
2000 297,900 103,780 165,400 $6,785 160,800 970 36,330 32,720 56,700 34,080
2005 331,800 117,120 183,800 $7,884 182,350 910 42,400 37,830 62,370 38,840
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1980 1,105,379 426,093 522,069 $15,173 511,158 4,682 118,016 82,609 151,675 154,176
1985 1,191,450 451,750 579,400 $17,076 559,800 3,910 128,420 98,140 166,140 163,190
1990 1,272,000 491,610 647,500 $19,714 622,400 3,270 143,430 115,320 183,170 177,210
1995 1,330,800 519,52D 707,000 $22,339 692,200 2,760 164,460 127,610 199,150 198,220
2000 1,387,900 547,320 752,400 $24,684 740,600 2280 179,490 131,060 216,660 211,110
2005 1,444,600 572,420 778,900 $26,846 776,900 1,820 194,590 136,920 226,370 217,200
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1980 5,179,789 1,970,551 2552,894 $78,302 2,535,155 38,561 614,580 398,039 710,885 773,090
1985 5,537,650 2,095,940 2840,100 $90,754 2758,170 33,960 656,100 454,350 801,290 812470
1990 5,950,950 2,284,080 3,162,800 $105,524 3,073,280 33,660 690,150 525,460 942,190 881,820
1995 6,292,650 2,445,750 3,420,400 $119,597 3,418,900 32,330 774,300 599,580 1,052110 960,580
2000 6,610,500 2,595,440 3,631,200 $133,665 3,705,980 30,190 850,720 653,150 1,151,570 1,020,350
2005 6,832850 2,706,200 3,751,600 $145,864 3,954,160 27,690 916,940 700,880 1,239,630 1,069,020
Note: All dollar values in"constant 1988 dollars".
Sources: ABAG Projections 90,December 1989.
City&County:Pages 76-93.
Region Pages 26,29,33,39.
File Ref:\Prj.Tools ABAG tABAG 4 2/12/90 page 1
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGES IN ABAG'S PROJECTIONS
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region
1980-2005
Year Population Households Employed Total HH Jobs in Area
Residents Income Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
$Mil Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade Employ.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 460 152 301 $8 294 (2) 35 211 15 36
1985-90 1,580 460 800 $25 514 (6) 172 174 154 20
1990-95 800 274 400 $15 600 0 124 126 318 32
1995-00 1,520 494 700 $30 534 0 116 238 134 46
2000-05 1,820 610 840 $39 536 0 78 194 48 216
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 202% 246% 234% 325% 152% -81% 219% 149% 213% 80%
TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 4,947 1,767 3,225 136 3,815 (25) 815 747 1,138 1,140
1985-90 10,100 3,856 6,360 270 7,746 16 1,476 1,386 2,780 2,088
1990-95 6,260 2,308 4,120 195 5,032 (10) 1,080 1,202 2,128 632
1995-00 6,200 2,548 4,000 213 5,812 (12) 2,432 1,054 1,850 488
2000-05 6,780 2,668 3,680 220 4,310 (12) 1,214 1,022 1,134 952
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 107% 128% 139% 191% 274% -19% 480% 251% 262% 215%
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 17,214 5,131 11,466 381 9,728 (154) 2,081 3,106 2,893 1,803
1985-90 16,110 7,972 13,620 527 12,520 (128) 3,002 3,436 3,406 2,804
1990-95 11,760 5,582 11,900 525 13,960 (102) 4,206 2,458 3,196 4,202
1995-00 11,420 5,560 9,080 469 9,680 (96) 3,006 690 3,502 2,578
2000-05 11,340 5,020 5,300 432 7,260 (92) 3,020 1,172 1,942 1,218
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 31% 34% 49% 77% 52% -61% 65% 66% 49% 41%
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 71,572 25,078 57,441 2,490 44,603 (920) 8,304 11,262 18,081 7,876
1985-90 82,660 37,628 64,540 2,954 63,022 (60) 6,810 14,222 28,180 13,870
1990-95 68,340 32,334 51,520 2,815 69,124 (266) 16,830 14,824 21,984 15,752
1995-00 63,570 29,938 42,160 2,814 57,416 (428) 15,284 10,714 19,892 11,954
2000-05 44,470 22,152 24,080 2,440 49,636 (500) 13,244 9,546 17,612 9,734
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 32% 37% 47% 86% 56% -28% 49% 76% 74% 38%
Sources: See Table 1
File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAG\ABAG 4 2/12/90 page 2
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
PROJECTIONS: PERCENTAGE OF LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region
1980-2005
Year Population Households Employed Total HH Jobs in Area
Residents Income Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
$Mil Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade Employ.
CITY OF DUBLIN AS%OF TRI-VALLEY AREA
1980 9.54% 7.86% 8.45% 6.69% 16.75% 4.62% 1635% 29.45% 9.10% 17.66%
1985 9.51% 7.97% 8.60% 6.59% 14.21% 4.00% 12.03% 29.15% 7.16% 13.08%
1990 10.82% 8.93% 9.62% 7.35% 11.46% 0.93% 11.88% 23.79% 6.55% 8.64%
1995 11.05% 9.30% 9.63% 7.42% 1155% 0.97% 11.79% 20.87% 8.43% 8.28%
2000 12.45% 10.54% 1058% 8.48% 11.12% 1.03% 9.44% 21.15% 8.24% 8.36%
2005 13.92% 11.95% 11.81% 9.80% 11.28% 1.10% 9.01% 20.86% 7.87% 10.12%
TRI-VALLEY AREA AS%OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
1980 14.5% 12.1% 14.7% 17.9% 9.5% 24.0% 6.2% 13.0% 11.4% 8.0%
1985 15.5% 133% 16.1% 19.9% 12.1% 25.6% 8.9% 14.8% 13.8% 11.1%
1990 18.5% 16.2% 19.3% 24.1% 17.1% 33.0% 13.1% 18.6% 20.1% 16.1%
1995 20.1% 17.5% 20.6% 25.6% 19.0% 373% 14.7% 21.5% 23.8% 16.0%
2000 21.5% 19.0% 22.0% 27.5% 21.7% 42.5% 20.2% 25.0% 26.2% 16.1%
2005 23.0% 205% 23.6% 29.4% 23.5% 50.0% 21.8% 27.6% 27.6% 17.9%
ALAMEDA COUNTY AS%OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1980 21.3% 21.6% 20.5% 19.4% 20.2% 12.1% 19.2% 20.8% 21.3% 19.9%
1985 215% 21.6% 20.4% 18.8% 20.3% 115% 19.6% 21.6% 20.7% 20.1%
1990 21.4% 213% 205% 18.7% 20.3% 9.7% 20.8% 21.9% 19.4% 20.1%
1995 21.1% 21.2% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 85% 21.2% 213% 18.9% 20.6%
2000 21.0% 21.1% 20.7% 18.5% 20.0% 7.6% 21.1% 20.1% 18.8% 20.7%
2005 21.1% 21.2% 20.8% 18.4% 19.6% 6.6% 21.2% 19.5% 18.3% 203%
Sources:see Table 1.
File Ref:'Pry.Tools\ABAG\ABAG 4 2/12/90 page 3
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
PROJECTIONS:PER HOUSEHOLD&EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region
1980.2005
Year Population Employed Average Jobs Per Jobs in Area Per 100 Households
/Household Residents Household Employed Total Ago.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
/Household Income Residents Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade Jobs
CITY OF DUBLIN
1980 3.788 1.609 $44,942 1.257 202 1 30 79 39 54
1985 3.667 1.667 $46,600 1.205 201 1 29 88 34 49
1990 3.592 1.690 $49,100 1.018 172 0 31 72 34 35
1995 3.483 1.653 $50,100 1.086 180 0 34 68 47 31
2000 3.391 1.600 $52,600 1.022 163 0 31 63 43 26
2005 3302 1.551 $55,200 0.947 147 0 27 56 35 28
TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK
1980 3.121 1A96 $52,807 0.634 95 2 14 21 34 24
1985 3.074 1544 $56,337 0.730 113 2 19 24 38 30
1990 2.964 1.570 $59,646 0.854 134 1 24 27 46 36
1995 2.932 1597 $62,820 0.906 145 1 27 30 52 35
2000 2.870 1.594 $65,375 0.972 155 1 35 32 55 33
2005 2.833 1569 $67,314 0.992 156 I 36 32 53 33
ALAMEDA COUNTY
1980 2.594 1.225 $35,609 0.979 120 1 28 19 36 36
1985 2.637 1.283 $37,800 0.966 124 1 28 22 37 36
1990 2587 1317 $40,100 0.961 127 1 29 23 37 36
1995 2.562 1361 $43,000 0.979 133 1 32 25 38 38
2000 2536 1375 $45,100 0.984 135 0 33 24 40 39
2005 2324 1.361 $46,900 0.997 136 0 34 24 40 38
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1980 2.629 1.296 $39,736 0.993 129 2 31 20 36 39
1985 2.642 1355 $43,300 0.971 132 2 31 22 38 39
1990 2.605 1385 $46,200 0.972 135 I 30 23 41 39
1995 2.573 1399 $48,900 1.000 140 1 32 25 43 39
2000 2.547 1399 $51,500 1.021 143 1 33 25 44 39
2005 2525 1386 $53,900 1.054 146 1 34 26 46 40
Sources:see Table 1.
File Ref:W j.Tools\ABAGPABAG 4 2/12/90 page 4
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGES IN PER HOUSEHOLD&EMPLOYMENT RATIOS
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bey Region
1980-2005
Yea Population Employed Average lobs Per Jobs m Area Per Household
/Household Residents Household Employed Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
/Household Intone Residents Employ. Minim Wholesale Trade Employ.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 3.024 1.975 $55,400 0.979 193 (2) 23 139 10 24
1985-90 3.435 1.739 $54,317 0.643 112 (1) 37 38 33 4
1990-95 2920 1.460 $55,282 1.500 219 0 45 46 116 12
1995-00 3.077 1.417 $61,173 0.763 108 0 23 48 27 9
2000-05 2.984 1.377 $64,526 0.638 88 0 13 32 8 35
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 (13%) (4%) 23% (25%) (27%) (94%) (8%) (28%) (10%) (48%)
TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACEHAWE
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980.85 2.800 1.825 $76,870 1.183 216 (1) 46 42 64 65
1985-90 2.619 1.649 $69,981 1.218 201 0 38 36 72 54
1990-95 2.712 1.785 $84,686 1.221 218 0 47 52 92 27
1995-00 2433 1.570 $83,633 1.453 228 0 95 41 73 19
2000-05 2.541 1.379 $82,399 1.171 162 0 46 38 43 36
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 (9%) 5% 27% 56% 64% (65%) 154% 54% 59% 38%
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 3.355 2.235 $74,187 0.848 190 (3) 41 61 56 35
1985-90 2.021 1.708 $66,167 0.919 157 (2) 38 43 43 35
1990-95 2.107 2.132 $94,081 1.173 250 (2) 75 44 57 75
' 1995-00 2.054 1.633 $84544 1.066 174 (2) 54 12 63 46
I 2000-05 2.259 1.056 $86,150 1370 145 (2) 60 23 39 24
%Change...I980 to 2005
1980-05 (3%) 11% 32% 2% 13% (71%) 23% 23% 11% 5%
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods
1980-85 2854 2.291 $99,310 0.776 178 (4) 33 45 72 31
1985-90 2197 1.715 $78,507 0.976 167 0 18 38 75 37
1990-95 2.114 1593 $87,046 1.342 214 (1) 52 46 68 49
1995-00 2.123 1.408 $93,981 1.362 192 (1) 51 36 66 40
2000-05 2007 1.087 $110,139 2061 224 (2) 60 43 80 44
%Change...1980 to 2005
1980-05 (4%) 7% 36% 6% 14% (48%) 9% 28% 27% 1%
Sources:see Table 1.
File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAGWBAG 4 2/12i90 page 5
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
PROJECTIONS: PER HOUSEHOLD&EMPLOYMENT RATIOS...%OF LARGER AREA
City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region
1980-2005
Year Population Employed Average Jobs Per Jobs in Area Per Household
/Household Residents Household Employed Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other
/Household Income Residents Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade Employ.
CITY OF DUBLIN AS%OF TRI-VALLEY AREA
1980 121% 108% 859'o 198% 213% 59% 208% 375% 116% 225%
1985 119% 108% 83% 165% 178% 50% 151% 366% 90% 164%
1990 121% 108% 82% 119% 128% 10% 133% 266% 73% 97%
1995 119% 103% 80% 120% 124% 10% 127% 224% 91% 89%
2000 118% 100% 80% 105% 105% 10% 90% 201% 78% 79%
2005 117% 99% 82% 95% 94% 9% 75% 175% 66% 85%
TRI-VALLEY AREA AS%OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
1980 120% 122% 148% 659'o 79% 199% 51% 108% 94% 66%
1985 117% 120% 149% 76% 91% 192% 67% 111% 103% 83%
1990 115% 119% 149% 89% 106% 204% 81% 115% 124% 99%
1995 114% 117% 146% 93% 109% 213% 84% 123% 136% 91%
2000 113% 116% 145% 99% 115% 224% 107% 132% 138% 85%
2005 112% 115% 144% 99% 115% 244% 106% 135% 135% 87%
ALAMEDA COUNTY AS%OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1980 99% 95% 90% 99% 93% 56% 89% 96% 99% 92%
1985 100% 95% 87% 99% 94% 53% 91% 100% 96% 93%
1990 99% 95% 87% 99% 94% 45% 97% 102% 90% 93%
1995 100% 97% 88% 98% 95% 40% 100% 100% 89% 97%
2000 100% 98% 88% 96% 95% 36% 100% 95% 89% 98%
2005 100% 98% 87% 95% 93% 31% 1009'o 92% 86% 96%
Sources: see Table 1.
File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAG\ABAG 4 2/12/90 page 6
The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin
APPENDIX C
SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MAP
i I E i [ i c I u i _ I u I u I d I c I r I 1
rr{
•
•
^it•t.3 fir. _ tit 1}1
•
•
1si ::f•}}}:•}}:•:•
•
•
•
/ 1
j 4:r.1
y R Sf}•} L
+X ". kApproximate Location
r r .,
5 ffti•j f
IT :
C •
' is f; •
1 „,' •- L v•atit
. sk
f3
L
J\
•J tiv'r �{y_ L '• " ��%.�aua a.ue•.m""aew s:�r
7
r{Y
}
•'
f2l• rr ifl Jr J • L� L J e' �wwa 7« .
l ::
Approximate Location.•Erl •:e. ;:::.::•:. .'. '«✓� -.
4 �,
Sites for Housing Development
February, 1985
APPENDIX D
RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS MAP
\ SK/�si -fit/it-Ai,-
t it- ,- ` s`i ® IA �P y . �R. . )` y ,`44gAty041.---N
Op
.,."!'im....---:.'" 'I'V..:',..''.,),11‘. .n‘--- :7 .° alr
i ki..
-\\
,c.... ,.... _
ti— 1,._,i -
..\,.,:„......„..„ ._,....„:4,1 ....,4.er„,, ,,, . ‘..... ,..,,..._ _ _ ...Ire,. \ ,_. -6", 1013) K,
•
1,uNN- JC
lit
. ! • tfOA -'4 ' 2 ' , tom' . \ ' 7S /€
e.
O(. Aft it!r_J�� ./� ,� {7 ' -',7411) :S1 i—Addi-d-..-4, 1 ' • ) •, 1� :„.......0 `I^a .y'�. S'..
.:.„.„,..i, /. ;,,
, , ,..., o6
0 ef,,, 4._„--..' ,-- -I.,,., 44th J I.,- --i.V..6 1,111P5r-- ' -- ,...:
i� � Y3I 1r rM111
,N°ti`i \,�\ \•`��< ``�. -F2� Vf r��r1 �' �'',
n .
tj
(ID " kati),,.(,,,,,-. ••'(.1,-1-. , -- -% - . -
1.10,
�i f mac` /" � Mb_\`
1, r�" _
-.4 , - ..\-0,.. . ..(_. ,;1 r-3--' ,---
J ....„__\..... ...
C) „....,. 4107,i,, . ,.....„..,:le. ..
.. 7 _J'�.,•1T. s -��,• RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
February, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq., the City of
Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with
the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain
projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents
be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for
the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which
Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the
City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan
exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs
proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant
environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Environmental
Impact Report at a public hearing on February 11, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on May 21,
1990, did review the Housing Element relative to the previously adopted
Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin General Plan and relative to the
Negative Declaration prepared for the revised General Plan Housing Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council find that:
1. The project will not have any significant environmental impacts and
is consistent with the information in the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Dublin General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for the
subject revised General Plan Housing Element.
EXINWT 5
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations
and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Director
- 2 -
RESOLUTION NO. 90 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq., the City of
Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b), the revised
Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for review; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development
submitted a letter dated April 30, 1990, containing comments on the revised
Housing Elements; and
WHEREAS, the City made changes to the Housing Element in response to
said comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
comments by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(5), the City held
public workshops on March 5, 1990, and March 6, 1990, to obtain citizen input
regarding the revised Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the comments from members of the public who attended the public
workshops were considered in the preparation of the revised Housing Element;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it
is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to
review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published
in the local newspaper and posted in public buildings in accordance with
California State Law; and
WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been reviewed in accordance
with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for
the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which
Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the
City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan
exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and
EXHIBIT c
WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs
proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant
environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
recommending City Council certification of the Negative Declaration as
adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council approve the draft revised Housing
Element.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
- 2 -
__
Nr �z0„,
o---
e -�'
CITY OF DUBLIN
�` � 47_,
PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 • City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(To be prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1 . 7 (c) , 5 . 5 )
Description of Project: City of Dublin Housing Element
Project Location: City-wide (City of Dublin and extended planning
area)
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin
I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ( "Environmental Information
Form" and Environmental Checklist" ) documenting the reasons to support
the above finding.
The following mitigation measures are included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects on the environment. ( If no mitigation
measures are included, indicate "not applicable" . If mitigation
measures are included, a Monitoring/Reporting Plan must be attached) :
Not Applicable.
The attached Monitoring/Reporting Plan designed to ensure that these
mitigation measures are carried out during the project ' s
implementation is hereby incorporated and fully made part of this
Negative Declaration: Not Applicable.
P".-"C-e---j-----7C-6----
Signature
Laurence L. Tong
Printed Name
Planning Director
Title
April 19 , 1990
Date
ATTACH,.,.,,EL
Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Inspection (415) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415) 833-6610
Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415) 833-6630 • Recreation (415) 833-6645
11 /N
Attachments
Date Published:
Date Posted:
Date Notice Mailed:
Considered by:
on:
Action on Negative Declaration:
Approved Disapproved
Notice of Determination filed:
Council Resolution No.
Application Name: City of Dublin Housing Element
INITIAL STUDY
(ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM)
(To be completed by Applicant pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines Section 1.6)
Date Filed: April 16, 1990
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of
Dublin, P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, CA 94568.
2. Address of Project: City-wide. Assessor's Block and Lot
Number: Not Applicable.
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted
concerning this project: Dennis Carrington, Planning Department, P.
0. Box 2340, Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 833-6610.
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public
approvals required for this project, including those required by
city, regional, state and federal agencies: Review by the California
Department of Housing and Urban Development is required.
5. Existing zoning district: Not Applicable.
6. Description of Project: (Include site area, uses, size and
number of buildings, parking, number of dwelling units, scheduling,
and any other information necessary or helpful to understand project.
This description must be complete and accurate. Exhibits or
photographs should be identified and attached). Revise and update the
Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan adopted in 1985 by the
Dublin City Council. Includes revised policies and scheduled programs
for the preservation, improvement and development of housing for the
City of Dublin.
7. Are the following items applicable to the project or its
effects? Discuss below all items checked (attach additional sheets as
necessary).
YES NO
X1. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of
ground contours.
1
X2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
residential areas or public lands or roads.
X3. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area
of project.
x4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
K5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
X6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
X, 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration
levels in the vicinity.
X, 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent (10%) or
Y more.
e 9. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
X11. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
12. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
12. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. The
revised Housing Element addresses the future residential
development of the City and extended planning area, as discussed
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #84011002) for the
Dublin General Plan, which was adopted in February 1985. The
programs proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise
any new significant environmental issues not addressed in the
General Plan EIR. Below is a summary of the significant impacts
discussed in the Dublin General Plan EIR.
Traffic. Potential arterial street development in the Extended
Planning Area would provide just enough capacity to serve the
40,800 employees that could work in Dublin's Extended Planning
Area, but presently proposed I-580 and I-680 freeway capacities
would be inadequate if all "planned jobs" in the Tri-Valley
materialize. Projections indicate that significant adverse
impacts would not occur until after the year 2005 unless
trafficway improvements lag behind development. The potential
for changes in employment or housing densities, energy costs,
and transportation modes over more than 20 years make long-term
impacts somewhat speculative.
Summary of Mitigation:
2
n
- Require demonstration of availability of adequate
transportation capacity prior to approval of major
development increments in all Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
- Prepare detailed arterial street plan prior to development
approval in the Extended Planning Area.
- Plan for maximum local and regional transit service.
- Require Transportation System Management (TSM) measures as a
condition of development approval.
Jobs/Housing Balance. Within a 20-year projection period, added
capacity to accommodate jobs in the Dublin planning area is not
likely to have much effect on the total number of jobs in the
Tri-Valley because land supply will exceed demand. However,
removal of land from the supply potentially available for
residential development would reduce the volume and increase the
price of new housing. The total number of employed persons
residing in the Dublin planning area at full development would be
significantly less than the number of persons employed in the
planning area. Although no reliable estimates of the total
number of housing units that might ultimately be built in the
Tri-Valley are available, projections of potential employment
with or without the proposed revision to the Dublin General Plan
indicate that valley-wide jobs/housing balance will not likely be
attained, and that there will be a net incommute at full
development.
Summary of Mitigation:
- Negotiate reductions in the number of planned jobs and/or
increases in the amount of planned housing. Allocations
would need to be apportioned among jurisdictions, taking
into account land capacibility, transportation availability,
and fiscal resources.
- Require assurance of availability of housing to balance jobs
created as a condition of each project approval.
- Increase residential densities to attain jobs/housing
balance on designated residential land.
Air Quality. Jobs/housing imbalance causing longer journeys to
work would increase mobile source emissions and decrease air
quality. Impacts would not be significant at the regional scale.
Alterative distributions of jobs and housing within the Bay Area
that might result in better air quality could be analyzed with
the modeling capability of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District.
Summary of Mitigation:
- Reduce development intensity if air quality model indicates
need.
3
l"1 �
Loss of Agricultural and Grazing Land. Urban development as
proposed by the General Plan would, in the long term, result in
discontinuation of viable agricultural operations in most of the
planning area. In the short term, urban expansion in accord
with the General Plan would have unavoidable adverse impacts on
adjoining agricultural operations adjoining urban development
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.
The General Plan Policies Report includes measures intended to
prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands. In the
long term, however, no mitigation is available for the loss of
agricultural and grazing land envisioned by the General Plan.
Loss of Open Space. The loss of open space that would result
from buildout under General Plan policies is a significant impact
on a visual and aesthetic resource that defines the City of
Dublin. Mitigation measures include policies to prohibit
development on prominent ridge lines and to retain woodlands and
limit mass grading. Even with these measures, the visual quality
of open space around Dublin will be significantly affected.
Impacts not found to be Significant. Hydrology and ground water
quality, wildlife habitats, schools, public lands and utilities
would be affected by development, but these changes are not
judged to be significant. Residents' exposure to freeway noise
and geologic hazards are not specifically affected by the General
Plan's proposals.
Alternatives. Two alternatives, No Project and High Density, are
discussed in the General Plan EIR. Buildout under the General
Plan would result in densities between the two alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
8. Briefly describe the project site as it exists before the
project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe
any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures.
If necessary, attach photographs of the site. The project area
includes the City of Dublin. The City is located on the floor of the
Livermore Amador Valley area, north of Interstate 580. The Cities of
Livermore and Pleasanton, as well as unincorporated areas of Alameda
County are similarly situated on the floor of the Livermore Amador
Valley. The Valley is predominantly flat with some gentle hills and
4
scattered vegetation. Hilly areas exist to the west near Castro
Valley and to the northeast near Livermore.
9. Briefly describe the surrounding properties, including
information on plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic
aspects and the type of land use.
North - City of San Ramon
South - City of Pleasanton/Interstate 580
East - Unincorporated portions of Alameda County/City of Livermore
West - Unincorporated portions of Alameda County/Castro Valley
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above
and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: April 19, 1990
Signature
Laurence L. Tong
Print Name
Planning Director
Title
5
APPLICATION NO. Part I Submitted on: April 18, 1990
INITIAL STUDY
(ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM)
(To be completed pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1.6)
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Proponent: City of
Dublin, Planning Department, P. O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568.
2. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Dublin.
3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Dublin Housing Element.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all answers is required. Attach additional
sheets if necessary).
YES MAYBE NO SOURCE
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
X8 & 9 a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
of geologic substructures?
X8 & 9 b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or over covering of the soil?
8 & 9 c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
_ X 8 & 9 d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X8 & 9 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
/' 8 & 9 f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake?
1
n �
y8 & 9 g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
2. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
X8 & 9 a. Substantial air emissions of
deterioration of ambient air quality?
8 & 9 b. The creation of objectionable odors?
8 & 9 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
X8 & 9 d. Construction or alteration of a facility
within one-fourth of a mile of a school
which might emit hazardous air
emissions? If Yes, school district must
be consulted and must be given written
notification of the project not less
than 30 days prior to approval of EIR or
Negative Declaration (Pub. Res. Code
21151.4).
3. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
x8 & 9 a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
)( 8 & 9 b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
/` patterns or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
)( 8 & 9 c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
8 & 9 d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
_ )( 8 & 9 e. Alteration of the direction of rate of
flow of ground waters?
X8 & 9 f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
2
..
8 & 9 g. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
8 & 9 a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
and aquatic plants)?
8 & 9 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
8 & 9 c. Introduction of new species of plants in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
x8 & 9 a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects)?
I` 8 & 9 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
I" 8 & 9 c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
X8 & 9 d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
X8 & 9 a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X8 & 9 b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
X8 & 9 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
r 8 & 9 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result
in:
8 & 9 a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
3
8 & 9 b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
X 8 & 910. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an
/ accident or upset conditions?
8 & 9 b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
8 & 9 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Y8 & 9 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the
proposal result in:
8 & 9 a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
/\ 8 & 9 b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
x8 & 9 c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation and traffic systems?
8 & 9 d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or
goods?
8 & 9 e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
n 8 & 9 f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas?
4 8 & 9 a. Fire protection?
I
/` 8 & 9 b. Police protection?
4
X// 8 & 9 c. Schools?
/X 8 & 9 d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X8 & 9 e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
8_&_9 f. Other governmental services?
15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
8_&_9 a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
8_g_9 b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
))(..,_ 8 & 9 a. Power or natural gas?
8 & 9 b. Communications systems?
8 & 9 c. Water?
8 & 9 d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X8 & 9 e. Storm water drainage?
8 & 9 f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
8 & 9 a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
8 & 9 b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
8 & 9 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
8 & 9 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
5
20 . CULTURAL RESOURCES .
X8 & 9 a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
Y' 8 & 9 b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric, historic, or
architecturally significant building,
structure, or object?
)( 8 & 9 c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
X: a. Does the project have the potential to
8 & 9
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
8 & 9 b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the
future) .
8 & 9 c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively
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) .
1\ 8 & 9 d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
6
n n
84.-9 22. EIR REQUIRED BY STATUTE. Does the project
involve construction of any facility which burns municipal waste or
refuse-derived fuel? NOTE: If the answer is yes, then an EIR must be
prepared and certified under Public Resources Code Section 21151.2(a)
unless subsections (b) and (c) make that section inapplicable.
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attachment Statement)
IV. DETERMINATION (to be completed by lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
XI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on he environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that State statute requires
that an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT be prepared and certified.
6.‘---(.6
Planning Director
Si ature Title
Laurence L. Tong April 18, 1990
Printed Name Date
(1) Determination based on location of project
(2) Determination based on staff office review
(3) Determination based on field review.
(4) Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan
(5) Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
(6) Determination based on Specific Plan
(7) Not applicable.
(8) Other (state data). The draft revised Housing Element is
incorporated herein by reference. The level of specificity in this
Negative Declaration corresponds with the level of detail in the
proposed revisions to the housing programs. Further environmental
analysis for specific projects will be required when development
proposals are submitted to the City for review.
(9) The Environmental Impact Report (SCH #84011002) for the Dublin
General Plan is incorporated herein by reference. The project area
evaluated in the EIR included the extended planning area (i.e. , East
Dublin and West Dublin). The EIR evaluated the impacts of
approximately 12,000 dwelling units in East Dublin and 4,000 units in
West Dublin.
7
n
EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR #11, POPULATION AND #12,
HOUSING.
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a
demand for additional housing?
The proposed programs in the revised Housing Element will alter
the density of the human population and will, affect existing
housing (e.g., through rehabilitation programs). The proposed
programs are consistent with the future development of the City
and extended planning area which was analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #84011002) for the Dublin
General Plan.
Given the recent housing production in Dublin and the projected
number of units, the housing need of the very low, low and above
moderate income families are not expected to be met during the
five year planning period of the Housing Element. Thus, the
revised programs emphasize housing assistance to very low and low
income families. The proposed new programs include the
following:
- an ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those called
for in State law;
- an inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring a minimum percentage
of low and moderate income housing in new developments with 10 or
more units;
- review of development standards to determine whether changes
should be made to reduce development costs;
- encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and sites
with low intensity land uses to building housing;
- encourage higher density residential development near the
proposed BART station;
- provide priority processing and reduce application fees for
senior projects and developments providing 10% or more units
affordable to low, very low and moderate income households;
- encourage shared living arrangements;
8
- work with the owner of The Springs and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties to
negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if necessary, work
with a non-profit entity to consider acquisition of the project
and provide equivalent rent subsidies.
- fund existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri-Valley area
to house citizens in need of emergency shelter; and
- adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing emergency
shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use.
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Housing Policy Development
Division D
1800 Third Street, Room 430
P.O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3176 RECEIVED
MAY -7 1990
DUBLIN PLANNING
April 30, 1990
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
RE: Review of City of Dublin's Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Dublin's draft housing element, received
April 3, 1990, for our review. As you know, we are required to
review draft housing elements and report our findings to the
locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b)) .
Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone conversation on
April 16, 1990, with Dennis Carrington, the City's Senior Planner.
This letter and appendix contain a summary of that discussion.
The draft element is a well written and comprehensive document, and
establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our
opinion, however, revisions are needed for the element to comply
with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government
Code). In particular, the element should clarify the availability
of sites necessary to accommodate the City's share of the regional
housing need for all income levels, expand the analysis of
subsidized units at risk, and identify adequate sites for emergency
shelter and transitional housing. The Appendix to this letter
outlines these and other recommended changes.
The enclosed "Supplemental Housing Element Information" appendix
contains information about recent legislative changes that may
affect your housing programs. We are also enclosing, under
separate cover, a technical assistance paper on providing shelter
for the homeless to assist the City in meeting the requirements of
housing element law.
AC MEAT 2
Mr. Richard C. Ambrose
Page Two
We hope our comments are helpful to the City and we appreciate the
cooperation and assistance of Messrs. Carrington and Schubert
during the course of our review. If you have any questions about
our comments, please contact Gary Collord of our staff at (916)
327-2644.
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Information Act,
we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Na cy J. Jay , Cbi f
Division of Housing Policy
Development
NJJ:GC:bt
Attachments
cc: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, City of Dublin
Bob Schubert, Consultant to the City of Dublin
Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association
Clifford Sweet, Alameda County Legal Aid Society
Mike Rawson, Alameda County Legal Aid Society
Sue Hestor, Attorney at Law
Tom Cook, Bay Area Council
Revan A.F. Tranter, Association of Bay Area Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association
PNAms
APPENDIX
City of Dublin
The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Dublin's housing
element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code.
Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to the
applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions are
for your information only. We recognize that Dublin may choose
other means of complying with the law.
A. Review and Revision
1. Review the previous element to evaluate the
appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in
implementation, and reflect the results of this review
in the revised element (Section 65588 (a) and (b)).
While the updated element includes an analysis and
overview of the achievements of the previous element, the
City may wish to expand the analysis to include the
following:
Evaluate the effectiveness of the previous element's
programs in meeting the City's quantified objectives and
the regional share allocation of new construction for all
income groups. If the City was unsuccessful in meeting
its previous quantified objectives, describe how the
programs of the updated element will better achieve the
new construction need for all income groups.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Clarify the amount of land available for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites proposed
for annexation, to ensure that the City can accommodate
its share of the regional housing need for all income
levels, and analyze the relationship of zoning and public
services and facilities available to these sites (Section
65583(a) (3)).
It is not clear whether the vacant sites within the City
and the sites proposed for annexation will accommodate
the City's regional share allocation for all income
levels. Expand the analysis to include for each zoning
category: available acreage, existing and proposed
zoning, expected development densities, proposed
annexation time frames if applicable, and the
availability of public facilities and services to these
sites within the planning period.
2. Expand the analysis of assisted housing developments with
the potential to convert to non-low-income housing uses
during the next ten-year period (Section 65583(a) (8)).
a. In addition to the federally-subsidized units you
have identified, it is necessary to identify and
gather information locally on any projects which may
be located within your jurisdiction, developed with
assistance from any of the following programs, and
which are subject to low-income use restrictions
which could be terminated within the next ten years
(Section 65583(a) (8)) :
■ FmHA Sec. 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans
• HUD Community Development Block Grant Program
■ State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond
programs,
■ redevelopment programs
■ local in-lieu fees,
and units that were developed pursuant to:
■ a local inclusionary housing program
• Government Code Section 65916, a density bonus
project which has direct financial assistance
and affordability controls.
Use restrictions for these units could be in effect
from conditions of project approval and/or
regulatory agreements.
Include all of the following information for each
assisted project in the ten-year inventory: project
name and address, the type of governmental
assistance received, the earliest possible date of
change from low-income use and the total number of
elderly and non-elderly units that could be lost
from the locality's low-income housing stock in each
year during the ten-year period (Section 65583(a)
(8) (A)) . For the purpose of the subsequent cost
analysis, it may be useful to format the inventory
listing into two five-year groups referencing the
dates of the earliest potential terminations of use
restrictions.
Analysis of the inventory should characterize the
nature of the units at risk, e.g. the average, or
range of project sizes, building ages, tenant types
(relative proportions of elderly vs. family), and
peak period(s) of potential conversions. It is also
useful to summarize the type of assistance programs,
e.g. incidence of units at risk due to rental
2
assistance contract expirations vs. loan
prepayments; and condition of the housing stock as
it may relate to housing rehabilitation needs.
b. Identify nonprofit entities with capacity to acquire
and manage assisted projects to preserve their low-
income use (Section 65583 (a) (8) (C)) . Potential
nonprofit entities might include housing authorities
and redevelopment agencies, in addition to private
nonprofit housing developers. In our opinion, the
City should include, but is not limited to, the
following considerations for your assessment of
their capacity: are any of the identified
nonprofits interested in potential acquisition and
management of such at-risk units now or in the
future, how long they have been operating, how many
projects/units they have developed and/or managed,
and do they have rehabilitation experience?
c. Identify all financing sources which could be used
to preserve the projects which could convert from
low-income use over the ten years, including amounts
of each program which have not been legally
obligated, and which could be available for
preservation of these projects. Financing sources
to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, all
of the following:
■ HUD Community Development Block Grant Program
funds,
■ Redevelopment Low- and Moderate-Income Housing
Funds, and
■ administrative fees (reserves) of any housing
authority operating within the community
(Section 65583(a) (8) (D)) .
For example, if your jurisdiction is a CDBG
entitlement city, or if it has received CDBG funds
through the Small Cities non-entitlement program,
indicate the approximate amount of annual funds
which have been allocated for housing programs, and
which might therefore be eligible for use in
preserving at-risk units in the future.
d. Include a cost analysis of the following (Section
65583(a) (8) (B)) :
1) the cost, in aggregate amounts over two five-
year periods, of producing new housing that is
comparable in size and rent levels, to replace all
of the units that could change from low-income use,
and
3
2) an estimated cost of preserving all of the
assisted housing developments. This may be
described relative to the estimated replacement
costs, e.g. whether such costs would be anticipated
to be higher or lower than replacement estimates,
and for what reason(s), as well as the magnitude of
the difference in estimates.
3. Expand the analysis of the City's zoning ordinance as a
potential governmental constraint to the development of
housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4)).
The analysis should include a more detailed review of the
City's development standards (setback and building height
requirements for example) and other land use policies
including open space and parking requirements. The
element indicates that "Zoning could be a constraint to
housing if the density categories are low in an area that
could support higher density residential development."
In light of the City's past record in accommodating its
new construction need for all income levels, evaluate
whether the City's zoning ordinance has served as such
a constraint.
C. Quantified Objectives
Depending upon the results of the analysis required in B-1
above, the City may wish to revise its quantified objectives
to establish the maximum number of housing units which
potentially may be constructed for all income levels during
the planning period of the element (Section 65583(b)).
Within the quantified objective for number of units to be
conserved, include a quantified number of the assisted multi-
family rental units at risk of losing government assistance
over the next ten years (from earlier inventory) to be
preserved over the five-year period of the housing element
(Section 65583(b)) .
D. Programs
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards, and
with public services and facilities needed to facilitate
and encourage the development of a variety of housing
for all income levels, including sites for emergency
shelter and transitional housing (Section 65583(c) (1)) .
Without a complete site inventory as described in Item
B-1, the adequacy of the existing sites cannot be
determined.
4
After a more complete site inventory, the City may need
to identify program actions to increase the variety of
housing types and zoning densities necessary to provide
adequate housing sites for all income levels. The City
may wish to rezone vacant sites within the City and
prezone sites proposed for annexation, to better
accommodate the housing needs of the various income
groups. For example, to meet the needs of the following
income groups the City could consider zoning at these
densities:
Very Low: (multifamily rental: 25-40 du/ac)
Low: (multifamily rental or owner: 18-25 du/ac)
Moderate: (rental and owner: 8-18 du/ac)
While the City's proposed program to apply for federal
and State financing to support services to Dublin's
homeless population by shelters in the Tri-Valley Area
is encouraged, the City will also need to designate
appropriate zoning fora shelter and transitional housing
site(s) at a suitable location(s) within the City.
Additionally, the City should ensure that the regulatory
process does not discourage the development of,
conversion to, or use of, a shelter or transitional
housing.
2. Identify programs, if necessary (see Item B-3, above) to
remove or mitigate any identified governmental
constraints (Section 65583 (c) (3)) .
3. The program section of the element contains an extensive
array of ambitious programs. However, some of the
programs should more strongly indicate the City's
commitment towards implementation. Programs should
include specific activities with target dates or
timelines for implementation within the planning period
(Section 65583 (c) (1-5)) . Examples of programs which
should provide additional information include, but are
not limited to:
Program IE: Does the City have a program action to
increase development densities should the study warrant
higher densities? When would the program be implemented?
Program ILIA: What are the proposed zoning densities for
these annexation areas? Do the zoning densities support
the quantified objectives of 350 low-, moderate-, and
above-moderate-income units?
Program IIIG: What does the City mean by "provide
development sites within East Dublin for this program"?
Does the City intend to landbank sites for the
5
n n
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
_ X 8.1_9 a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
8_1_9 b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric, historic, or
architecturally significant building,
structure, or object?
X8 g�q c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
$ & 9 a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
/\ 8 & 9 b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the
future).
'/4\ 8_12 c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited but cumulatively
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).
8 & 9 d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
6
development of affordable housing by nonprofit housing
providers?
Program IIIH: How will the City encourage the development
of additional units? What does the City mean by "Provide
assistance as requested by Housing Authority staff"?
Program IIIM: What are the quantified objectives of this
program? What is the estimated extent of City financial
participation in the program throughout the planning
period of the element?
Program IIIN: How does the City participate in this
program? How will the eligibility of first-time
homebuyers to qualify be increased?
4 . Describe program efforts to be undertaken to preserve the
assisted at-risk projects listed in the ten-year
inventory for low-income use. These efforts should
include utilization of all financing sources identified
earlier, except where the community has identified other
(more) urgent needs for these funding sources (Section
655883 (c) (6) ) . Efforts might range from regulatory and
technical assistance measures to providing the option for
direct financial participation (loans/grants for
acquisition/rehabilitation) for preserving the at-risk
units.
6
SUPPLEMENTAL HOUSING ELEMENT INFORMATION
The following information represents recent legislative changes in
housing element or State planning law. This information is
provided for your general information and to assist you in updating
your housing element.
1. Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, require all housing elements
to include, by January 1, 1992, additional needs analyses and
programs to address the potential conversion of existing
assisted housing developments to non-low-income housing uses
during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section
65583(a) (8) and (c) (6)) . Assisted housing developments are
defined to include any multifamily rental housing assisted
under any of the following programs:
1. Federal: Section 8, 213, 221(d) (3), 236, 202, and 101;
CDBG and FmHA Section 515.
2. State: Multifamily revenue bonds
3. Local: Multifamily revenue bond, redevelopment, in-
lieu, inclusionary, and density bonus program
units with affordability controls.
HCD is developing a technical assistance document to assist
localities in meeting the new requirement.
2. Chapter 1140, Statutes of 1989, amends housing element law
(Section 65583(c)) to require the housing program of an
element to include, by January 1, 1990, a description of the
use of moneys in a redevelopment agency's Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund if the locality has established a
redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community
Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000)
of the Health and Safety Code) .
3. Recently enacted State general obligation bond programs
established by Proposition 77 (California Earthquake Safety
and Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988) and Proposition
84 (Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988) are currently
available to assist localities with funding to implement low-
and very low-income housing programs. These funds may be used
for the following activities:
■ acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing and
residential hotels,
■ rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing,
■ seismic rehabilitation of multifamily rental
housing,
■ rental housing construction,
■ acquisition and rehabilitation of emergency
shelters,
■ development of migrant farm labor centers, and
• development of congregate housing for families and
the elderly.
Inquiries regarding these and other assistance programs
offered by HCD should be directed to:
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
Division of Community Affairs
P.O. Box 952054
Sacramento, CA 94252-2054
Telephone (916) 322-1560
4. Chapter 842, Statutes of 1989, amended State density bonus law
(Government Code Sections 65913.4, 65915 and 65917) by
providing for additional local incentives for affordable
housing units and strengthening income targeting requirements,
among other changes. We have attached a copy of the amended
law for your information.
HCD is developing a technical assistance document to assist
localities in meeting the new requirements.
5. Chapters 1571 and 1572, Statutes of 1988, require that
manufactured housing must be permitted on permanent foundation
systems on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit
is no more than ten years old on the date of application, and
meets federal and optional local standards specified in
Government Code Section 65852.3. (A locality may exempt from
this provision any place, building, structure, or other object
listed on the National Register of Historic Places.) Section
65852.3 specifies that local governments may impose
architectural requirements on the manufactured home itself
which are limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and
siding material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot
development standards imposed on the manufactured home
installation, do not exceed those required for a conventional
home on the same lot. Section 65852.4 has been added to the
Government Code to specify that a locality may not subject an
application to install a manufactured home on a foundation
system on a single-family lot to any administrative permit,
planning, or development process or requirement unless it is
identical to those which would be imposed on a conventional
home on the same lot.
r
San�ancisco Chronicle
Marcie 20, 1990
State Is Way Behind in Meeting
Its Low-Cost Housing Goals
By Vfae Kerahner ple who earn 80 percent of the
Chronicle Economics Editor AFFORDABLE median income in their communi-
Sacramento HOUSING—HOW ty could rent it without using more
than 30 percent of their incomes.A
California is producing only 16 BAY AREA LAGS portion of that housing is supposed
percent as much affordable hous- to be reserved for people who earn
ing as it needs,even though plen- Affordable Peron- no more than 50 percent of the -
ty of market-rate housing is being units built toga median income.
built,according to a report issued - county 1980.88 of goal The goals for affordable hous-
yesterday. Alameda 6,141 30% ing come from state-mandated
The Bay Area barely exceeded
the statewide average.Only about Contra Costa 3,031 15 housing requirements. Regional
agencies,such as the Association
20 percent of the 0 low-cost Maria 1,176 33 _ for Bay Area Governments,deter-
housing units neededed in in the nine- Napa 52 1 mine how many lower-income
county region were built between units are needed and a ortion
1980 and 1988,;the,.report by theCal San Francisco• 2,902 40 pp
us that total among cities and coun-
,
rnia Coalition for Rural San Mateo 1250 15 ties The local governments "are
Housing said. . Santa Clara 2,957 11 - supposed to respond,but there is
While the inability of local gov- Tittle enforcement capability,"ac-
Solana 3,669 28 `.
eevelop to provide incentives to . cording to Rolf Pendall,a policy
developers was cited as one reason Sonoma 2,655 18 analyst with the Bay Area Council,
for the lack of affordable housing, TOTAL 23,833 20 which compiled many of the Bay
the authors of the report said the Area numbers used in the survey.
biggest problem was local indiffer- NOTE:Affordable units ore those The law does not necessarily
ence or hostility. • that could be rented by people earn- require communities to meet their
"Some neighborhoods don't ing 80 percent of a county's median oats,but does re uire some ef-
want low- and moderate-income income. g q
SOUK.California Coalition
fort,the authors of the report said.
housing in their backyards,"said for Rural Housing Statewide,only five of the 156
Ann Harrington,who directed the largest communities met their
study."They fight tooth and nail to goals: Palm Springs, Costa Mesa,
keep out the people who mow in in communities that have not Woodland,Suisun City and Santa
their lawns,wash their shirts and met their housing goals. by
harvest their food." Barbara,which did far the best,
The study's authors said factors building about seven times as
The report cited 18 Bay Area such as congestion and a lack of many lower-income units as its tar•
communities among 116 cities and land could not account for the lack get.
unincorporated suburbs statewide of low-income units,because Cali- Besides Suisun City,only Fair-
that had built no lower-income fornia has been producing about fax in the Bay Area had built
units in the 1980,98period:Albany, 120 percent of its goal for total enough affordable housing to
Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, housing units. meet its goals. Only Belvedere,
Clayton,Colma,Danville,Dublin, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Mountain
East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Half "What's shocking about the
Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Lafay- survey is that it found that Calif or- View,Oakland,San Bruno,San Ra-
ette, Monte Sereno, Piedmont, nia has built plenty of housing,but fael and Vacaville had met half
almost none for those most in their goals.
Ross,San a and Saratoga. San Francisco did com arativ
ei
Stan Keasling,of the California need," said Senate Housing and P
Right to Housing Campaign,said Urban Affairs Committee Chair- ly well,building 2,902 affordable
man Leroy Greene. housing units,or 40 percent of its
his organization planned to begin goal,the highest percentage of any
filing lawsuits against the commit- "We still have nearly 150,000 Area county.
that had not produced any homeless- in the state. Why?Be- Bay
low-income housing. He also cause one-third of our communi- Greene indicated that he had
threatened action against 82 rede- ties are producing no low-income no sympathy for cities that want-
velopment agencies,which he said housing at all,"Greene said. ed,for whatever reason,to keep
violated the law byfailingto set Under statelow-income housing out. He said
guidelines, hous-p he believed the state should force
aside money for low-income hous- ing is considered affordable if pea social change on communities if
necessary,but noted that there is
AlTACiME no consensus in the Legislature for
the laws that would force those
s- changes.