HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 WDubExtPlanAreaOpenSpa CITY CLERK
File #
420-20
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 2, 2002
SUBJECT:
Selection of Open Space Preservation Option - Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Implementation Report, Western Dublin Extended Planning
Area, October 2001
2. Minutes of City Council. November 6, 2001 meeting
3. Open Space Workshop Minutes held on December 12, 2002 and
January 23, 2002
/
RECOMMENDATION: rx/Option 1 - Approve Preservation of Open Space through
/,~ ~ ~ ¥ Acquisition of Nielsen and Milestone properties either bY direct City
/~/,,/v acquisition or in concert with East Bay Regional Park district.
Option 2 - Approve preservation of Open Space in conjunction with
possible limited development on the Nielsen property in order to
secure open space easements.
Option 3 - Take no action at this time.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
If Option one is selected, the .cost to acquire the Nielsen and
Milestone properties by the City could range from $1.7 to $5.2
million; in concert with outside funding and the East Bay Regional
Park, the City's cost Could be much lower. If Option 2 or 3 are
selected, there would be no cost to the City.
BACKGROUND:
A Report titled Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
(Options Report) was presented to the City Council on June 20, 2000. This study explored options for
preserving open space in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. This large undeveloped area in the
City's existing Sphere of Influence lies between the existing City limit and Eden Canyon Road. The Area
has been subject to various planning studies over the years. The Options Report documented open space
G:\wdub ex plan area\ccsr 4-2 open space implprog
COPIES TO: Consultant
In-House distribution
ITEM NO.
resources in the Area and identified options for preserving open space and estimated costs of the various
options.
The City Council on October 17, 2000, following-up on the Options Report, directed the preparation of
another study that focused upon creation of an open space preserve in the eastern portion of the Western
Dublin Extended Planning Area. Specifically, the implementation study was to:
· Focus on the eastem portion of the Planning Area, comprised of 767 +acres in three ownerships
(Nielsen, Milestone Partnership and John Machado Properties).
Evaluate the feasibility of two options for preserving open space in the eastern portion of the Area (co-
terminus with the City limit); one option involving limited development in the area and another option
involving purchase of open space lands. The feasibility evaluation included geotechnical suitability
analysis and land valuation appraisal to assure accuracy of the results.
· Refine options for funding open space acquisition costs.
Prepare a study report for public review including an action plan based upon the technical findings of
the study and hold two City Council meetings and two public workshops to receive comment and to
refine the action plan.
The Implementation Report: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area (Implementation Report) was
completed in October 2001. A City Council Meeting was held on November 9, 2001 where the Report
was presented and discussed. Minutes of this meeting are found in Attachment 2. Following the City
Council meeting two public workshops were held, the first on December 12, 2001 and a second on
January 23, 2002. The workshops were both well-attended. At each meeting staff and consultants made a
brief presentation of the Implementation Report and its findings. Following this presentation a question
and answer session was held where members of the public could ask questions and express their opinions
regarding the contents of the implementation report. The comments and discussion at these workshops
can be summarized as follows:
There was general expressed support for open space preservation in the Area. There was some
discussion regarding the disposition of the remainder of the Westem Extended Planning Area lying
west of the focus area.
There was general support for public open space acquisition, either through fee or easement purchase
where willing sellers exist although some skepticism was expressed regarding the valuation data
presented in the Report.
There was some skepticism expressed regarding the development feasibility within the Area, even the
limited development that was evaluated in the Report, given the severe geotechnical constraints, visual
exposure, and access problems.
There was general enthusiasm for the possibility of expanding the Regional Trail being planned by the
East Bay Regional Park District into a Dublin Hills Regional Park, although various concems were
expressed regarding such a park including visitor access, continuation of grazing, and maintenance
costs.
Regarding funding, support was expressed for using City funding for initial purchases of land or
easements. Other open space funding including additional impact fees and even a Citywide assessment
for open space acquisition and maintenance were also supported, although it was recognized that these
sources should be allocated to open space opportunities located around the entire City.
March 2002 activities included the purchase of the John Machado prOPerty by East Bay Regional Parks
District as the second of their purchases for the Regional Trail. Only the Nielsen and Milestone properties
remain as a part of the potential implementation program as of this date.
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS:
Option 1 - Preserve Open Space by Acquiring the Nielsen and Milestone properties ~ Direct acquisition
of the two properties by the City would create a 620 acre permanent open space preserve in conjunction
with the East Bay Regional Park District trail acquisitions along the ridge (Scott and John Machado
properties). City funding would be required. If owned and maintained by the City, ongoing costs would
need to be funded by the City on a yearly basis.
A second possibility for acquisition of the two properties would be to initiate discussions with the EBRPD
for creation of a Dublin Hills Regional Park combining the two properties with the District's Regional
Trail Acquisitions (Machado properties). The District has expressed interest in a cooperative effort with
the City focusing in acquisition funding and maintenance funding. City Staff could be directed to meet
with EBRPD Staff to initiate planning efforts. The planning effort could result in a Memorandum of
Understanding that would guide the cooperative effort to create the regional park. This option was highly
favored by citizen comments in the two workshops.
Option 2 - Preserve Open Space in conjunction with possible limited development on the Nielsen
property_ in order to secure open space easements - In the Implementation Report, two possible
development scenarios were presented (59 units and 6 units) as an example of how some development
might work on the Nielsen property to help preserve other portions of the properties for open space fee/
easements. Various physical, visual, environmental and economic cost considerations were presented in
the report that question whether this option is acceptable. Administratively, the effort to approve
development in this area may require substantial costs including additional planning, engineering and
environmental analysis and the costs of processing the application, including annexation, General Plan
amendment, and the ballot measure required to amend the General Plan land use designation and location
of the urban limit line. There was little or no public support expressed for the development option.
Option 3 - Take no action at this time - The two properties are presently impacted by Measure 'M'
adopted by the Dublin voters which requires a vote of the Dublin electorate before any General Plan
amendment proposing urban development in this area can be approved by the City. In addition, Measure
"D', adopted by the County electorate prohibits any change from the County Agricultural zoning on these
properties, as they are presently unincorporated and are under County jurisdiction. These two measures
effectively prohibit any urban development on the two properties at the present time and serve as a means
to insure open agricultural uses for the forseable future on the properties. No action by the Council would
affirm the present agricultural use of the property, although open space use by the public would be
prohibited. Little interest was expressed by the public for this option in the workshops.
CONCLUSION:
If the City Council believes that permanent preservation of the subject property by acquisition methods
alone is the proper approach, Staff would recommend that the feasibility of a partnership between the
EBRPD and the city should be explored. As noted by the City's Consultant, the District is very interested
in the possibility of creating a Dublin Hills Regional Park and could have funding that could be funneled
into this proposal.
If the City Council prefers to secure open space fee/easements by allowing limited development in the
Nielsen property, Staff should be instructed to return with specific methods to achieve this direction.
Finally, the City Council has the option to take no action on this item at this time. Given the required
mandates of Measures M and D and the fact that the the voters of Dublin must ultimately decide on any
development proposed for this area if it is even annexed, any change in the present agricultural nature of
the affected properties will be difficult to achieve.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council either:
Select the acquisition option or,
Select the limited development option or,
Take no action.
Economic &
Planning Systems
Public Finance
Real Estate Economics
Regional Economics
Land Use Policy
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
October 10, 2001
EPS 10274
ATTACHMENT J
BERKELEY
2501 Ninth Street, Suite 200 phone: 510-841-9190
Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 fax: 510~841-9208
www.epsys.com
SACRAMENTO DENVER
phone: 916-649~8010 phon~: 303-575-8112
fax: 916-649-2070 fktx: 303-623- i294
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Background .................................................................................................................... !
ACQUISITION OPTION ..................................................................................................... 5
III. LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OPTION ................................................................................... 9
IV. FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 17
V. ACTION PLAN ....................................... ' ................................................................. ....... 22
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
PAGE
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Development Cost Estimates for Concept A ............................................. ....... 14
Development Cos~ Estimates for Concept B ...................................................... 15
Residual Value Analysis for Concepts A and B ................................................ 16
Figure 1: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Regional Context ........................ 3
Figure 2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area ........................................................ 4
Figure 3: Concept "A" Land Plan .................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Concept "B' Land Plan ..................................................................................... 13
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
I. INTRODUCTION
This Implementati°n Report provides the City of Dublin with findings and an action
plan related to open space preservation in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
(Extended Planning Area). Following review of an earlier report rifled Open Space
Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area [May 2000) and the
subsequent passage of Measure "M,' a growth control initiative that requires voter '
approval for future annexations and development in the Extended Planning Area, the
City Council directed staff to study options for creating permanent open space in the
eastern portion of the Area.
Specifically, two options were set forth for further study: 1) public, acquisition of
targeted properties to create permanent open space (Acquisition Option); and 2)
permitting partial development in selected portions of the Extended Planning Area in
exchange for open space easements elsewhere in the Area (Limited Development
Option). The action plan also addresses open space funding and other aspects of
implementation.
BACKGROUND
The Western Dublin Extended Planning Area ig an unincorporated area lying
immediately west of the existing City limits and bounded by the communities of
Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley. Because this area, extending westward to Eden
Canyon Road, is within'the City's "Sphere of InflUence" as designated by the Alameda
Local Agency Formation Commission, it is an area that could be annexed by the City.
Over the past 20 years portions of the area hav. e been considered for development. For
example, Schaefer Ranch was annexed to the City during the 1990's and development
approvals were granted at that time. Development of Schaefer Ranch has been delayed,
however, by Federal regulatory requirements associated with threatened and
endangered species.
The Extended Planning Area consists of approximately 3,100 acres of rangeland with a
series of ridges and canyons, including a number of rural residential units. Interstate
580 creates the southern boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line sets the northern boundary, Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the
Dublin City limits are on the east. The regional setting of the Extended Planning Area is
shown in Figure 1.
On February 16, 1999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General
Plan Amendment Study of those properties within the City of Dublin sphere of
influence lying west of the existing City limits, and also to submit a measure to the
voters for adoption of an Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the Extended Planning Area.
Implementation Report
Western DUblin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Dublin voters approved the measure in November of 2000, creating a ULL along the
City limits and designating lands west of the ULL as Rural Residential/Agriculture in
the Dublin General Plan. This land use designation limits new development to one unit
per 100 gross acres for the next 30 years if the property is annexed to the City, unless
voters approve a variance from this regula~on. The intent of the ULL is to protect
natural resources in this area, and to restrict further development in the western hills, by
directing future development to other areas of Dublin that are less constrained and
where urban services can be provided in a more efficient manner.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study initiated in 1999, the City Council also
requested that an open space preservation study be conducted in order to consider
options for permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for
compensating landowners who could potentially be affected by the proposed ULL.
The resulting Open Space Preservation Options/or the Western Dublin Extended Planning
Area (Options Report) contained open space preservation strategies that were presented
in a series of public meetings, and were ultimately presented to and received by the
Dublin City Council in June of 2000.
EPS was subsequently retained to prepare this Implementation Report to examine
options for acquiring, or otherwise preserving, targeted open space within the Extended
Planning Area. As per City Council direction, this Report focuses upon a portion of the
Extended Planning Area generally lying west of the major ridgeline. Figure 2 indicates
the location and ownerships comprising this Study Area in the context of the broader
Extended Planning Area. Most of this Study Area is privately owned--with the
exception of about 160 acres owned by the East Bay Regiom. al Park District (EBRPD)--
and is zoned by the County of Alameda as "Agricultural" which sets a minimum parcel
size of 100 acres. Four large ownerships make up the Study Area including properties
owned by the Nielsen family, John Machado, and the Milestone Pax:axership.
- RegiOnaL Context ~ ~ ~ ~
Contra costa
County
vj~r~ Opan Spa=
prOposed EBRPD
Re ional Trail
county Boundary
Line
PG&E
Power Lines
;. 580
Alameda
County
0 2 4
Miles
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
h:~9232dubltmapsVig-II-
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
3
Figure 2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Alameda
County
\
I
Contra Costa
County
Davilla/~elds
Wiedemann
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
Battling &
Eastwood III
Davilla Canyon
Schaefer/Ranch
Parks Land to be Acquired
\
Targeted Aoqui~iflon Prop,~ti~q~
I- 580
* Machado Property Already Acquired
Economic & Planning Systems, inc. h:110274dublmapsVig_ll_2, wor ~
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
II. ACQUISITION OPTION
This report provides additional detail and predsion to topics discussed in the original
Options Report. This research and analysis is based on the two options selected by the
City Council (Acquisition and Limited Development), and includes a real estate
appraisal, geotechnical development feasibility, and funding analysis.
As a part of the earlier Report, a general estimate of land values, based on comparable
land sales in the area was made. For this Implementation Report, a formal appraisal
was commissioned to improve the confidence in the land value estimates. The appraisal
was conducted by Roland H. Burchard & Associates, a firm with extensive experience in
appraising rural lands in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY
Appraisals were conducted on the Nielsen Ranch and Cronin Heights properties to
ascertain the fair market value and highest and best use of each property. A similar
analysis was attempted for the John Machado properties; however, access was not
granted by the owner to perform this evaluation. A supporting Technical Report tiffed
Appraisals Dublin Hills Land (June 2001) has been prepared, which shows the detailed
assumptions and land comparables that informed the appraisals.
The properties studied as part of this analysis are located within the City of Dublin's
Sphere of Influence in the northern portion of central Alameda County. The area is
comprised of rural agricultural lands adjacent to residential development. The subject
properties are located within a semi-rural agricultural neighborhood that is dominated
by steep topography and offers limited vehicular access. In general, these properties
have reasonable appeal for either agricultural use or "ranchette" subdivisions, but have
no appeal 'for speculative urban development in the near future.
Because of the rolling to steep topography of the properties, .the current General Plan,
"Measure M,' and zoning, and the lack of infrastructure, urban residential
development is considered highly speculative for these properties, and is discounted by
the market. The reason the urban residential development is considered highly
speculative is because the properties are outside both the city limits and the ULL.
Urban development of any of the properties would require annexation into the City of
Dublin, a General Plan Amendment, environmental impact reports, and a voter
referendum approving the development plan. In addition, public infrastructure
including roads, water, sewer, and electricity would need to be provided.
Report.doc
Implementation Repor~
Western Dublin EXtended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
APPRAISAL METHODS
The fair market value estimates reported in this analysis are based upon comparable
land sales of properties in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties between 1998 and 2001.
A review of other agricultural and ranchette sales in the Tri Valley area indicate average
to good demand overall since January 2000, with a slow down in the time since January
2001. Each of the eight comparable land sales studied was also agriculturally zoned
property with dirt road access and partial or no utilities. Comparable land sales range
from roughly $3,200 per acre for parcels with poor access and steep topography to
$15,000 per acre for sites in expensive equestrian estate areas with good access and
gently rolling topography. The only comparable sale which took place within the same
neighborhood as the subject properties sets the Iow end of the price range at $3,200 per
acre, reflecting the limited access, remote location, and steep topography of that
property.
The highest and best use of each property is defined as the most profitable likely use to
which a site could be put, or that. use of the land which may reasonably be expected to
produce the greatest net return to the land over a given period of time. Evaluating the
highest and best use o£ a property requires consideration of current zoning, the General
Plan for the property and area, future planning aspects, the character of surrounding
development, site constraints, and market characteristics including supply and demand
for varying property uses.
PROPERTY SUMMARY
Nielsen Ranch Property
This Property is comprised of six assessor parcels owned by the Nielsen Ranch
Partnership, et al. Located adjacent to existing residential subdivisions within the City,
the Nielsen Ranch property is situated along the western side of the City limits and
south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. It is within unincorporated Alameda
County and within Dublin's Sphere of Influence. The portion of the property that
extends into Contra Costa County was not included in the appraisal.
The Nielsen Ranch property consists of ~5~ acres of land with rolling to steep
topography ranging in elevation from 600 along the southeast edge to nearly 1~500 feet
at the northerly end. The ridges and steep canyons produce a number of slopes over 30
percent grade. Access to the property is provided from the end of Brittany Drive and
Brittany Lane, as well as Martin Canyon Road, which offers limited access to both the
north and south ends of the property (See Figure 2).
Cm-rently used for cattle grazing, the property is zoned by the County for agricultural
use with a minimum lot size of 100 acres. Uses permitted by this zoning designation
include a range of agricultural uses as well as a single home site. In light of its zoning
designation and current market conditions, the highest and best use of the subject
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
property is for agricultural or ranchette use, with a potential of legal lots for four home
sites.. Continuation of its current use as a ranch, including cattle grazing and other
agricultural uses, falls within the parameters of the highest and best use.
Cronin Heights Property
Owned by the Cronin Heights Milestone Partnership, this property is located adjacent
to existing open space, and is situated along the northwest side of the Dublin City
Limits and south/southwest of the Nielsen Ranch and Alameda/Contra Costa County
line (See Figure 2). The property consists of 176 acres of agricultural land that ranges in
elevation from 600 to 1,000 feet and features a series of ridges and steep canyons, with
many slopes exceeding 30 percent grade. Currently used for cattle grazing, the property
is accessed via an easement across the Nielsen Ranch property that connects to Martin
Canyon Road.
The pr~)perty is zoned by the County for agricultural use, which limits building sites to
lots of 100 acres or more. In addition to a range of agricultural uses, a single family
home Wottld also be permitted under the zoning designation. Given the uses permitted
by zoning as well as market conditions, the highest and best use of this property is for a
single home site or for continued use as a ranch, including cattle grazing and other
agricultural uses.
John Machado Property
The John Machado property consists of five individual assessor parcels lOCated within
the unincorporated area of Dublin's Sphere of Influence in Alameda County
immediately north of Schaefer Ranch and south of existing East Bay Regional Park
Districts open space and the Cronin Heights property (See Figure 2). The property
consists of 147 acres of land with roiling to steep topography and elevations ranging
from 800 to approximately 1,100 feet. There are also a series of ridges and steep
canyons, with many sloped areas over 30 percent grade.
The Machado property is zoned for agricultural use, and has been utilized for
agricultural purposes only. The County's agricultural zoning carries a 100-acre
minimum lot size requirement, and permits a range of agricultural uses, as well as
single home sites, since the property is in excess of 100 acres. Given this zoning
designation and current market conditions, the highest and best use of this property is
for agricultural or ranchette use. Its continued use as aranch with cattle grazing fits in
well with the highest and best use. Because access to the property was not granted by
the owner, no appraisal was completed for the Machado property. The East Bay
Regional Park District has conducted an appraisal of this property for potential
acquisition for the Regional Trail and is negotiating a purchase.
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Land Value Summary
A review of comparable land sales, which varied in size from 58 to 400 acres, suggest
that that per acre costs for the subject properties could range in price from $3,145 to
$14,675. The average price per acre of comparable land sales is $8,485; however, both
the steep topography and limited access of the subject properties likely render these
properties less valuable, tn total, the value associated with all 860 acres of the Nielsen
Ranch, Cronin Heights, and Machado properties is likely to be in the range of $3 to $7
million.
8
_rm~l~ Report.doc
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
III. LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
The potential for allowing some development in the Extended Planning Area was
included in the earlier Report and identified for further study by the City Council. The
key issue for estimating the target properties' development potential is the geotechnical
physical limitations of the area, given its hilly and generally steep topography and its
history of unstable soils and landsliding. Accordingly, a review of development
potential for subject properties within the Study Area was conducted by Berlogar
Geotechnical Consultants, a firm with extensive engineering experience in the Tri-
Valley area. A supporting Technical Report titled Geotechnical and Topographic Evaluation
Cronin and Nielsen Properties Martin Canyon Dublin, California (July 2001) has been
prepared and attached as Appendix 1.
It.should be noted that develbpment in this area would require a range of institutional
actions by the City including annexation, a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation and adjust the Urban Limit Line, and voter approval. These
limitations have cast a substantial cloud on the development potential and were a factor
in the valuation of the properties.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUMMARY
The development potential of the three targeted properties within the Study Area is
mixed. The geotechnical analysis suggests that of the two properties considered, only
the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property is suitable for development given
geotechnical, topographical, and other environmental constraints. Development of the
Cronin Heights property does not appear to be feasible.
Two development concepts have been prepared, Concept A (see Figure 3), a 59-1ot
subdivision located on the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property immediately
west of existing development in Dublin, and Concept B (see Figure 4), a 6-large lot
subdivision located in the same general area. Providing backbone infrastructure and
utilities to developable portions of the Nielsen Ranch property is estimated to cost
approximately $75,000 per lot assuming 59 very low density residential lots, and
$100,000 per lot assuming 6 estate lots. These costs are not likely to make residential
development infeasible on this portion of the Nielsen Ranch property, and in fact are
well within industry norms.
The location that appears feasible for development is the central portion of the Nielsen
Ranch property. Landslide mapping indicates that the south-facing slope along the
southern margin of the Nielsen property is generally not suitable for development,
while the central portion of the property appears to be geotechnically suitable for
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
development. Meanwhile, the northern portion of the Nielsen Ranch property offers
limited development potential due to geotechnical, topographic, and possible wetland
considerations. The most feasible access to these properties would be proceeding
westward from the current endpoint of Britt.any Lane.
Development on most of the Cronin property appears to be infeasible due to large-scale
landsliding and limited access potential. Those portions of the property for which
access could be provided through the Nielsen Ranch property are unsuitable for
development due to large-scale landsliding. The only portion of the Cronin property
that does appear to be suitable for development would require access to be created from
the west. However, there does not appear to be significant potential for access from the
west again dueto large-scale landsliding, so the Cronin property does not have
significant development potential given its current constraints. The Machado property
is also under consideration for possible acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park
District.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical Assessment
As noted abOVe, the Study Area is generally known to have geotechnical limitations
related to steep slopes, unstable soils, and landslide potential, as identified in the
Berlogar Geotechnical Report. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants applied standard
methods to perform its geotechnical assessment including performing aerial
photographic interpretation, reviewing historical documents (earlier geotechnical
studies prepared in the Study Area), and visiting the Subject properties in a walking
tour.
Development Cost Estimates
Berlogar also prepared conceptual land plans for the Nielsen property assuming that the
full development potential of this property was utilized for either very iow density or
estate residential development. Site development cost estimates were also prepared
using a standard engineering technique involving the application of current "unit costs"
for infrastructure and site improvement items to quantities related to the land plans. As
shown in Table 1, an estimated $5 million in site-related access and other improvements
would be required for Concept A, a 59-unit subdivision located on the central portion of
the Nielsen Ranch property. Table 2 shows.detailed estimates totaling approximately
$680,000 in site-related access and other improvements for Concept B, a 6-unit large lot
subdivision also located on the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property.
Land Value Estimates
A generalized estimate of land value can be obtained by deducting site development-
related costs from an estimate of retail prices for the home sites created. This "residual
value analysis" is shown in Table 3, which shows the residual value for both Concept A
and Concept B. Retail values for these lots reflect estimates of current market conditions
for such properties. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a general sense of
development-related values. Again it is important to note that these values assume a
10
bnpleraentation Report.doc
Implementation _Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
General Plan Amendment and voter approval of a development plan. Actual
development costs, timing, and market prices will determine actualValues. The cost
and income information sho~-n in Table 3 indicates that the residual value of the
property may reach bet~veen $6 and $7 million for Concept A, reflecting high costs per
unit in relation to total sales prices for the 59-unit subdivision. Meanwhile, the residual
value for Concept B is estimated to fall.in the range of $4 to $5 million, reflecting the
lower site costs and significantly higher prices associated with the 6-unit large lot
subdivision.
11
I. rpten~mtation Re~'t. doc
~073)
CONCEPT "A" LAND PLAN
NEILSEN PROPERTY
MARTIN CANYON
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
FOR
ECONOMIC AND PLANNING $YS~$, INC,
Figure 4': ConcePt "B' Land Plan
[roe+ 5073)
CONCEPT "B" LAND P.LAN
NEILSEN PROPERT~
MAFO'IN cANYON
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
FOR
ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, ~NC,
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Table 1
Development Cost Estimates for Concept A
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan; EPS #10274
Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
Gradin.q
Clear & Grub LS 1 $30,000 $30,000
Slopes CY 333,405 $4 $1,333,620
Erosion Control LS 1 $75,000 $75,000
Subtotal $1,438,620
Paving
Fine Grading SF 223,550 $0
3" AC over 8" AB, Assumed SF 223,550 $4
Subtotal
Concrete
6: Curb and Gutter LF 10,340 $13
4" Concrete SF 25,850 $4
Private Drive: Curb and Gutter LF i,260 $11
Subtotal
Storm Drain
Catch Basins EA 17 $3,500
18" RCP LF 4,850 $40
Subtotal
Sanitary Sewer
Manholes EA 45 $3,500
8" SS LF 5,800 $30
4" Lateral EA 59 $550
Subtotal
Water System
8" PVD LF 5,800 $40
Water Meter/Lateral EA 59 $10,000
Hydrants EA 12 $3,500
Subtotal
Total Costs
Other Cost
Design and Engineering Fees (10% of Total Costs)
Contingency (15% of Total Costs)
TOTAL FOR ALL 59 LOTS
TOTAL PER LOT
$67,065
$782,425
$849,490
$134,420
$103,400
$13,860
$251,680
$59,500
$194,000
$253,500
$157,500
$174,000
$32,450
$363,950
$232,000
$590,000
$42,00q
$864,000
$4,021,240
$402,124
$603,186
$5,026,550
$85,196
(1) Cost figures are estimated based upon conceptual site plan.
(2) Estimate excludes traffic control, signing and striping, landscape and all other consultants and public agency fees.
3) Cost estimate does not include new water tank for higher pressure zones.
14
Implernenta~i°n Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Table 2
Development Cost Estimates for Concept B
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan; EPS #10274
Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
Grading
Clear & Grub LS 1 $20,000
Slopes CY 14,600 $5
Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000
Subtotal
Paving
Fine Grading SF 71,100 $0
3" AC over 8" AB, Assumed SF 71,100 $4
Subtotal
Concrete
6: Curb and Gutter LF 4,740 $11
Subtotal
Storm Drain
Catch Basins EA 2,250 $40
18" RCP LF 4 $2,500
Subtotal
Total CoSts
Other Cost
Design and Engineering Fees (10% of Total Costs)
Contingency (15% of Total Costs)
TOTAL FOR ALL 6 LOTS
TOTAL PER LOT
$20,000
$73,000
$30,000
$123,000
$21,330
$248,850
$270,180
$52,140
$52,140
$90,000
$10,OO0
$100,000
$545,320
$54,532
$81,798
$681,650
$113,608
(1) Cost figures are estimated based upon conceptual site plan.
(2) Estimate excludes traffic control, signing and striping, landscape and ali other consultants and public agency fees.
(3) Assumed use of individual water wells
Soume: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
15
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Table 3
Residual Value Analysis for Concepts A anb B
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan~ EPS #10274
Item Per Lot Total
Concept A
Net Sales Return (1)
Development Cost (2)
Residual land Value
Concept B
Net Sales Return (1)
Development Costs (3)
Residual Land Value
$300,000 $17,700,000
-$85,196 -$5,026,550
$214,804 $12,673,450
$ 00,000 $4,s00,000
-$113,608 -$681,650
$686,392 $4,118,350
(1) Assumes that closing and carrying costs, and other soft costs will total 20 pement of total sales
price, estimated at $375,000 per lot for Concept A and $1,000,000 per lot for Concept B.
(2) See Table 1 for detailed cost breakdown.
(3) See Table 2 for detailed cost breakdown.
Source: Beflogar Geotechnical Consultants; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
16
lmplem~mtionReport.~c
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
IV. FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for open space preservation is a function of what outcome'is desired and how
this outcome is pursued. If the City Council determines that the objective is to preserve
as much open space without spending City or outside agency funds, some development
could be permitted (subject to Planning approvals and voter approval) and the
remaining open space could be acquired either in fee or as open space/conservation
easements. Conversely, if the decision is to acquire all of the properties, a broader open
space program might involve other agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District;
grants, city resources and other state, federal and local revenue programs. The
following funding sources originally described in the Options Report, are placed in the
order that they could be implemented as funding requirements increase.
ResolVing the topic of funding sources depends upon what the desired outcome is and
how this outcome is pursued. For example, ff some development is permitted as
described above, funding requirements would be lowered. Also, it will be important to
detem-dne whether the land (or easement) acquisitions within the Study Area are
unique or part of a broader open space program that might involve other parts of the
City. The following funding sources, originally described in the Options Report, are
placed in the order that they could be implemented as funding requirements increase.
DEDICATION OF FEE OR EASEMENT
The logic of the limited development option is that remaining open space on the Nielsen
Properties would be dedicated to the City, or other agency either in fee or as an
easement. Such a dedication would lower or eliminate acquisition costs on the
Milestone and possibly Machado Properties and can thus be considered a funding
source. Considering rough parity of the potential value created by Development
Concept A and the fair market appraisals, it should be possible to obtain easements on
the entire eastern portion of the Study Area. This would reduce or eliminate acquisition
costs.
CITY GENERAL FUND RESERVES
The City of Dublin could allocate a portion of any budget surpluses or unallocated
funds to acquisition of fee interests or conservation easements in the Study Area. These
funds could be used as the local match often required by competitive statewide grant
programs. The advantage of using General Funds is that it requires no voter approval;
the disadvantage is that these funds will have competing demands and cannot be a
dedicated long-term funding source. The City can also contribute towards an open
space acquisition program by dedicating staff time and resources towards writing grant
proposals and coordinating with conservation organizations/agencies such as the
EBRPD.
17
ImplementationReporLdoc
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25~ 2002
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FUNDING
The EBRPD officially has limited funds available for acquisitions of land or trail
easements in the Study Area; however, there are some funds remaining in their Measure
AA bond program, originally allocated to other portions of the District that could be
reallocated to the Dublin area if a promising and broadly beneficial regional park were
to be created. The EBRPD is also eligible for direct funding from the statewide
conservation bond approved by voters as Proposition 12 in March 2000. The EBRPD
can also compete for Statewide grants from resource agencies and from private
foundations.
A Regional Trail bisecting the Study Area is identified in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan
(see Figure 1). The EBRPD has recently made substantial land acquisitions inthe Study
Area as part of its efforts to establish this Regional Trail, and is continuing its land and
easement acquisition efforts. Given the EBRPD's recent acquisitions and the regional
benefits of creating a regional park in this area, opporttmities exist for the City and the
EBRPD to partner in various ways, including merging funding sources for acquisition
and establishing funding for improvements and maintenance. Such a partnership could
also enhance the possibility of attracting other outside grant funding.
It is possible that the EBRPD acquisiti°ns, along with the properties addressed in this
Implementation Report that are located upon or adjacent to the ridgeline, could be
combined to create a nearly Z000-acre Regional Park, similar to Briones or Las Trampas.
This Park would have lateral access through western Dublin at existing or additional
trail heads and staging areas. The City has already improved a trail in Martin Canyon
that approaches the Study Area. Continuing access from the south and north would be
provided by the Regional Trail.
GRANTS
Proposition 12
Proposition 12 - the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2000 contains $826.5 million for local and regional parks.
The EBRPD and/or the City may apply for State of California grants for the protection
of key open space resources in the Study Area. Proposition 12 specifically contains the
following funds that could potentially be used for acquisition of fee interests and/or
trail easements in the Study Area for a proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional
Preserve and for portions of the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Trail:
· Per capita grants to EBRPD - $9 million
Roberti-Z'berg Harris grants to EBRPD for acquisition and development of local
parks and recreational lands and facilities - $5.4 million
- Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Bay Area ConserVancy - $55 million
· Competitive Statewide grants - $266 million
18
lrapteraentation Report.doc
Implementation _Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
California Department of Parks and Recreation grants to local agencies for non-
motorized trails - $10 million
Unallocated funds State. wide - $7.5 million
California Oak Woodlands - $5 million
Tipping Fee Alameda County Waste Management
As of January 1, 2001, municipalities disposing waste into the Altamont Landfill are
required to pay $1.25 per ton to mitigate Altamont's expansion. Approximately $0.75 of
this fee is intended for open space acquisition, including 80 percent to be dedicated to
acquisition of land in Livermore and 20 percent to be dedicated to acquisition of land in
Dublin and Pleasanton.
Annual revenues from ripping fees can be expected to total $1.86 million, based on the
amount of waste deposited at the landfill in 2000, and approximately $1.12 million of
this revenue will be available for open space acquisition. Distribution of revenue
earmarked for open space acquisition was to be determined by an' Open Space Account
Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, and the Sierra Club. Dublin is not a voting member of the
committee; however, the portion of revenue dedicated to Dublin and Pleasanton may be
split between these two jurisdictions according to tentative agreements with the City of
Pleasanton and Alameda County. Consequently, approximately $112,000 could be
available for open space acquisitions in the City of Dublin each year.
At this time however, the Advisory Committee has not yet met in part because little fee
revenue has been collected. Some ciries, including Hayward and Oakland, have
contested paying the fee, and these disputes may not be resolved until their existing
agreements with their waste haulers expire in a few yearsi The City of San Francisco
has recently agreed to pay the fee, and once significant revenues accrue, the Advisory
Committee will meet to distribute them.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancements Act (ISTEA) was reauthorized in
1998 as TEA-21, with expansion of many existing "Enhancements" project categories
and the addition of several new ones. TEA-21 is the Federal government's
comprehensive transportation banding package. The potential for urban parks funding
in this context is generally limited to bicycle and pedestrian trails and projects that
directly mitigate the impacts of a transportation-related improvement, above and
beyond what would normally be required. Funds could be available to Dublin in
association with any 1-580 improvement projects.
The Recreational Trails Program, as a part of ISTEA, funds up to 80 percent of project
costs on a wide range of motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Funds are
administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which in 1998 had
$4.2 million to disburse ($2.9 for non-motorized trails and $1.3 million for motorized
19
Implementation Report.doc
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, '2002
trails). The maximum grant to date has been about $400,000, while most grants average
about $140,000. Future grant proposal deadlines will be October 1st each year for the
next four years. The EBRPD and/or the City of Dublin could apply for fimds to help
complete the Western Dublin H. iHs segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION FEE
ImPact fees are charges levied upon new development by local governments to fund
facility improvements. Impact fees are commonly levied for facility improvements such
as parks, open space, roads, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and schools.
Impact or in-lieu fees may also be used for environmental mitigation under CEQA.
Development impacts, such as the loss of agricultural land as documented during the
environmental review process, may be partially mitigated by a variety of methods,
including the payment of mitigation fees. Mitigation fees are generally charged on a
one-time basis when the building permit or the certificate of occupancy is issued.
The City of Dublin plans for about 12,000 new dwelling units and 12 million new
commercial square feet between now and buildout in 2020. Approximately 5,000 units
have already been approved.
OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT OR SPECIAL MAINTENANCE TAXES
If the City of Dublin seeks a source of funding for open-space acquisition and/or related
open space maintenance and annual operating costs, it may need to establish an
assessment or special tax for this purpose. While a tax requires support of two-thirds of
the voters, and a minority property owner protest a Popular package and an affordable
assessment or tax can promote the likelihood of passage. An assessment or special tax
of $25 per household per year for the entire City of Dublin would raise about $200,000
annually for open space land acquisition costs (see mello-roos CFD below as an
example).
Special Assessment
Assessments are charges levied against real property by cities and counties to finance
the construction or maintenance of public improvements. There are a number of
different types of assessment districts that may be appropriate for open space
maintenance. As an example, new development that has dedicated open space to the
EBRPD is required in some areas to join a maintenance district, which was created by
the EBRPD to assure a stable source of maintenance funding for dedicated open space.
20
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
Mello-Roos CFD '
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) tax is a charge levied on properties in
a district to pay for public facilities that benefit district properties. Mello-Roos taxes can
be used for a greater range of projects and services than assessments, including parks,
schools, police, and fire services. Unlike general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos spedal
tax revenues can also be used for maintenance activities and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Approval of a Mello-Roos district requires an election of two-thirds of the registered
voters in the designated area. However, the majority of Mello-Roos districts to date
have been formed under a provision that permits district formation by the owners of
two-thirds of the land ff the district contains less than 12 voters.
The flexibility of a Mello-Roos CFD, is that it can be used for both capital and operating
expenses, making this mechanism the most attractive option for open space/agricultural
preservation financing in the post Proposition 218 environment. It is relatively
straightforward to establish and it can be used for a variety of services and facilities.
21
lrr~Ieraenhation Report.doc
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
March 25, 2002
V. ACTION PLAN
The findings on this Implementation Report, later public workshops scheduled before
final action by the City Council will lead to an action plan. Once the City Council has
given final direction, detailed recommendations including possible financial plans will
be prepared.
Is the City Council receptive to initiate future General Plan Amendments that
would allow limited development options in order to secure open space
fee/easements on a majority oft he affected properties?
A threshold questions is whether limited development, either as described in Concept A
(59 units) or Concept B (6 units) is acceptable given any policy concerns, administrative
tasks and voter approvals that may be involved. A key policy concern will be visual
impacts. While the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property appears to be
geotechnically sound, it is largely visible from off site locations. The smaller project,
Concept B, would have an easier time concealing development, but it may also be
visible. Administratively, the effort to approve development in this area may require
substantial costs not shown in the site-related cost estimates including additional
planning, engineering, and environmental analysis and the costs of processing the
application, including annexation, General Plan amendment, and the ballot measure
required to amend the General Plan land use designation and location of the Urban
Limit Line.
2. Explore potential for creation of Dublin Hills Regional Park.
As noted above, the EBRPD is establishing a regional trail on the ridgeline that bisects
the Study Area and has consequently made several land and easement acquisitions to
further this objective (Figure 2). The regional trail will ultimately connect the
Pleasanton Ridge area to the Las Trampas area lying to the north of the Study area.
Adding the land that lies to the east of this area, which comprises the Study Area
discussed in this Implementation Report, would create a large and permanent open
space area or regional park similar to Briones or Las Trampas. The park would take
advantage of trail improvements and other open space created by the City on its
western boundary.
There are a number of ways the City and the EBRPD could cooperate to create such a
park, including shared acquisition and funding, joint application for State grants, and
cooperative improvement and maintenance. The City should seek a cooperative effort
with the EBRPD to study the possibility of creating a regional park or open space area
within the Study Area. Various options for cooperatively acquiring property and
providing for improvements (access, staging areas, etc.,) and maintenance should be
explored. If the basic concept appears to have merit and support by elected
representatives of the City and the EBRPD, a Memorandum of Understanding should be
22
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area ~2~ ~ ~ ?
March 25, 2002
developed that Would guide the cooperative effort to create the regional park. This
regional park could be consistent with the varying approaches to seCUring and funding
open space discussed in this Report.
3. Establish FUnding for Open Space Acquisition
As discussed above, the City has a number of funding sources available, both existing
and those that would require voter approval. Funding the acquisition could occur using
existing City funds through a paz:lx-~ership with the East Bay Regional Parks District,
obtaining grants, or through creating new funding sources in Dublin such as
development impact fees and assessments or special taxes for open space. Depending
upon the City's overall goals, funding targets and related actions can be initiated. If
funding requirements are limited to acquisition of a few properties it may by sufficient
to rely upon existing funds and grants. If a broader acquisition effort is desired, the new
· funding sources would need to be pursued. The City should select the preferred
funding approach from among the options presented and initiate the effort needed to
'establish the funding source.
4. Begin Acquisition Efforts
As discussed in this Report and the prior Options Report, there are a number of ways in
which the City could acquire the properties in the Study Area. Specifically, the City
could purchase individual properties outright for fair market value from willing sellers,
it could form a partnership with the EBRPD to make such acquisitions as presented in
Action Step #2, or it could obtain conservation easements from landowners whereupon
ranching operations could continue.
Direct acquisition from willing sellers is relatively simple to implement compared to the
limited development concepts described above. Willing seller acquisition programs
have the advantage of compensating affected landowners at fair market value, although
doing so may be expensive for the City.
If the Limited Development Option discussed above proves unacceptable, the City
could begin discussions with property owners of land in the Study Area regarding City
acquisition. These discussions can define property owner interests and preferences in
order for a transaction and offer to be structured.
5. Take No Action-
Given the present designation of the subject properties as Agriculture under the-County
General Plan, and the mandate of "Measure M' which requires voter approval of any
General Plan Amendment for this area prior to annexation and subsequent
development, another approach would be to take no action and let the existing ranching
operations continue. No public open space would be acquired or preserved, but
agricultural activities would continue for an indefinite period.
23
laws just as we ask cars to follow .laws. We have enforcement tools to get people's
attention. If it is the neighbors speeding, it will be up to the neighbors to have some
neighborhood meetings to talk about this. There are reasons we have major arterials.
Maybe we need to do some outreach to the community and be helpful in finding
solutions. She stated she supports opening the first bridge.
Following discussion, the Council determined that Staff should arrange a meeting with
the community and Police Department to get everybody together to talk about the best
way to make this a safe situation.
Cm. Oravetz commented he was on the Planning Commission as was Cm. Zika when this
was planned.
An unidentified audience member asked if there could be additional crosswalks?
Mayor Lockhart stated this could be one of the discussion items.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council
approved the removal of the existing street closure on Central Parkway at the Tassajara
..Creek Bridge~ opening Central Parkway to traffic between Hibernia Drive and Glynnis
:::Rose Drive, and leaving the segment of Central Parkway closed between Glynnis Rose
:~Drive .and Tassajara Road, after meeting with the public to discuss the safety issues.
REVIEW OF WESTERN DUBLIN
EXTENDED PLANNING AREA OPEN SPACE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
9:46 p.m. $.3 (420-20)
Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that on October 17, 2000 the City Council aPProved the preparation of an Open Space
Implementation Plan for Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc., prepared an Implementation Report to provide the City with findings and
an action plan to preserve open space in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
The Plan was to: identify specific recommendations for the City Council to consider in
preserving Open Space in this area; look at options, costs for preserving .and possible
funding; and return with a report to be reviewed in two public workshops.
Staff proposes to conduct two public workshops on the Implementation Report in
December 2001 and January 2002 to obtain public comment. Copies of this Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
November 6, 2001
PAGE 481
have been mailed to those parties who have participated in earlier discussions about
Open Space in the Western Extended Planning Areas. When these workshops are
complete, Staff will return to the City Council with recommended specific actions. Staff
recommended that the Council comment on the Implementation Report and take no
action until at, er public workshops in December an~d January.
Mr. Walter I<ieser, with EPS reviewed and summarized pertinent issues of the report and
discussed some of their conclusions.
Cm. McCormick stated she was intrigued by the concept of a Dublin Hills Regional Park.
Mr. Kieser stated this is open for discussion.
The Council thanked him for his presentation.
Larry Tong, EBRPD congratulated Mayor Lockhart and stated it was nice to see some
improvements which have been made in the last 5 years. He stated he concurred with
EBRPD rote in working with the City and would be willing to explore a partnership with
the City.
Morgan King, Creekside Drive, stated he felt the report overall is an excellent job and
touches on relevant aspects of the issue. It presents two options; one to outright purchase
the eastern portion of the area and option two would purchase but utilize some of the
funds coming from housing development in the area. He stated he picked up a tone of
some skepticism of residential development being politically sustainable in Dublin.
Measure M was discussed. Voters supported this because they wanted to preserve what
is left of the area. The concern is with the visible area and most people are unaware that
there is another 2,000 acres over the hill. He stated he was also attracted to the phrase,
Dublin Hills Regional Park. The 2,000 acres should also be incorporated since it is not
geologically feasible for development. The Endangered Species Act does have a bearing
on what is going on. Would like to see some relevance to this on the 700 or 800 acres
that is the eastern part. He discussed the potential affect of the Center for Biological
Diversity lawsuit settlement, which set aside huge numbers of acres for whipsnake
habitats. This does cover this area and should be addressed.
Margaret Tracy, Livermore, spoke for members of Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
and for nearly $0 years they have been looking at preserving ridgelines through $
counties. They have somewhat evolved a policy if the public wants access to the land,
they there is reason to buy easements and trails. She stated she hopes the County's
Measure D and our Measure M is reflected. Keep the lands under private control to keep
them on the tax mils. She mentioned a Falo Alto study in the mid. 1970's where the City
CITY COUNCIL MINIJT~
VOLU1VI~ 20
' REGULAR MEETING
November 6, 2001
PAGE 482
figured out cost for development in the hills was so great that it would be cheaper for the
public to buy the lands for open space. She stated she was against allowing dwelling
units on any part of this scenic property.
David Bewley stated he was one of the coauthors of Measure M, and looks forward to the
study sessions. He requested that we include impacts with addendum of Measure M.
This impacts the rules and regulations of governing this area. This is well written and
points out many avenues and possibilities for the City. The opportunities are there. The
cost is considerably less than what this City Hall cost, and he asked the Council to
consider which would be more of a girl for citizens in the future.
Rich Guarienti, Rhoda Avenue, stated the proposal for Dublin Hills Regional Park is very
attractive as he is out in the parks quite a bit. He would like to participate in the
workshops and would like to get a copy of the report and read it. There are grants and
lots of ways to be able to keep this open space.
Mark Breazeal, Southwick Drive, stated he would like to see us get more public
workshops on this. He was concerned about endangered species. He would like to look
for funding whether it be state or federal. Preserving land should also be looked at.
What are'the'choices and options of working with EBRPD? This is something we
shouldn,t compromise on. The sooner the better for our citizens to enjoy.
Roxanne Nielsen congratulated Mayor Lockhart. Speaking as the family that owns
property~:they'are willing to work with the City and would like to see the hills preserved.
She put in a'vote for fair compensation and she stated the City Council also believes in
this. She .also commented she felt that Measure M devalued the land. She looks forward
to participating on a committee to provide input.
Mayor Lockhart stated all comments will be welcome and these will be public
workshops.
Mayor Lockhart requested that all Commissioners be provided w/th a copy of the report.
They would then be able to address it through their Commission or through the
workshops.
Cm. Zika stated he thought it was a good idea to incorporate the Measure M impacts.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
November 6, 2001
PAGE 483
MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP
FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDEED
PLANNING AREA
OPEN SPACE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
December 12, 2001 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, Walter Kieser, Principal,
Economic & Planning Services, Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Number of people in
the audience who attended the Workshop: 31.
Eddie Peabody opened the meeting at 7:00p.m. Mr. Peabody explained that the purpose of the
meeting is to discuss the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Implementation Report,
which was prepared on the direction of the City Council after approving an implementation
program in the year 2000. Additionally, the City Council also directed Staff to conduct two
public workshops to solicit comments and ideas from the public. Walter Kieser would explain
the Implementation Report in detail. Mr. Peabody gave a brief background about the Open
Space Program for the benefit of those who were attending the meeting for the first time. He
explained that the report provides information to the City Council on the number of oPtions
available for them to decide on the issue of Open Space.
Walter Kieser, prior to discussing the report asked if anyone had any questions about the
background of the program presented by Mr. Peabody. Hearing none, he discussed the options
presented in the report in detail. Mr. Kieser explained that the original report looked into the
possibility of open space potential and possible options for open space. The second report gives
detailed options for Open Space preservation. One way to approach it would be that the City in
collaboration with EBRPD (East Bay Regional Park District) acquires interests in these lands for
open space purposes. To acquire these lands the implementation study looked at the question
of evaluating the cost of acquiring the properties involved. Additionally, the Study also looked
into various sources of funding available for acquisitions of these properties. It was determined
that allowing development in these areas can be one of the sources of funding. To consider
development as an option, a Geotechnical Engineer and Planner was retained to look into the
geotechnical characteristics of the area. Collaboration with EBRPD to possibly develop a joint
venture in the area was also discussed during a previous presentation. The appraisal
information provided states that the value of the property is around $7 million. Based on the
research by the Geotechnical Engineer, two development options have been determined. A
subdivision in the eastern portion of the area off the existing development using existing road
ATTACHMENT
connections to access a certain portion of the site. It was determined by the Geotechnical
Engineer that the portion was stable for a 59 lot residential development and a loop road would
be constructed as an emergency access to the area. A financial analysis was done to determine
the feasibility and if it would generate a sufficient value for the land to justify the dedication.
A member asked if the Geotechnical Engineer found sulphur deposits in the area which is being
considered for Open Space. Mr. Kieser stated that he would ask the Geotechnical Engineer and
get a clarification from him. He further explained that when there is development on the
hillside area mitigation is required from an engineering standpoint.
Ms. Marie Cronin asked who was the property owner for that area. Mr. Kieser replied that the
property belonged to the Nielsens.
Moving on, Mr. Kieser said that the second alternative for development involved lots with
fewer units in them. These would be very feasible from a financial as well as geological
standpoint.
A member in the audience sought clarification on the two concepts that have been determined.
Are they feasible for Dublin from a geotechnical point of view and if it applied to the two
Nielsen properties. Additionally, were other properties in the area included in the geotechnical
study? Mr. Kieser replied that although the Nielsen property was the main focus other
surrounding properties like the Machado, Cronin Heights Milestone Partnership as Well as the
property in the north along the County line were also included. He further stated that these
properties were extremely problematic geotechnically, and hence development would be
difficult and challenging. He further added that the Nielsens property is very visible from all
directions.
A member in the audience asked, will the proposed road open up to the rest of the area? Mr.
Kieser informed that it would not since there would be no point in doing that given the fact
there will be no development potential due to the geotechnical difficulties as well as the
initiatives that would be required as a result of Measure M and Measure T.
A member in the audience asked if Measure M addressed Schaeffer Ranch alone. Mr. Kieser
informed that Measure M addressed the entire Western Dublin Planning Area and the Sphere of
Influence. Schaeffer Ranch has been annexed to the City and is not subject to Measure M.
Moving on Mr. Kieser said that the main purpose for developing these options was to answer
Council's questions on feasibility and the potential for development. In conclusion Mr. Kieser
said that both of the approaches were feasible and hence would work as well as would generate
sufficient value for the private sector to motivate them to dedicate the balance of the site to
Open Space.
Mr. Kieser explained that in addition to the above mentioned options, the study also looked into
various funding sources. One source would be to allow development in the area and obtain the
dedication. Mr. Morgan King reminded everyone that there was a third option, which is; there
would be no development at all. Mr. Kieser said that it was correct. Based on the appraiser's
valuation, the Council may decide to acquire the entire area by purchasing it. Another member
of the audience asked why only one appraiser was used for such an important valuation. Mr.
Kieser once again clarified that this was done to get a ballpark figure for the value of the area,
when the City gets closer to acquiring the property; another appraiser would be brought in.
Mr. Kieser explained that the second source of funding was the City's General Funds Reserve.
A member in the audience asked how much money was available through this fund? Mr.
Peabody stated that he would not be able to answer that question because some of that money is
already committed to other projects in the City such as Downtown Improvements, Capital
Improvements,. and Affordable Housing. The Council possibly could make a decision on the
amount of money to allocate to Open Space when the City's budget for the next fiscal year is
scheduled.
The third funding source that the report describes is the acquisition by EBRPD to develop a trail
or park in the area, which would also reduce the funding expenses for the City. Additional
sources of funding that can be used for such acquisitions are: City Grants like Tipping fees or
transportation funds, impact fees charged by the City for any development occurring in the city
and doing a bond measure, such as an obligation bond, or special tax bond. If the Council takes
an action to proceed with the acquisition it will do so by clarifying the funding source it will use
for this purpose. Mr. Kieser explained that the Council has various options to choose from as a
result of this Study. The purpose of this meeting is to seek input from public on the various
options listed and incorporate those comments in the report and present it to the Council. With
that Mr. Kieser concluded his presentation and asked the public for questions and comments.
Rich Guarienti said that he had some specific comments. First, he asked if the City could notice
the next meeting in the newspaper since this affects the whole of Dublin. He stated 'that the best
option for the Council to choose would be to collaborate with EBRpD to acquire the land and
develop a trail or park there and therefore save that area as open space.
Tom Ford suggested that the City should purchase the land not for the fee but for conservation
easement. Mr. Kieser said that it is a good idea but the question of it working for Dublin
remains to be seen although it has worked for other areas. Mr. Ford wanted to know when the
aPpraisal was done as the market has changed in the last six months. Mr. Kieser stated that it
was done in June. Mr. Kieser stated that the market would ultimately determine the value and
not the appraisal. Mr. Ford also wanted to know if there were any talks of including Schaeffer
Ranch in this plan. Mr. Peabody explained that there is an approved development plan for that
area but there has been no progress on the plan. As far as acquisition for that area is concerned
nobody has come forth to talk about it.
A member in the audience asked clarification regarding the Machado property. She wanted to
know if it was being considered for Regional Park and why was only one property being
negotiated. Mr. Kieser explained that the Machado property was being considered for a regional
trail through an easement through the EBRPD. He further explained that they already have an
easement through Schaefer Ranch and EBRPD negotiates acquisitions one at a time.
A member in the audience asked how viable ranching will be based on the goals or options that
are being looked at since that is what the ranchers would like to continue doing. Mr. Kieser
explained that there might not be a viable operation once the acquisition is completed. He
further explained that the District might decide to lease a portion of the area for cattle grazing.
It is an option and the possibility of that happening will be based on the owner's feasibility.
Morgan King asked, assuming that the option of purchasing the area out right is considered and
an Open Space plan is developed, what would be the access points for that area. Is there a
potential access through Eden Canyon Road? Mr. Kieser said that there are lots of possibilities
including the Eden Canyon Road, Brittany Lane and Creekside Dr. He further added that it
would be ideal to have several small access points, to get better public value, but it is still
premature to talk about it since there has been no acquisition yet. Mr. King's second question
was regarding funding. He said since one of the funding sources considered were private and
public funds and conservation trusts, was there any bias in these organizations for wild life
areas as opposed to urban undeveloped areas. Mr. Kieser explained that private dollars and
conservation organization dollars are big players in land acquisitions. It is true they do make a
lot of purchases related to wild life areas and the private dollars doesn't come into urban areas.
But, since EBRPD does attract such funding, therefore that option can be considered.
Tim Sprainy, resident of 5194 Topsham Ct., said that he agreed on the idea of collaborating with
EBRPD since it is a citywide issue and not just West Dublin. He asked for an example where the
EBRPD worked collaboratively with the City Government. Linda Chavez from EBRPD
responded that the District has worked with jurisdictions to stretch the dollar in acquisitions.
The District's Measure AA has funds for not only acquisitions but also capital improvements.
Therefore to answer his question it is a very common practice for the District to work
collaboratively.
David BeWley read letters from residents who wanted to express their concerns on the issue but
were unable to come for the meeting. The letters were from Drs. S.A. Leonard and Ronald
Miklebost from 11150 Brittany Lane.
A member in the audience asked the difference between Open Space and a Regional Park. Mr.
Kieser explained that when the City purchases the land and holds it without any development
on it, it is called Open Space. On the other hand the Regional Park is owned by EBRPD and is
developed for recreational uses.
A member in the audience sought clarification regarding the purpose of the meeting. He asked
based on the feedback from this meeting if there is to be a recommendation to the Council. Mr.
Peabody stated that the City Council asked Staff to hold public workshops and seek input and
report to them. Mr. Kieser clarified that the report does not make any recommendations but
merely gives options to the City Council on Open Space preservation. Ultimately it is the City
Council that needs to make a decision on which option to choose.
Susan Bewley, resident of 11166 Brittany Lane, expressed that she would like the area to be
preserved as Open Space.
Dave Crowtzca, resident of 8281 Brittany Dr., expressed the need of a concept plan for the
potential Regional Park for Council to consider that option.
Emmet King, resident of 11460 Rothchild Place, expressed his opinion of preserving the area as
Open Space,
Ray Glynn, resident of 11215 Rolling Hills Dr., stated that he is opposed to development and
would like the area to be preserved as Open Space due to the transportation, water and traffic
issues involved. ,He further added that he is also in support of preserving the wild habitat in the
area.
Jennifer Goss, resident of 8256 Brittany Dr., expressed similar views as Ray Glynn. She inquired
if the City Council were to pursue the option of development what other steps would it need to
go through before the public vote is required. Mr. Peabody explained that it is not a short
process. It would require an Environmental assessment, Planning Commission approval, City
Council approval and then the public vote.
David Vrba, resident of 8115 Brittany Drive, expressed his support for Open Space.
Mr. Peabody thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for expressing their views. He
reminded everyone about the second workshop on January 23, 2002 for those who did not get
an opportunity to come to the meeting. He anticipates this item to be on the Council agenda in
the spring. Mr. Peabody adjourned the meeting at 8:22p.m.
Letters from residents:
December 11, 200i
Mayor of Dublin
Dublin City Council
1 O0 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear City Mayor and Council Members:
As a Silvergate Area resident, I am in support of the City of Dublin creating an open space/preservation
region in the western Dublin hills.
I am NOT in,favor of any further residential projects for the same region.
PRESERVE THE OPEN SPACE AND SAVE OUR HILLS.
Sincerely,
Signed
Dr. S.A. Leonard
Resident of 11150 Brittany Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
December 11, 2001
Dublin City Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Council Members:
As a Dublin resident, I am greatly concerned over any possible further development in the west Dublin
hills region. I do, however, support any efforts which are directed in creating an open space area in the
west Dublin region.
Sincerely,
Signed
Dr. Ronald Miklebost
11150 Brittany Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
G:\wdublin ex ping area\12-12 open space minutes
MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP
FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDEED
PLANNING AREA
OPEN SPACE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
January 23, 2002 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, Walter Kieser, Principal,
Economic & Planning Services, Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Number of people in
the audience who attended the Workshop: 21.
Eddie Peabody opened the meeting at 7:00p.m. Mr. Peabody explained that this was the second
of the two public meetings held for the purpose of discussing the Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area Implementation Report, which was prepared on the direction of the City Council
after approving an implementation program in the year 2000. Additionally, the City Council
also directed Staff to conduct two public workshops to solicit comments and ideas from the
public and incorporate them in the minutes and present them to the Council. He stated that this
item might be on the City Council's March 5, 2002 agenda. Mr. Peabody gave a brief
background about the Program and its purpose.
Tom Ford, resident of Dublin, wanted to know the status of the Schaeffer Ranch project. Mr.
Peabody stated that there is no development on the Schaeffer Ranch property since it was
shelved due to the endangered species act.
Ms Linda Chavez, representative from East Bay Regional Parks District clarified that California
Higlands dedicated the area adjacent to the Schaeffer Ranch area to EBRPD.
Mr. Kieser reviewed the report in detail. He explained that under Council's direction two
options were looked into. First, acquisition of the entire 860-acre area including the cost of the
acquisition and second, 'partial' development in the area. The City Council also asked to look
into various funding options. An Appraiser was hired to appraise the value of the properties
based on current market situation, keeping in mind the current uses as well as future uses. The
properties were valued at $7 million. A Geotechnical Engineer was retained to evaluate the
feasibility of partial development in the area. Given the feasibility, cost for development was
als° evaluated. It was determined that the cost for the partial development would be $4 million.
Since the development would take place on part of the property, the remainder area would be
dedicated for open space. Various funding sources were looked into.
' ATTACHMENT 3
Roxanne Nielsen, a Dublin resident asked how long would the process take once the City opted
to cooperate with EBRPD to develop a community park.
Mr. Kieser informed that it would depend on the complexity of the transaction and how quickly
the parties involved are able to reach an agreement.
A member in the audience asked what were the maintenance requirements for a park and if the
costs for maintenance were taken into account in the report:
Mr. Kieser stated that there were a number of issues involved in maintenance. They were:
security, weed abatement, liability insurance, and other costs. He stated that the EBRPD
budgets every year for maintenance in the range of $100,000. These issues have not yet been
taken into account since the use for the property has not been determined yet.
A member in the audience suggested that at the time of acquisition, the City should assist the
property owners in keeping the acquisition money since it will have a great impact on tax and
inheritance.
Mr. Kieser said that at the time of the transaction these issues would be worked out to the
property owners' advantage.
David Bewley, a Dublin resident wanted the City to include the input and comments from the
homeowners whose properties back up to the Nielsen property in its analysis.
Mr. Kieser stated that it would be done.
A member in the audience asked how the public workshops conducted fit into the process of
changing a designation on the General Plan.
Mr. Kieser stated that if there were an acquisition it would not change the zoning of the area. It
would restrict development in the area.
Mr. Peabody stated that a public hearing is held before the Planning Commission when a
zoning for a particular property is.being changed. Determining options for Open Space and the
subsequent action thereafter would not change the zoning for the area, and hence it does not
require Planning Commission approval. Following Council's direction, Staff conducted the two
public workshops to seek input from public and incorporate it into the staff report for the
Council.
Ms. Nielsen suggested seeking public input from other people in the city and not just from
neighborhoods that have been impacted.
Mr. Kieser stated that at the time of presenting this report to the Council, a suggestion would be
made to conduct an opinion poll to seek public input. The questions in the poll will be
constructed in a way that people understand the options being reviewed.
Mr. Bewley expressed his opinion on preserving the area as Open Space.
A member in the audience suggested that public comments on Open Space should be made
available by the City on its web page.
Mr. Guarienti, a Dublin resident expressed his opinion on Open Space preservation. He stated
that a public access to the ridgeline is necessary.
A member in the audience suggested conservation easements for the area.
Tom Ford stated that any kind of development, whether a trail or partial development, would
be contrary to the objectives of Open Space.
Mr. Kieser stated that this report was prepared on Council's direction.
Mr. Emmett King, a Dublin resident wanted to know what these meetings have accomplished.
Mr. Kieser advised Mr. King that all the suggestions and comments by the members present are
being noted and will be incorporated into the staff report to the City Council.
A member in the audience once again sought clarification on the process.
Mr. Kieser and Mr. Peabody stated that no 'planning process' was necessary since there is no
change to the zoning of the area.
Mr. Morgan King stated there were some discrepancies in the numbers provided in the report.
Mr. Keiser stated that an appraiser provided these numbers and is just an estimate and not the
actual amount.
Mr. Mark Braezael suggested providing a handicap access to the trail.
A member in the audience supported Mr. Braezael's suggestion.
Ms. Cronin expressed her opinion on the issue. She said that the property owners should be
treated fairly.
Mr. Brazael suggested that the hearing for this project should be postponed until after the
election. Other members in the audience agreed with him.
Mr. Peabody suggested that Mr. Brazael should discuss the suggestion with the Council.
Hearing no other questions and comments Mr. Peabody adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
G: \ wdublin ex plng area\ 1-23 open space minutes
4