HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.4 ProposedECntyAreaPlnRpt
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 27, 1992
Report to the City Council on potential
issues of concern with the proposed East
County Area Plan.
REPORT PREPARED BY: ~ Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: ~ East County Area Plan Planning
Commission Policy Options
Report dated December 2, 1991.
Exhibit B: ~ Draft letter to the President
of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors.
SUBJECT:
Exhibit C:/ December 27, 1991, letter to
the President of the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
~
Receive Staff Report. Authorize Mayor to
send draft letter (Exhibit B) to the
President of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors expressing concerns with the
proposed East County Policy Options Report.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
On December 23, 1991, the City Council authorized the Mayor to
send a letter (Exhibit C) expressing concerns regarding the report and
requesting a process where meaningful dialog and discussion can occur.
At that meeting, Staff was directed to prepare a report on potential
issues of concern with the East County Area Plan and a draft letter to
the President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
Alameda County is proposing to completely revise the East County
Area Plan. Additionally, the County is proposing a new Regional
Element for County-wide land use planning and to revise the Open Space
Element. The Regional Element would coordinate County land use and
transportation policies in unincorporated areas and incorporated
cities, and policies of subregional and regional agencies.
The Alameda County Planning Staff proposed policy options for
discussion by the Alameda County Planning Commission at its December
2, 1991, study session as shown on pages 3 through 10 of Exhibit A.
These policy options would guide the preparation of the revised East
County General Plan. At that study session the Planning Commission
received and discussed the report. At the end of the meeting County
Staff requested that the Report be presented to the City Council for
discussion. County Staff is requesting feedback on the approach to
each East County Policy Option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ~
/ECOPLAN
COPIES TO: Agenda/General File
East County Plan File
Project Planner
o
"
.,
~
-
staff has prepared a summary of the County's proposed policies,
outlined issues of concern and made recommendations for each East
County Policy option:
Policy 1. subregional Planning.
"Coordinate land use planning among cities, the County, special
districts, and regional agencies using subregional objectives
established in the East County Area Plan. The major objectives of the
area plan are to manage growth, to promote compact communities, to
achieve a jobs/housing balance, to equalize fiscal benefits, and
preserve open space and environmental quality while accommodating
economic development opportunities and necessary growth throughout the
East county Region."
1. The County Staff Report says that the coordination of State,
regional, and local land use planning is best achieved at the
subregional level. The report states that "rather than having local
planning regulated by a state or regional agency, the East county Area
plan would provide a "bottom up" approach to regional planning which
balances local control with regional objectives". This approach would
not be acceptable to the City, as it would be "top down" from the
City's point of view when regional policies, some of which could be
unacceptable to the City, would be applied by the County to the City.
Cities can work cooperatively toward regional goals without
coordination by the county. An example is the Tri-Valley Affordable
Housing Committee in which member jurisdictions are seeking to jointly
provide affordable housing.
2. The East County Area Plan as proposed would establish
criteria for land use planning based on City and County general plans,
County programs such as the congestion Management Program, and
standards set forth by regional and State agencies. Staff is
concerned about how these policies would be established and what body
would enforce them. Regional goals and policies should be established
cooperatively by the cities with county participation. Once policies
are adopted on regional issues, locally elected and appointed bodies
should have jurisdiction over them.
Policy 2. Growth Management.
"Establish a 20 year holding capacity for East County and phase
development according to availability of infrastructure and services
and conformance with East county objectives".
1. A holding capacity approach to assure a jobs-housing balance
and to assure that development does not exceed capacity of public
services is proposed. Annual growth would be tied to the availability
of facilities and services by means of Level of Service Standards. It
is unclear how available capacity would be determined or allocated.
The policy does not state how the Level of Service Standards would be
determined. It does not state which body would make the allocation
decision. The Dublin General Plan is not based on a holding capacity
or level of service approach. It would be unacceptable that a
revision to the Dublin General Plan be required to meet regional
(County) standards.
-2 -
.
4\
2 . It is proposed that the overall development of the East
County subregion needs to be monitored and balanced. Furthermore, it
is stated that the County, in cooperation with cities and districts ,
is the agency whose political boundaries best matches the East County
subregion. It is not acceptable that the County "monitor and balance"
overall development . It is the responsibility of the local
jurisdictions to insure that the overall development of the East
County subregion is balanced by monitoring their own actions based on
legitimate and equitable regional policies .
Policy 3 . Urban Service Line .
"Establish a Growth Management Line to encompass a 20 year
holding capacity and a permanent Urban Service Line beyond which only
open space, park, and agricultural uses would be allowed" .
1 . A Growth Management Line would define the geographic area
within which the East County holding capacity applies and would be
drawn to include all areas intended for development within the 20 year
period. The line could be amended if a new holding capacity is needed
or if other unusual public benefits are provided. Criteria for
amending the line would be included in the County General Plan. This
is unacceptable to the City. Local jurisdictions should determine the
location of the Growth Management Line ( if it is to be established)
within their general plans , should determine the criteria for amending
the line and should have the authority to change the location of the
line .
2 . An Urban Services Line would define a permanent boundary
between developed and non-developed land. Lands beyond the Urban
Services Line would remain agricultural through incentive programs ,
conservation easements, and purchases by a land trust . It is claimed
that the line would assure the provision of needed infrastructure and
greater certainty for development and conservation. Staff feels that
an Urban Services Line is not needed if a Growth Management Line based
on levels of service is established. A Growth Management Line could
just as easily assure provision of infrastructure, certainty of
development and conservation. If such a line were to be established,
local jurisdictions should determine its location within their general
plans and should have the authority to amend the line.
Policy 4 . Jobs/Housing Balance.
"Provide an approximate balance between jobs and housing
throughout East County, using the holding capacity established in
Policy 2 . Provide mixed use neighborhoods, affordable housing near
jobs, improved transit service, and other incentives to achieve a
jobs/housing balance within the subregion. "
1 . The report indicates that a balance of jobs and housing is
most functional at the subregional level within which most commuting
occurs . Within East County one housing unit must be available to each
employed resident minus the number of external workers . The balancing
of jobs and housing is the responsibility of each jurisdiction. This
is unacceptable to the City because serious jobs/housing imbalances
could occur within a subregional area the size of East County if local
-3 -
control were to be relinquished. The Dublin General Plan and proposed
developments in the extended planning area contain policies which
ensure a jobs/housing balance. County policies should ensure a
jobs/housing balance in unincorporated areas.
.
.
policy 5. Fiscal Impacts.
"Develop mechanisms to reduce the fiscal motive that currently
drives land use and planning decisions throughout the subregion."
1. This policy states that inequities in the existing local tax
structure have led to the "fiscalization" of land use whereby local
jurisdictions compete for lucrative commercial development often at
the expense of regional needs such as affordable housing. A
cooperative program is proposed which would use a credit system to
award jurisdictions which provide regionally beneficial uses and
redistribute the tax benefits from those jurisdictions which continue
to seek fiscally lucrative development. This policy would be
unacceptable to the city because it could restrict jurisdictions which
do not have sufficient revenue generating land uses from attaining
their fair share. The addition of another level of bureaucracy to
decide which jurisdiction has insufficient or sufficient revenue
generating land uses and to redistribute revenues would be
unacceptable.
2. It is stated that such a system of credits could distribute
more equitably the benefits of growth and could generate the financial
resources to provide improved levels of service to East County
residents. It is unacceptable to the City to have the distribution of
large amounts of locally generated revenues controlled by another
jurisdiction. Inevitably, given the need for revenues, an inequitable
distribution would occur as one jurisdiction with the authority to tax
another enriches itself at the expense of another.
Policy 6. Agriculture.
"Minimum parcel sizes in agriculture and open space areas should
be determined by terrain, access, agricultural productivity,
recreational potential, and other factors. Minimum parcel sizes and
allowable uses would vary by area ranging from 20 acres in intensively
cultivated areas, to 100 acres for grazing lands, and larger acreage
for sensitive open space areas."
1. The report states that 20 and 100 acre parcel sizes would be
used to promote various types' of agricultural land uses. Who will
decide which parcel size is appropriate for each type of agriculture?
2. It is indicated that natural resource factors such as
topography, soils, etc., should be used to define agricultural areas
rather than arbitrary acreage minimums. Aren't these two sub-goals
contradictory? It is unclear what natural resource factors would be
examined and how the many factors relating to agricultural
productivity would be reconciled to arrive at a minimum parcel size.
Policy 7. City/County Development.
-4 -
.'
.
"Provide cities with the first opportunity to annex
unincorporated land and approve development. Allow development by the
County in certain unincorporated areas, subject to specific level of
service standards and special service districts. Future development
should conform to all East County policies, regardless of whether
development occurs in cities or in the County. Eventually, most urban
areas likely will be annexed by cities."
1. The report states that cities generally have infrastructure
and services in place to serve new development. It also states that
unincorporated areas could, subject to level of service standards and
special districts, provide service levels commensurate with those
provided by cities. The provision by the County of urban levels of
service is unacceptable to the City when, by definition, cities should
provide urban levels of service. This policy conflicts with a major
goal of LAFCO. LAFCO uses the ability to provide services to a given
area as a means of determining suitability of that area for annexation
to a city and encourages annexation in those circumstances. Any such
area should be within a city and not remain in the County as it
urbanizes,
2. It appears that the county intends to promote urban
development in unincorporated areas. It would be unacceptable to the
City for the county to be able to approve development within a city's
sphere of influence even if that city denied the project or did not
grant the developer all of the units or intensity of development
requested. This is occurring in North Livermore in Alameda County and
in the Dougherty Valley in contra Costa County. The potential for
such conflicts between the City and County would increase were this
policy to be implemented.
3. It is proposed that future development should conform to all
East County policies, reqardless of whether development occurs in the
cities or in the County. This policy would require the City to
surrender land use approval authority to the County via the East
County Area Plan policies. It is unacceptable to the City that this
occur. The City must be responsible for ensuring that legitimate
regional goals are met. An example is the participation by the City
of Dublin in the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing committee.
Policy 8. New Communities.
"Allow new communities in specific areas, subject to level of
service standards and service districts."
1. The report states that city general plans call for far more
jobs than housing. That statement is incorrect. Cities in the East
County area generally have enviable jobs/housing balances and have
policies in their general plans requiring a jobs/housing balance.
2. The policy proposes that areas such as North Livermore which
are logical development areas could have "city quality" levels of
services. This is unacceptable to the City. The County should not
provide "city quality" levels of services when cities can provide
them. This policy could just as easily be applied to areas within
Dublin's sphere of influence as it could be to North Livermore.
-5 -
3. The policy provides that the new communities program would
provide the urban, "infill" component of a comprehensive growth
management strategy for East County according to the report. This is
unacceptable. The provision of new communities is the responsibility
of cities. County approval of new communities, especially with the
opposition of nearby cities which would be negatively impacted, would
lead to conflict between the county and cities, urban sprawl, negative
impacts to agriculture and result in negative environmental impacts,
especially with regard to traffic, sewage and water. New communities
could upset the fiscal balance of the subregion (as promoted by Policy
5) by promoting revenue generating land uses in outlying areas when
they should be located within existing cities as would occur in a true
infill development program.
.
.
In summary, the East County Area Plan Planning Commission Policy
Options Report is flawed. It proposes policies which would encourage
"top down" land use regulation, urban sprawl and taxation of other
jurisdictions by the County. This would inevitably lead to conflict
between the County and the cities. It is recommended that a program
be established to revise the East County Area Plan. The program would
consist of a series of meetings at the staff level and then the
elected official level with representatives from the County and the
cities attending. The purpose of the meetings would be the proposal
of legitimate and equitable regional planning goals and polices that
would be adopted and implemented by each jurisdiction on a cooperative
basis.
Staff would recommend that the City council authorize the Mayor
to send a letter to the President of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors expressing the City's substantive concerns with the
policies contained in the East County Area Plan Planning Commission
Policy Options Report. The letter would request the establishment of
a program to propose legitimate and equitable planning goals and
policies that would be adopted and implemented by each jurisdiction on
a cooperative basis.
-6 -
.
.
EAST COUNTY AREA PlAN
pLANNING COM:MISSION POllCY OPTIONS REPORT
December 2, 1991
SUM:MARY
Introduction
Alameda Courity has embarked on a process to update the entire County General Plan
covering 743 square miles of incorporated and unincorporated land. Staff is proposing to
restructure the existing General Plan into three Area Plans (East County, Eden, and Castro
Valley) and a snmmary document containing all County~wide functional elements covering
land use, circulation, housing, safety, conservation, open space, recreation, noise and other
issues (see Figures 1 and 2).
. The first step in the General Plan Update process will be a complete revision of the existing
1977 Livermore~Amador Valley Planning Unit Plan, the formulation of a new Regional
Element for County-wide land use planning, and revisions to the existing Open Space
Element (see Figure 3). The East County Area Plan will be reformatted into a concise, user
friendly policy document which will provide policy guidance for all unin,corporated areas in.
East County. The Regional Element will coordinate County land use and transportation
policies among the three unincorporated planning areas, incorporated cities, and subregional
and regional agencies such as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
County Economic Development Commi'\Sion, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
Agency, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Revisions to the Open Space
Element will clarify existing agriculture and open space designations in remote areas of East
County.
)he Poli~ Options Report
This policy options report is the most recent product of the General Plan Update process.
The report presents staff recommendations for eight major issues affecting East County. The
policy options are presented in condensed form and will be expanded in the forthcoming
East County Area Plan. In this report, staff has synthesized the most significant of the issues
raised in the prior five issue papers and public hearings conducted over the past ten months.
The County Planning Commis.sion requested the policy options report as a point or»departure for discussing and formulating key policies which affect the future development
and conservation of East County. At the meeting of December 2, staff will be available to
further expand on the policies contained in this report Planning Commissioners will
comment on the effectiveness of the various policy options in guiding the future of East
County. Following Planning <;ommission discussion of the attached policy options, staff will
prepare a Draft East County Area Plan and accompanying Draft EIR by April 1992 for
public review and comment.
.1.
tL.l-- A.,
. ..
The East County Subre~onal Apyroach
.
The central approach behind the East County Area Plan and Regional Element is the
coordination of land use pl:mning throughout the East County subregion. The intent of the
Plan is to bridge the gap between incorporated City General Plans, County proposals for
unincorporated areas, and regional policies which affect land use and transportation
planning by local jurisdictions.
The recommended policies are intended to m~n~ee growth at the subregional level, to
promote economic development, to reduce inter--city traffic congestion, to provide affordable
housing near employment centers, to develop compact communities with a full range of
public facilities, and to preserve open space, agriculture and environmental quality while
accommodating necessary growth in the subregion.
In order to fulfill these subregional objectives, Alameda County is proposing to take a
leadershi role in coor(Hn~tiillanause-laIiri:iiiO"namonO" citie--s"-eC:i:il-diSfrictS-aild ie ....oiia1
p_.__.. ________._u g_...__.____..P...---..o...----.o s, P ,g:J.
agencies. A cooperative effort among local cities and agencies 'is-proposed -'fo tirovidea
"bottom up" approach to subregional planning as an alternative to the "top down" approach
proposed by recent State legislation and the regional approach proposed by the Bay Vision
2020 Corrimission.. If the County and cities take a proactive role in developing a workable
plan which achieves State and regional obje.ctives for growth management, jobs/housing
balance, affordable housing, open space preservation, and fiscal balance, State and regional
dictates may become unnecessary. East County could become a model for cooperative
planning at the subreltionalleveL This is the goal of the East County Area Plan.
(cL -p:opcica.l.Z2)
-2-
..
=
==
;.
..
~
~
..
;.
~
==
..
~
,..
~
~
~
..
=
~
~
=
...
=
~
~
=-
~-
==
~
.-
~
~
=
~
...
=
...
==
~
~
~
~
=
~
rIJ.
=
..
~
=
~
e
==
=-
00
~
~
~
~
~
~
)??oo(
~
U
~
.....
5
8
~
fij
8
Cl:
~
l:I)
==
8
~
==
o
.-
~ 5
~. ~
~ 5 E .~
~ E 0
~ s ~ ~
~ "'; I:.t) ca
- c:::: c ::.....
Cl: 0 .- .....
'"' ~ ~
E 'eo 0 '1;
z ~ :t: tf1
. . . .
~
~
~
~
-<
~
. .
-
....
..s
l::l..,
l:l
~
e:::
~.
4)
6
~
'0 .5
1 ~
'.;:1 ~
c..'O
o ....
~ cB
=5 ~
~ ....
f1.l -=
= 0
23 'E
c .-
4) 13
5 -
<<I
o "'0
e-~
.s ~
= 0
"'0 U
c:::: ~
e ::
-
~ .~
-lc
;;;...~
~
;-
=
~
'.
~
0=
e
=
-
u
~
o
-
~
g.
'2
~
] c::::
~ ~.9
... 0 3
8"'OR~~
c:::: ...,.- r;;
~ ~.!:: ZO f1.l
::: -.l U _
t5
......
..::
<..:l
e:::
\,l
~
.0 = cd
= ~ 10
::: > 40j
o 0 <.;
U .t:1 d
~ CIl 10
en c::: ~
co:: U
~
. . .
...
....
'-
GeTll!1'al Plan Form.a1 Options Rep_
.
RECOrvIMENDED FORLvtAT
Based- on a review of the fonnat options presented in the previous 'section and discussion with COWlty
staff, the Consulta.J:l! recommends the following format for the revised Alameda County General Plan:
1. Prepare and adopt four countywide functional elements: 1) Regional Element: 2) Housing EleIpent
3) Natural Resources, Recreation, and Open Space Element; and 4) Safety and Noise Element (see
Appendix B for a pro.posed outline). 'IJ1e land use and t::ranSpOrtation portions of the Regional Element
and the noise portion of the Safety and Noise Elemel1t would be very general in scope and would be
substantially supplemented by more detailed. are:l plans for unincorporated are3.S. 'The Housing
Element. the Narural Resources, Recreation and Open Space Element. and the Safety and Noise
Element would be more detailed in scope and would be supplemented to only a limited degree by area
plans for unincorporated are3.S. (It should be noted that the County is currently preparing an Energy
Element. Up:m adoption the Energy Elememmay eonsitute a fifth functional element or it may be
folded into the Naroral Resouces. Recreation. and Open Space Element.)
2. Prepare ~d adopt area plans for uninc~rporated areas only. Countywide functional plans would
address both incorporated and unincorporated ~3.S. Area plans would be prepared for the following
three unincorporated areas: Eden Area. Castro Valley. and East County. Area plans' for
unincorporated are:l.S should focus principally on land use. transpOrtation. public facilities and services.
noise. and iSsues that are unique to the Pla.rming Area (see Appendix C for a pro~osed outline). This
approach will necessitate adjusting the existing geographic ele::nent 1::oundaries in existing plans to
ensure that all unincorporated territory in the county is included in one of the three are:!. plans. The
existing General Plan for the Central Merropolitan. Eden. and Washington Planning Unirs would be
eliminated.
3. Segregate policy and bac.1.cground infonnation in Coth the countyWide functional elements and the area
plans. All General Plan documents should include an introduction. policy section. and background
section. Tills will help clarify the distinction between what is adopted policy from what is purely
descriptive of existing conditions arid tre~ds.
4. Use three levels of policy starements: "goals." "~olicies:' and "implementation programs," Gene:-al
Plan documents would include a single goal ~ta!eme~t for each major issue addressed in the document
Under each goal there would be several "policies" (e.g.. 5 to 20). Implementation progruns would
be groufed either' under e3.ch goal statement following the list of policies or at the end of the
elemenrs. Implementation programs shculd include a description of the proposed action and an
idemi.fieation of the agency or agencies responsible for c:.urying out the program.
5. Develop a single set of land use c:ltegories and a single set of functional classific:loons for streets :md.
roads to be used in the area plans.
\ '
6. Use a loose le3i. binder format for publicJtion of all ~e General Plan documents.
Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates
Figure .2
'CIJ.
'CIJ.
..
-
=
==
;.
~
=
.
~
.
,...
..
==
~
..
=-
~
==
..
~
.-
~
..
==
~
.
.
~
....
=
"=
=-
.-
.~
~
a
=
~
....
~
=
..
il\1~ I tlll~
~. s ~ ~. a
~ ~ ~
~ ~ e
~ = ~ ~
i~ll~ll\l ;~ll~llll
0. .~..)oool. Oc.:l. .~.. ~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
+
~
~
..
)01
~
tJll\
~
+
..
~
.....
T;IJ.
~
~
~
<
~
~
>
E-l
~ =
o oS
~~ll~ll!ll
~o..~...5. ·
i III
~. ~
S
E
t.Q
~
...
~
..
..
.
.
EAST coUNTY AREA pLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION POllCY OPTIONS
December 2, 1991 .
~.~'!dtu!I"I'~'~'1~. f~1.'1f81.~11t~1l6fi~1~if6l1i
Poll" 1: Subre~onal Pl~nnin~
Option A: Coordinate land use planning
among cities, the County, special
districts, and regio~ agencies using
subregional objectives established in the
East County Area Plan.
Major objectives of the Area Plan are to
manage growth, to promote compact
communities, to achieve a jobs/housing
balance, to equalize fiscal benefits, and
to preserve open space and
environmental quality while
accommodating economic development
opportunities and necessary growth
throughout the East County subregion.
Option B: Coordinate land use planning
at the State and regional level.
Option C: Maintain existing system of
exclusive local control over land use
planning with non-binding review by
impacted jurisdictions.
Fo1i~ 1: Subre~ona1 Pl~nnin~
Major revisions to California law are
contemplated to coordinate land use
planning among State, regional, and local
agencies.(l) This coordination is best
achieved at the subregional level. Rather
than having local planning regulated by a
State or regional agency, the East County
Area Plan would provide a "bottom up"
approach to regional planning which
balances local control with regional
objectives. The East County General
Plan would provide a mechanism to
coordinate local land use planning, to
achieve regional objectives (such as
affordable housing and environmental
quality), and to equitably distribute the
costs and benefits of future development
and conservation among local
jurisdictions. (2)
To achieve these objectives, the East
County Area Plan would establish
criteria for land use planning using
standards established by cities (e.g.
General Plans), the County (e.g.
Congestion Management Program),
regional agencies (e.g. regional housing
allocations), and the State (e.g.
forthcoming growth managementelegislation).
Coordination of land use, economic, and
social service planning at the subregional
level would bridge the gap between the
existing system of exclusive local control
and proposed systems of State and
regional control.
.3-
.
.
policy 2: Growth Manaeement
Poli~ 2: Growth Manaeement
Option A; Establish a 20 year holding
capacity tor East County and phase
development according to availability oC
infrastructure and services and
cnnformance with East County objectives.
Option B: Phase growth in an orderly
manner. (1977 Livermore Amador Valley
Planning Unit (LA VPU) General Plan,
p. 12, Objective 1)
Option ~: Existing communities should
sefV"~ as nuclei for growth. Land uses
should be located in appropriate areas.
(1989 lA VPU as adopted by the
Planning Commission (PC), p. ITLA.-8,
Principle 12, 1.3)
Option D: Regulate the annual number
of housing units and Industrial, .
Commercial and Office square footage
for unincorporated and/or incorporated
areas.
A specific holding capacity for jobs and
housing units can best achieve a balance
among land uses in East County and a
limit to urban development within the
pl::lnning period. Holding capacities
currently are used by cities to balance
jobs and housing, size infrastructure, and
meet local objectives.(3) A County-wide
. holding capacity would serve to
coordinate the amount and distribution
of development among cities and the
County at a subregional level.
Tying annual growth to the availability of
facilities and services provides the most
logical nexus for growth limits while
allowing market forces to operate. Level
of service standards provide a rational
approach to phasing growth, rather than
arbitrary numerical limits. The City of
Pleasanton currently uses a level of
service approach in determining annual
growth limits. Coordinating annual
growth among cities and the County
would ensure adequate infrastructure
capacity (water, sewer) and services
levels (police, fire) at a subregional level
in addition to a 10ca1level.( 4) The
overall development of the East County
subregion needs to be monitored and
balanced. (5) The County, in cooperation
with cities and districts, is the agency
whose political boundaries best matches
the East County subregion.
-4-
'.
.
Poli~ 3: Urban Service T -ine
Policy 3: Urban Service line
Option A: Establish a Growth
Management Line to enrompass a 20
year holding capacity and a permanent
Urban Service Line beyond which only
open space, park, and agricultural uses
will be allowed..
Option B: Use only a temporary, 20 year
Growth Management line which can be
amended.
Option C: Use only a permanent Urban
Service Line which cannot be amended.
Option D: Determine the appropriateness
of converting agricultural and open space
landS to urban uses on a case.by-case
basis, without a temporary or permanent
geographic boundary.
A Growth Man.agement line would
define the geographic area within which
the East County holding capacity applies.
It should be drawn to include all areas
intended for development within the 20
year period. The Growth Management
line could be revised if a new holding
capacity is needed or if other unusual
public benefits are provided. Criteria for
amending the Une would be included in
the General Plan.
East County cities have successfully used
a de facto growth management line in
the form of General Plan boundaries.
These boundaries are used by cities to
balance land uses and to size
infrastructure at a loca1level. An East
County Growth Management Line would
encourage coordinated land use planning
among cities and the County at a
subregional level.
The Urban Service Line would define a
permanent boundary between developed
and non..<feveloped land. Land outside
this line should be targeted for
permanent preservation using agricultural
incentives, conservation easements, and I
land purchases by an East County Land
Trust. All land outside the Urban Service
Line would be given a viable economic
use and/or a financial incentive to
dedicate the land for public use. The
Urban Service line would provide
assurances for the provision of needed
infrastructure and greater certainty for
development and conservation. ( 6)
-5.
.
.
Policy 4: Jobs/Housin~ Balance
Policy 4: Jobs/Housin~ Balance
Option A:. Provide an approximate
balance between jobs and housing
throughout East County, using the
holding capacity established in
Policy 2. Provide mixed use
neighborhoods, affordable housing near
jobs, improved transit service, and other
incentives to achieve a jobsjhousing
balance within the subregion.
Option B: Achieve a better balance
between commercial/industrial uses and
residential uses (1977 LAVPU, p. 13,
Objective 2) .
Option C: Provide sufficient land to allow
an approximate balance between jobs and
employment. (1989 PC lAVPU, p. illA-
7, Principle 1.1)
Option D: Allow whatever ratio of jobs
and housing is provided in the cumulative
holding capacities of cities' general plans.
A balance of jobs and housing is most
functional at the subregional level within
which most commuting occurs. Within
East County, one housing unit should be
available to each employed resident
minus the number of external workers
who can realistically commute into the
area on major roads and transit, given
projected capacity constraints.(7)
East County cities have successfully used
jobs/housing policies to balance
development at the local level. However,
serious imbalances are projected for
cuniulative buildout of city general plans
resulting in constraints to economic
development, tax revenues, infrastructure
and services. (8) (9) Studies have
indicated that city's plans for revenue
producing land uses cannot be realized
without a more balanced provision of
affordable housing to attract a local
workforce.(lO) The East County
subregion is the logical area within which
to coordinate city and County plans for
jobs and housing.
-6-
. )
, )-'
r'
( {" -- \.
,;--- '.j
~~...:,..
.
.
Policy 5: Fiscal Im:pacts
Policy 5: Fiscal Impacts
Option A: Develop mechanisms to reduce
the fiscal motive that currently drives
land use and planning decisions
throughout the subregion.
Option B: Rely on a forthcoming formula
for redistribution of tax revenue to be
established by State or regional agencies.
Option C: Maintain existing fiscal costs
and benefits of land use decisions.
Inequities in the existing local tax
structure have led to the "fiscalization" of
land use whereby local jurisdictions
compete for lucrative commercial
development often at the expense of
regional needs such as affordable
. housing.(ll) A new approach is needed
to equalize the fiscal costs and benefits
of development Recent studies have
recommended a credit system to award
jurisdictions which provide regionally
beneficial uses and redistribute the tax
benefits from those jurisdictions which
continue to seek fiscally lucrative
development.(12) A similar system could
be cooperatively developed by East
County jurisdictions to reduce fiscal
inequities. Credits could also be
transferred within the subregion, as long
as regional objectives were met. This
concept is being explored at the State
level as a means to redistribute sales
taxes. Such a system could distribute
more equitably the benefits of growth
and could generate the financial
resources to provide improved levels of
service to East County residents.
-7-
.
.
~licy 6: A~culture
Polky 6: A~culture
Option k Minimum parcel sizes. in
agriculture and open space areas should
be determined by terrain, acress,
agricultural productivity, recreational
potential, and other factors. Minimum
parcel sizes and allowable uses would
vary by area ranging from 20 acres in
intensively cultivated areas, to 100 acres
for grazing lands, and larger acreage for
sensitive open space areas.
Option B: Preserve agriculture in
undeveloped areas of Oass I and II soils
(1977 LA. VPU, p. 20, Objective 10)
Option C: Designate areas more than 5
mile~ from city limits and more than one
inile from public roads. as "Large Parcel
Agriculture" using 80 acre parcels.
Encourage intensive agriculture within
five miles of city limits and within one
mile of public roads using 20 acre
minimal parcels (1989 PC LA. VPU, p.
illA-12, Principle 22)
Option D: Designate areas more than 5
miles from city limits and more than one
mile from public roads as "Large Parcel
Agriculture" using 160 acre parcels.
Encourage intensive agriculture wiiliin
five miles of city limits and within one
mile of public roads using 40 acre
minimal parcels (1989 LA VPU, as
proposed by Supervisor King and adopted
by the Board of Supervisors p. ill.A-12,
Principle 22)
Large parcels of land tend to reduce
development pressures, maintain land
values, and enable agricultural activities.
The 100 acre minimum parcel size is the
standard existing wning designation and
best matches the irregular parcels in
remote areas which are often defined by
topography, soils, and other non-linear
features. Parcel sizes and use restrictions
may vary from area to area (e.g. 20 acre
minimums for vineyards, 100 acre
minimums for grazing, larger minimums
for sensitive open space areas).(13)
The use of a 100 acre minimum parcel
size has been proposed as base zoning in
the South Uvermore area with 20 acre
minimums for areas which are planted in
vineyards and which dedicate agricultural
easements.(14) A similar system of 100+
acre base zoning with smaller lot
incentives for regionally beneficial uses
could be applied throughout East
County. Parcel sizes and allowable uses
should be defined to promote the
economic advantages of various subareas
(such as wine growing in South
Uvermore) rather than establishing
uniform distances which tend to be
arbitrary and ignore local variations in
topography, soils, etc. These natural
resource factors should be used to define
the boundary between Agricultural and
Residential uses.
.8-
.
.
Po1i0' 7: City/County Development
Policy 7: City/County Development
Option k Provide cities with the first
opportunity to annex unincorporated
land and approve development. Allow
_ development by the County in certain .
unincorporated areas, subject to spedfic
level ot service standards and special
service districts. Future development
should conform to all East County
policies, regardless or whether
development occurs in cities or in the
COWlty. Eventually, most urban areas
likely will be annexed by cities.
Option B: All urban development shall
be within incorporated areas. Discourage
new'special districts (1977 LA VPU, p. 15,
Objective 3)
Option C: Unincorporated areas should
be largely open space except within
planned urban areas which have
adequate services and utilities (1989 PC
LA VPU, p. ID.A-ll, Principle 2.1)
Cities generally have infrastructure and
services in place to serve new
development. However, certain
unincorporated areas which are logical
for development and which would
contribute to East County objectives may
require special service districts outside
City limits. Level of service standards for
unincorporated development should be
established to match that of city services,
thereby allowing development in
whatever jurisdiction is best able to
provide services and meet East County
objectives. Existing unincorporated areas
elsewhere in California have .successfully
provided unincorporated service levels
commensurate with those provided by
cities.
~9-
.
.
Policy 8: New Communities
Policy 8: New Communities
Option A: Allow new communities in
specific areas, subject to level of service
standards and service distri,cts.
Option B: All urban development shall
be within incorporated areas. Discourage
new special districts (1977 LA VPU, p. 15,
Objective 3)
Option C: Unincorporated areas should
be largely open space except within
planned urban areas which have
adequate services and utilities (1989 PC
lA VPU, p. ill.A-ll, Principle 2.1)
City general plans call for far more jobs
than housing, a condition which
effectively constrains economic
development and creates fiscal inequities
in land use planning.
Certain unincorporated areas., such as
North Uvermore, are logical for urban
development (because of good access,
relatively flat terrain, and minimal
environmental constraints) but lack
existing facilities and services. New
special districts could be easily created to
provide "city qualityll levels of service in
certain unincorporated areas.
A new community within East County
would contribute to a balance of jobs and
housing, would promote additional
affordable housing for workers, and
would serve to contain holding capacity
in urban areas, thereby preserving more
remote areas in open space and
agriculture.
The new communities program would
provide the urban, "infillll component of a
comprehensive growth management
strategy for East County which would
include a holding capacity limit, Urban
Service line, jobs/housing balance,
affordable housing strategies, revenue
sharing, and revised level of service
standards for new development.
( cl:pcoption.l.Z2)
-10-
.
.
FOOTNOTES
1. Center for California Studies, A Briefin~ on tbe Growth Mana~ement Consensus Project
before the California State Le~slature. October 31, 1991
2. Alameda County, Issue Paper #5. pages 7 - 9
3. Governors Interagency Council on Growth Management, 1991 Local Government
Growth Mana~ement Survey. September 1991
4. Alameda County, Issue Paper #4. page 20
5. Alameda County, Issue Paper #5. pages 6 - 9
6. Governor's Interagency Council on Growth Management, 1991 Local Govemmem:
Growth Mana~ement Survey. page 3
7. Alameda County, l~sue Paper #5. .pages 4 . 11
8~ Ec(;momic and Planning Systems, Growth Inducin~ Im~acts Analysis of Tn-Vallev
Wastewater Authority Ex,port Expansion. 1990.
9. ABAG, Jobs/Housin~ Balance for Traffic Miti~ation. 1985
10. Bay Area Council/ ABAG, A Consensus For Housin~: The Opportunities Posed Bv
Re~ona1 Growth Mana~ement in the Bav Area. September 1991
11. Alameda County, Issue Paper #4. pages 23 .25
12. Bay Area Council/ ABAG, A Consensus For Housin~: The Opportunities Posed Bv
Re~ona1 Growth Mana~ement in the Bay Area.. September 1991
13. Alameda County, Issue Paper #2. page 9
14. Alameda County, South Uverrnore Valley Area Plan. March 7, 1991
( cL-pcoption..l.Z2)
.11-
'<'. '...._ r.~.<<;/
1 ~ ~'/J
~~I'~~~~~" \\~\
l<)~ ~ f:;2
--_.--~:,>~ !!JI;
,J 1 r. -,-- ." \,
.... '. !F, ,\.~~., .
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
.
PO Box 2340. Dublin. Caliiornia 94568
. City Offices. 100 CivIc Plaza. Dublin. Call1er'- c, ~J4568
January 27, 1992
President Mary King
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street, suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
DRAFT
SUBJECT: East County Area Plan Planning Commission Policy Options
Report.
Dear President King:
The City of Dublin has reviewed the East County Area Plan
Planning Commission Policy Options Report dated December 2, 1991. The
report outlines eight proposed policy options. As stated in my
December 27, 1991 letter, the City recognizes the regional importance
of these issues and is more than willing to work cooperatively toward
solutions. At this time, the City has several substantive concerns
with the policies proposed in the report:
policy 1. Subregional Planning.
The report states that "rather than having local planning
regulated by a State or regional agency, the East County Area Plan
would provide a "bottom up" approach to regional planning which
balances local control with regional objectives". This approach would
not be acceptable to the City of Dublin because it would be "top down"
from the City's point of view when regional policies, some of which
could be unacceptable to the City, would be applied by the County to
the City.
Cities can work cooperatively toward regional goals without
coordination by the County. An example is the Tri-Valley Affordable
Housing Committee in which member jurisdictions are seeking to jointly
provide affordable housing.
The East County Area Plan would establish criteria for land use
planning based on City and County general plans, County programs such
as the Congestion Management Program, and standards set forth by
regional and State agencies. The City is concerned about how these
policies would be established and what body would enforce them.
Regional goals and policies should be established cooperatively
by the cities with county participation. Once policies are adopted on
regional issues, locally elected and appointed bodies should have
jurisdiction over them.
Policy 2. Growth Management.
Annual growth would be tied to the availability of facilities and
services by means of Level of Service Standards. It is unclear how
available capacity would be determined or allocated. It would be
Administration (415) 833.6650 . City Council (415) 833-6605 . Finance (415) 833-6640 . Builc;ilnr> I"rn~~';~- ",~, M~ ~~M
Code Enforcerne_nt (415) 833-66200 Englneenng (415) 833-6630 0 Plannin\ EXHIBIT B
Police (415) 833-6670 0 Pub!lc Works (415) 833-6630 0 Recreation (415)
I" ~~
.
.
unacceptable that a revision to the Dublin General Plan be required to
meet county standards.
It is proposed that the overall development of the East County
subregion needs to be monitored and balanced. It is stated that the
County, in cooperation with cities and districts, is the agency whose
political boundaries best matches the East County subregion. It is
not acceptable that the County "monitor and balance" overall
development.
It is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions to insure
that the overall development of the East County subregion is balanced
by monitoring their own actions based on legitimate and equitable
regional policies. The City of Dublin is accepting its regional and
subregional responsibilities through voluntary cooperative programs
such as the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
Policy 3. Growth Management Line/Urban Service Line.
A Growth Management Line is proposed which would define the
geographic area within which the East County holding capacity applies
and would be drawn to include all areas intended for development
within the 20 year period. For the County to unilaterally adopt a
Growth Management Line is unacceptable to the City.
Local jurisdictions should determine the location of the Growth
Management Line (if it is to be established) within their general
plans, should determine the criteria for amending the line and should
have the ability to change the location of the line.
An Urban Services Line is proposed which would define a permanent
boundary between developed and non-developed land. An Urban Services
Line is not needed if a Growth Management Line based on levels of
service is established. A Growth Management Line could just as easily
assure provision of infrastructure, certainty of development and
conservation. If such a line were to be established, local
jurisdictions should determine its location within their general plans
and should have the authority to-amend the line.
Policy 4. Jobs/Housing Balance.
The report provides for jobs/housing balance throughout East
County using the growth management holding capacities to be
established in the East County Plan. As previously stated, this would
be unacceptable to the City.
The Dublin General Plan and proposed developments in the extended
planning area contain policies which ensure a jobs/housing balance.
County policies should ensure a jobs/housing balance in unincorporated
areas.
Policy 5. Fiscal Impacts.
A cooperative program is proposed which would use a credit system
to award jurisdictions which provide regionally beneficial uses and
- 2 -
.
.
redistribute the tax benefits from those jurisdictions which continue
to seek fiscally lucrative development. This policy would be
unacceptable to the city because it could restrict jurisdictions which
do not have sufficient revenue generating land uses from attaining
their fair share. The addition of another level of bureaucracy to
decide which jurisdiction has insufficient or sufficient revenue
generating land uses and to redistribute revenues would be
unacceptable.
It is stated that such a system of credits could distribute more
equitably the benefits of growth and could generate the financial
resources to provide improved levels of service to East County
residents. It is unacceptable to the City to have the distribution of
locally generated revenues controlled by another jurisdiction.
Policy 6. Agriculture.
The report states that 20 and 100 acre parcel sizes would be used
to promote various types of agricultural land uses.
It is indicated that natural resource factors such as topography,
soils, etc., should be used to define agricultural areas rather than
arbitrary acreage minimums. It is unclear what natural resource
factors would be examined and how the many factors relating to
agricultural productivity would be reconciled to arrive at a minimum
parcel size.
Policy 7. City/County Development.
The report states that unincorporated areas could, subject to
level of service standards and special districts, provide service
levels commensurate with those provided by cities. The provision by
the County of urban levels of service is unacceptable to the City
when, by definition, cities should provide urban levels of service.
This policy conflicts with a major goal of LAFCO. LAFCO uses the
ability to provide services to a given area as a means of determining
suitability of that area for annexation to a city and encourages
annexation in those circumstances. Any such area should be within a
city and not remain in the County as it urbanizes.
It appears that the County intends to promote urban development
in unincorporated areas. It would be unacceptable to the City for the
County to approve development within a city's sphere of influence even
if that city denied the project or did not grant the developer all of
the units or intensity of development requested. This is occurring in
North Livermore in Alameda County and in the Dougherty Valley in
Contra Costa County. The potential for such conflicts between the
City and County would increase were this policy to be implemented.
The policy proposes that future development should conform to all
East county policies, reqardless of whether development occurs in the
cities or in the County. This policy would require the City to
surrender land use approval authority to the County via the East
County Area Plan policies. It is unacceptable to the City that this
- 3 -
.
.
occur. The City must maintain responsibility and accountability for
land uses occurring within its boundaries.
policy 8. New Communities.
The policy provides that the new communities program would
provide the urban, "infill" component of a comprehensive growth
management strategy for East County. This is unacceptable. The
provision of new communities is the responsibility of cities. County
approval of new communities, especially with the opposition of nearby
cities which would be negatively impacted, would lead to conflict
between the County and cities, urban sprawl, and negative impacts to
items such as agriculture, traffic, sewage and water.
In summary, the East County Area Plan Planning Commission policy
Options Report is seriously flawed. It proposes policies which would
encourage "top down" land use regulation, urban sprawl and taxation of
other jurisdictions by the County. This would inevitably lead to
conflict between the County and the cities. It is recommended that a
program be established to revise the East County Area Plan. The
program would consist of a series of meetings at the staff level and
then the elected official level with representatives from the County
and the cities attending. The purpose of the meetings would be the
proposal of legitimate and equitable regional planning goals and
polices that would be adopted and implemented by each jurisdiction on
a cooperative basis.
If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Carrington,
Senior Planner, or me at 833-6610.
Sincerely yours,
Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
City of Dublin
cc: Cathy Brown, Mayor, City of Livermore
Ken Mercer, Mayor, City of Pleasanton
Adolph Martinelli, Planning Director, Alameda County
Chandler Lee, Planning Consultant
/KINGLET2
- 4 -
, ...-~--~-
.~.... ..... I .1(/_'_
/,',\ "/~-_. ", .1/',
. /" '/ '<<i:'
I '-I ~. '\ \
IIIII~ I ~\\~\\
\lll(~ ~j~'21
---~~.' .~/~p
1:.1/1035:::
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
.
Po. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
December 27, 1991
President Mary King
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street, suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
SUBJECT: East County Area Plan Update
Dear President King:
The City of Dublin has received a copy of the East County Area
Plan Planning Commission Policy Options Report dated December 2, 1991.
The report outlines eight proposed policy options for subregional
planning, growth management, urban service line, jobs/housing balance,
fiscal impacts, agriculture, city/county development and new
communities. These policies are to be included in an updated East
County General Plan.
The City is addressing these and other issues in amendments to
its General Plan and in the review of large development proposals in
western and eastern Dublin. The regional importance of the above
mentioned issues is clear and the City is more than willing to work
cooperatively toward solutions. The City is currently reviewing the
land use policy issues proposed in the report. At this time, the City
has several concerns with the process proposed for preparing the East
County Area Plan:
1. The report was delivered to the City on November 27, 1991.
(the day before Thanksgiving) for review before the study session on
December 2, 1991, the following Monday. The lateness of delivery
allowed no time for adequate review of the report.
2. At the study session, no input was allowed from interested
parties including representatives from the local cities.
3. The report does not adequately explain the reasons for the
policies set torth in the report or describe their consequences and
means of implementation.
4. Several policies are proposed that could greatly limit the
ability of the City to make land use decisions within the City's
Sphere of Influence and future growth areas.
5. The report states that a "cooperative effort among local
cities and agencies is proposed to provide a "bottom up" approach to
subregional planning as an alternative to the "top down" approach
proposed by recent State legislation and the regional approach
proposed by the Bay Vision 2020 Commission". The letter from Adolph
Martinelli dated December 11, 1991 indicates only three opportunities
Administration (510) 833-6650. City Council (510) 833-6605. Finance (510) 833-6640. Buil( EXHIBIT C
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 . Plannir
Police (510) 833-6670 · Public Works (510) 833-6630 · Recreation (5'
-.
.
.
to provide city input and in each case, the input would be in the form
of formal comments:
a. In writing based on the policy options report by
January 1992.
b. At a meeting in March prior to completing the Draft
General Plan (after the policies are determined), and
c. When the Draft General Plan and EIR are released in
April.
The City will be providing formal comments with regard to the
land use policies in January, 1992, after the City has done an
adequate review of the report. A "cooperative effort", however,
typically means more than just formal comments followed by formal
responses. Substantial dialog and discussion on the issues needs to
take place.
If Alameda County truly wishes to establish a cooperative effort
among local cities, the Dublin City Council would request the Board of
Supervisors to establish a process where meaningful dialog and
discussion can occur among the elected officials and Staffs of the
local cities and Alameda County. With this process, we can hopefully
arrive at policies which are acceptable to all.
If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Carrington,
Senior Planner, or me at 833-6610.
Sincerely yours,
Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
City of Dublin
cc: Cathy Brown, Mayor, City of-Livermore
Ken Mercer, Mayor, City of Pleasanton
Adolph Martinelli, Planning Director, Alameda County