HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.02 Circlepoint Svcs AgreementG~~~ OF D~j~rr_
~ ~L
~9, C+=' =7,~)`82
~~~`~ STAFFREPORT CITY CLERK
`~~1~~`~~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^~~~-~~]
DATE: September 6, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization for the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Contract with
Circlepoint for the provision of environmental services for the Sphere of Influence
Amendment Study for poolan Canyon.
Prepared By: Michael Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
Consulting Services Agreement with Circlepoint, an environmental consulting firm, for the
preparation of the necessary environmental documentation in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to support and Amendment study to the City of Dublin's
Sphere of fnfluence to include Doolan Canyon. The agreement will be for an amount not to
exceed $800,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with the execution of the contract and the
provision of the environmental services, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the
Applicant, Pacific Union. The contract will not be executed until the applicant authorizes the
initiation of the consultant work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate and.execute a contract for Environmental Consulting Services with Circlepoint for an
amount not to exceed $800,000.
/
Su itted By: Revi wed y:
Community Development Director Assistant ~ anager
Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. /' ~
DESCRIPTION:
Background
On December 7, 2010, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon. (See Attachment 1- Staff Report
from the December 7, 2010 City Council Meeting).
Since the December 7, 2010, City Council meeting, Staff has been working with the applicant,
Pacific Union Holdings and the City Attorney to refine and prepare a detailed Scope of Work
outlining the proposed General Plan Initiation Study. Staff has been working with Circlepoint, an
environmental consulting firm, to detail the various components necessary for a comprehensive
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the proposed Study.
The Scope of Work and Fee Proposal from Circlepoint is under review and it is anticipated that
a negotiated fee will be agreed upon by the applicant, the City and the consultant shortly. The
cost of the contract with the Consultant is not to exceed $800,000. Staff, the applicant and the
Consultant are currently refining the work tasks which will result in a final fee amount. Once that
final fee amount is agreed upon by all parties, the City Manager would be authorized to execute
the contract between the City of Dublin and Circlepoint.
ATTACHMENT: 1. City Council Staff Report, December 7, 2010
2. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consulting
Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and Circlepoint
for the Provision of Environmental Services in Conjunction with a
General Plan Initiation Study to Consider including Doolan
Canyon within the City of Dublin Sphere of Influence.
Page 2 of 2
G~~~ OF' Dp~~
19, . -' _~ ,82
~`~~~1 STAFF REPORT C I T Y C L E R K
`c~~~ ~ DUBLIN C1TY COUNCIL File # ^[~~~-3~~
~LIFpR~
I ~
DATE: December 7, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: . Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJ . Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450 acres located immediately
east of the existing boundary of the Dublin City Limits and Sphere of Influence.
Prepared By: Michael Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider whether to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450
acres located immediately east of the existing Dublin City Limits and Sphere of Influence within
unincorporated Alameda County to create a new General Plan Land Use Designation and
policies to guide future development of up to 1,990 residential units for active senior housing,
preservation of open space, park provisions, an extension of the Development Elevation Cap,
major ridgeline protections, grading, and other implementation measures.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All costs associated with the processing of the proposed
Amendment, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the Applicant, Pacific Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive comments
from the public; and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving the fnitiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon; OR 4) Adopt a
Resolution denying the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450 acres
commonly known as Doolan Canyon and directing Staff to begin discussions with the City of
Livermore and LAFCo Staff on the future of Doolan Canyon.
,
ubmitted By:
Community Development Director
Revie y:
Assistant City Manager
z~-~, ~- ~~ q/~ ~,
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMEN~1
DESCRIPTION:
Background
a ~
Pacific Union, on behalf of Dublin Active (nvestors, L.P., has requested that the City Council
consider initiating a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450 acres of land east of, but directly
adjacent to, the current City of Dublin Boundary and Sphere of Influence. The site is located
along Doolan Canyon Road on land commonly referred to as Doolan Canyon (Attachment No.
1).
In 1993, the City Council of the City of Dublin certified the Environmental Impact Report,
approved the General Plan Amendment incorporating 6,920 acres and approved the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan incorporating 3,328 acres for lands in the eastern part of the City. The
General Plan Amendment included 17,970 residential units and 10.:5 million square feet of non-
residentia! development. Two alternatives were presented and the City Council adopted
Alternative 2 with modifications. The modification consisted of a reduction of unit count to
14,000 units and the non-residential development potential was reduced to 9 million square
feet.
With respect to Doolan Canyon, Alternative 2 eliminated Doolan Canyon from the General Plan
Amendment removing 2,744 acres of land and approximately 3,970 residential units. Doolan
Canyon was further designated as a"Future Study Area - Agricultural."
In 2000, the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) began processing an annexation request,
environmental documentation, General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for
what eventually became Positano, Jordan Ranch, the Croak property and the various lands
along the north side of I-580 easterly of Falion Road.
At that time, and in conjunction with the EDPO annexation and approvals, the Cities of Dublin
and Livermore entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment 2) which
states that Dublin would amend its Generaf Plan to take out the "Future Study Area -
Agricultural" for poolan Canyon. The approvals for this took place in June 2002. At that point, all
of the infrastructure (roads, fire stations, parks, public facilities, sewer, water, and storm drains)
were sized for the ultimate buildout of EDPO and did not include Doolan Canyon.
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Page 2 of 4
~ ~~
.~
Doolan Canyon is located in unincorporated Alameda County. The Area is currently designated
RM "Resource Management" under the Alameda Country General Plan and under County
Zoning the site is designated "Agricultural."
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Study would consider creating a new General Plan Land Use Designation and
policies to guide future development of up to 1,990 residential units for active senior housing,
preservation of open space, park provisions, an extension of the Development Elevation Cap,
major ridgeline protections, grading, and implementation measures which may include the
adaption of a new Specific Plan or an amendment to the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The Study would also be the basis for a future application to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) to include the property within the City of Dublin Sphere of Influence.
~~ ~„a~.~..~.~
--- _ a..,........~.,~..,,.y ;, .~~,...
----;~,°'~.,.^~..-+.~., ~.:,.~:~
-_-_--._- OyYOWeA'l~ `iM0`w:Wa.Mt~ FiOS.Y
' _ _.. q,aOr.R~..au.w ~ ~u.
...~.~..~ $pirwy~lMti~I~Are W M.Illn~
Mc4110f~xdiNYf~CiMy/lTaRAIYMU~ ae r.~NC~
~'~M~dh~
~ tlwws~Ywywi t OfYal
a~ cw.aa
~ flytMws~M
y[!'CNVrw-f~~watY~~1w~~Wa6£YY~0~6 'V G~a~uJJM~~
s V.~~/Y~14\apre~MlrpfO~~ 0 [Mw.Yy4Y`'
~~„e ex~
u~w w ~'a ww. ra.odu
L$P~ a15GL
_..•,•». G!0"ei
M1O'NS
_ UNt6 C~Oii
S~ (7D4f
M9G l:tti L
,•••
„„, 4oii
RaarceNxaC~rtl .i~ 1$ .9]' ~ ~ ~
anune-i7snen^r~ - EEO 1490 3.E.
Mi~w^Paeme-OOen9wce - B7d
TuWF ld55 bi91 T~33~ 3,p
GENERAL RLAN AMENQMENT
DLIBLIN PRESERVE ,
~
/ 1~ ~' A~
~}V~
Figure 2
City of Dublin practice has been for the City Council to initiate General Plan Land Use
Amendments prior to Staff accepting an application and beginning work on such projects.
Staff has prepared finro Resolutions for City Council consideration. The first is a Resolution
(Attachment 3) approving the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study. Should the City
Council choose to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study, Staff would:
1. Examine the topography and overall site constraints;
Page 3 of 4
(~Prt~!ral Plan i anri l lcac
General Plan Land Uses
~ ~~
~
2. Determine if there would be any associated environmental impacts from the land use
change such as, but not limited to traffic, noise, biological, cultural, historic, or view
impacts;
3. PerForm any studies that may be required; '
4. Determine if the density requested is appropriate for the site; and
5. Prepare an analysis for the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Once the Study is complete, Staff would then bring the proposed General Plan Amendment
action to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to City Council. The City Council
would then take action on the General Plan Amendment. It is anticipated that the Study could
be completed by early 2012. ~
As noted above in the "Background" section, the future of Doolan Canyon has been discussed
for many years. Staff is proposing the option of denying the initiation of the Study and working
with the City of Livermore and LAFCo to determine the ultimate future of Doolan Canyon.
Therefore, the second Resolution (Attachment 4} provided for City Council consideration denies
the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study and directs Staff to begin meetings with the
City of Livermore and LAFCo on the ultimate future of Doolan Canyon.
NOTlC1NG REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study.
Although not required, it has been the City's practice to send notices to alf property owners
within 300 feet of the property in question. The City, therefore, mailed notices to all property
owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. A notice was also published in the
Valley Times and posted in the designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was
distributed to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENT: 1. Applicant's Letter of Request.
2. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
3. Resolution approving the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon.
4. Resolution denying the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon and
directing Staff to begin discussions with the City of Livermore and
LAFCo Staff on the future.of Doolan Canyon.
Paqe 4 of 4
RE ~ ~
C~'~11! ,
~
PACIFI~
~NIC~N
NOV 2 ~. 2010
DU~LIN pL~IVNIfVG
Novelnber 1$, 2010
Ms. Jeri Rasn
Comz~uni.ty.Aevel~pment Director
City of Dttblin
100 Civic Plaza
llublir~, CA 94568
Re: Rcquest for General Plan Amendment and Sphere ~f 7n#lu~nce Asljustment for the
"l~ublin Preserve" pr~perty
APNs 905-0002-004, 905-0002-005, 905-0003-Q03-Qp, 9~15-0~(,)3-~~4-00; 905-
0403-005-00, 905-00~3-OQf~-00, 9p5-A003-pQ7, 9f~5-(~003-008, 905-pUU3-L109-~1,
9(}5-00~3-009-02,905-0003-010-01,905-0003-Q10-02,905-0003-011,905-0403-
012, 9~5-~093-014-02, 905-C1003-014-03, 905-OOQ7-OQ2-03, 985-Q02$-QO1-00
Dear Jeri,
On behalf of Dub2in Active Investoxs, ~,.P., we would like to reques~ a General Plan
A.zuendm~nl for ths approximatsly 1,450 acrss referenced abDVa and generally located
along Doalan Road and a.djacent ta the eastem boundary of tl~e current City iunits. Tl~e
pla~uuiig and envuo~uneutal re;vi~v~r for the proposed General Plan Amendment would
also ~rovide the basis far a future appticalion to the Alameda County LAFCO to include
tl~e property witlxin the City of Dublin's sphere of inlluence. Attachment #1 iliustrates the
property's Incation in relatifln to the City of Dublin.
The property is currently located ui unulcor-porated Alamzda Coi,uity vvith a~c~uniy
Genera.i Plan iand use category of "Kesource Management" and County zoning as
"Agricultural." The re~uested .(~',reneral Plan A.m~ns~ment would incorporate this area iuto
the Dublin Gencral Plan and Eastern Extended Planning t~rea and ~reate a new land use
category caIled "Dublin Prescrve." This new tand use category would rec~uire
preservation of ~0 perce~t of the property as open ~p~~c with development of no more
than I,99fl residential units on the remAinder of the site for active senior housing and
related uses. Attachment #2 illustrates a conceptual d~sfibuti~.n o.f oren spacc a.nd
d~velapahle area~ on the property.
The General Plan Amendmenl would also depict major roadways. l~n extension of
Central Parkway ~rom the adjacent Fallon Village development area to the west would
sexve as prunary access for the Project Site. Secondary ae~ess to the praposed futur~
developm~nt would he provided by tl~e existing Doolan Road.
~ ~
~
Th~ proposed Dublin Pressrve land u,se category would not detail any specifc
development. The proposed General Plan Amendment would contain policies, standards
and rn~chanisms to guid~ pot~ntial futur~ ~cvctopmcnt of this are~, Polici~s dealing wit~
iss~~es sueh a~ ~xtendi~~g the F~.s#en~ n~~blin T~evelc~pment ~'icvation C'a{~, park and open
space pro~~i~a.qns, zx~aj~r xidg~line prote~tions, ansi gr~.ding would be addressed, along
~vith how these goals would be impletnented by a future East D~iblin Specific Plan
amendmenl ~r new SpQCific Plan lor the properky.
Thank yQU in advan~e for c~nsidering our rcqzicst,
If you ha.ve any ~uestions or res~uire any additional informatian, please conia.ct me
directly at ~925) 314-3826.
Si~~cerely,
r ;
Bruce Myers
Vice President of Land Development
~
~
~
,I.1~t~~~iJtf.I1H
Arr~c~t~rrr 2 ~
! ~
~
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN CTTY OF DUBLIN AND CITY OF LIVERMORE
REGARDING LAND-USE PLANNING ISSUES OF MUTU.AL CONCERN
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into on May l, 2002 by and ,~,~
between the City of Livermore ("Livermore"), a municipal corporation of the State of a a
California, and the City of Dublin ("Dublin"), a municipal corparation of the State of
California (collectively, "Cities"). The Cities agree as follows:
1. Dublirr Approval. On Apri12, 2002, the City of Dublin certified a final revised
supplemental environmental impact report ("EIR") for and approved the East
Dublin Property Owners' Sta.ge 1 Development Plan and Annexation Project
("East Dublin project" or "project"). The East Dublin project is entirely within:
the City's General Plan and sphere of influence, and portions of the project aze
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project includes approximately
1,120 acres and is pzoposed for up to 2,526 residential units and 1.4 million
square feet of commercial and industrial uses.
2. Livermore Concerris. Throughout Dublin's review process for the project,
Livermore expressed its concerns regarding the adequacy of environmental
review of the project and its potential impacts on Livermore and the surrounding
region.
3. Statute of Limitations. The statute of limitations for legal challenge to Dublin's
approval of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act expires on
May 6, 2002.
4. Efforts to Resolve Dispute. The Cities both seek to preserve the environmental
quality and quality of life in the Tri-Valley. In an effort to achieve this goal and
avoid litigation aver the project, a liaison committee consisting of two city
council members representing each of the Cities (the "Liaison Committee") met
on several occasions to discuss resolution of issues of concem to the Cities.
Agreements in principle reached among the members of the Liaison Committee
are included as appropria~e in ~1us I~10U.
S. Airport Protection Area. Livermore operates a municipal airport located in the
western azea of Livermore and in the vicinity of the project area. In the portion of
the project area designated as the Livermore Airport Protection Area ("APA'~,
Dublin has identified approxunately ninety-two (92) acres as a"Future Study
. Area." Exhibit A, attached hereto, depicts the APA and Future Study Area. In
order to resolve concerns raised by Livermore regaziling potential future land uses
within the APA, Dublin agrees to add a General Plan policy that states that land
uses to be established within the Future Study Area will be submitted to the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to determine consistency with
the APA. It is Dublin's intention to approve no school or residential uses (other
than RRA) in the APA "Future Study Area" as the "Future Study Area" is
MOU Behveen City of Dublitt and City~of Livermore Page 1 of 4
Regarding Land-Use Planning Issues of Mutual Concern May 1, 20G 2',
. 6 ~ ~
~
currently designated. Livermore agrees to. formally review its general plan and
zoning for consistency with the APA.
6. Conservation Easements. Approximately two hundred sixty nine (269) acres in
the northern portion of the project area aze designated as Rura1
ResidentiaUAgricultural Areas ("RRA") and would allow development of one
residence per one hundred (100) acres and agricultural-related uses. This RRA
azea is generall-y depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Livermore desires that
~ the RRA remain permanently protected to preserve the resources and habitat in
the azea and to provide a community separator between the Cities. Dublin agrees
to adopt a policy that requires the City to use its best efforts to secure
conservation easements or similaz instruments that would permanently resbrict
development outside of a reasona.ble development envelope on the lands
designated RRA in the project area.
7. Resource and Open Space Plannin~. The mitigatian monitoring plan applicable to
the project area requires developers to prepare a Resource Management Plan for
the project area. Similazly, Livermore has initiated a Habitat Conservation Plan
program for open space. Dublin and Livermore agree to cooperate during the
preparation of their respective plans. Specifically, Dublin and Livermore agree ta
consider habitat preservation and restoration in the Doolan Canyon area and to
address requirements of resources agencies to protect or preserve habitat lands to
offset the impacts of urban development.
8. Water Sunplv. ' Both the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and the 1993 EIR require a
will serve letter from The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) prior to
grading pemut approval. DSRSD has approved the Final Revised Water Service
Analysis for Eastern Dublin (December 2001). (See, in particulaz, Section 2.)
Dublin agrees to use recycled water to the greatest extent possible.
9. Reeionai Transporta.tion Funding. Currently, the Tri Valley Transportation
Commission {"TVTC") imposes a fee on development in the Tri Valley to fund
needed regional transportation improvements ("T'~ i C Development Fees").
Livermore has expressed concerns regazding the insufficiency of the T'VTC
Development Fees to fund regional h~ansportation improvements needed as a
result of development of the project and other Tri Valley development, including
development in the City of Livermore. The Cities shall form a transporta.tion
committee that meets as necessary to address regional and local trausportation
issues of mutual concern to the Cities. The Cides shall invite #he City of
Pleasanton to be part of the transportation committee. The transportation
committee shall consider the adequa.cy of the TVTC Development Fees for
existing and future regional transportation improvements and shall present the
transportation conamittee's conclusions and the basis for those conclusions to the
city councils of the Cities. Dublin and Livermore have adopted model
development agreements that require the payment of all development impact fees
;
MOU Between City of Dublin and City of Livermore Page 2 of 4 ~
Regazding Land-Use Planning Issues of Mutual Concern i-aQ~ t ~nm
~~~~
at building pernut issuance in the amounts in effect at such time. It is each city's
intention to utilize such provisions for a11 projects that include development
agreements.
10. Dublin Boulevard Extension. Implementation of the project will include
extending Dublin Boulevard east of Fallon Road and establishing an alignment
for this extension. Determination of the alignment will require extensive study
and environmental review. The Cities agree to cooperate regazding the timing
and aiignment of the extension.
11. Doolan Canvon Redesignation. Currently, Dublin's General Plan designates
Dooian Canyon as a"Future Study Area" Dublin has initiated a General Plan
Amendment ("GPA'~ to remo~e the "Future Study Area" designation from
Doolan Canyon. Dublin represents that approval of the GPA would result in
removal of the DooIan Canyon area from Dublin's planning azea. At its Apri16,
2002 meeting, the Dublin Planning Commission recommended approval of the
GPA to the Dublin City Council. The Dublin City Council shall take actian on
the proposed GPA no later than June 21, 2002.
12. Central Pazkway Ali ment. The Dublin General Plan includes a conceptual
aligiunent for Central Pazkway tha.t merges Central Pazkway with Dublin
Boulevard within the project area east of Fa11on Road. See Exhibit C[Figure 2-K
from revised supplemental DEIR], attached hereto. The existing land use map in
Dublin's General Plan does not depict the correct conceptual alignment for
Central Pazkway. No later than June 21, 2002, the Dublin City Council shall take
action on the proposed GPA amencting the land use map of its General Plan to
depict the correct conceptual alignment for Central Pazkway.
13. Further Environmental Review. The EIR for the project is a programmatic EIR,
and as noted on page 1-3 of the January 2, 2002 Revised Draft Supplemental
Environmental Tmpact Report and elsewhere in the EIR, futnre discretionazy
approvals by Dublin for the project aze subject to the Catifornia Environmental
Quality Act, thereby providing additional opportunity for public participation. In
recognition of this factor, and as a result of t'ue agreements set forth in fnis MOU,
Livermore agrees not to oppose nor bring any legal challenge to Dublin's
approvais for the project approved on Apri12, 2002 and not to oppose nor bring
any legal challenge to annexation of the project azea by the Loca1 Agency
Formation Commission. Except as expressly provided in the previous sentence,
Livermore reserves any and all rights to challenge a.ny future action of the City of
Dublin, including but not limited to any action that violates the terms of this
MOU.
14. Effective Date; Approval of East Dublin Property Owners' Annexation. This
Agreement shall be effective upon execution. The agreement shall terminate in
its entirety, if the East Dublin Property Owners' Annexation is not approved by
LAFCO (or is disapproved by the voters), does not become effective for any other
MOU Between City of Dublin and City of Livermore Page 3 of 4
Regarding Land-Use Planning Issues of Mutual Concern Mav 1. 2002
~a ~~,
reason. If the anaexation is approved with alterations, the parties agree to discuss
revisions to this MOU. ~
15. Amendment. This MOU may not be amended except in writing. Any such
amendment must be approved and executed by both Cities.
16. Severabilitv. Should any portion of this MOU be deternuned by any court or
other tribunal having jurisdiction to make such a determination to be illegal,
invalid or otherwise unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining
portions of the MOU shall not be affecfed by that determina.tion.
CITY OF LIVERMORE
a California municipal corporation
Dated: ~Q.(,~~ ~-i ~JO ~'
By: 12~1~~.P ~
Nazne: _ ~/ !C~`~~~t~ ~C~2e~,.c~
Title: ~~1-Y ~ ~
Approved as to f
By:
ity Attorney
Dated: _ ~~~ ~-DO 3-
i'
Dated: Q (~,~
Approved as to form:
CITY OF DUBLIN
a Calif 'a munici,pal rporation
By: Grk~6 ~
N~ : Janet Lockhart ~
Title: Mayor
Attest:
By: ~~`~~~ ~ ~7-~.
~
City Attorney City Clerk
Dated: ~~~~i i; 2~`'~' ~
G:1CC-}N7'GiS12U02~4ti2~MAYlS-1-02~Dublui Livermorc MOU.doe
Dt}PLICAT~ ORIGfNAL
MOU Between City of Dublin and City of Livermore Page 4 of 4
Regarding Land-Use PlanninQ Issues of Mutual Concern t~rA~ t ~nm
LEGEND '
ES - Eiementary. 5chool
. JIi - Junior Fiigh School .
Ir Low Density Residential
1VI - Medium Densify Resideatial I
MH - Medium High Density Residential
NS - Neighborhbod Square
i3~~~
~~
~fisrtmru~
NP-Neighbarhood Park ' ~ 1 : ~ •~ ~~ j
CP- Community Park ~ ' ~ ( ~ ,~,.<,~ ~___
OS - Opea Spacc ~ ;~ J~ ! ,
RRA - Rural Residenfiall Agricufture / ~ ' ~ --- --,~ ~ ~
NC - Neighbor6ood Commercial ! ~ ~ ~ `~ ! _ _ ; ~
f % ~ ~
GC - General Commercial Ft ..~r.... / ~ ; ~ ~ ;
I - Iadustria[ Park , ! ; ; ` ~~
f \ : `. i ~`.~ ---•,, ~
j ~
f o..~ ~.\,, ~ a.ms.~ `~`. j ~ ',1
i ~
i ~ ao'ae~
' ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ... ~~
i i ' `.
~~ .
~~ . .
O~ +di ~~ . i' ~ i ~i
. . ~...c.~ ~ ~~ ~i i ~ . ~-fa'
AGGIGnJNRB ' ~ ~~ .. ~ ~~ L ` ~` i i ' - -'
~B~YI~i1, \'~4%C / ~~ ~~C / ~~
/ ~~~~ ~-`,: ~ .,r~~
``` ` ` •~~ ~
.. `~~ / ' ~~1` ~.~ ~~~~~ ~` i~~ri1,.1~ ```,~ ai~1C~~
ll. ~` / , ~O~K/~ ` . ~ ~~~ ` 't ~~~ IP 1
\ t ~ ~ L .~ u.«I
f L'Kw ` f ~-~
; ~ . o~+TGU'~~~% ~~ ~ / I ~~~. ' --~ ~a`. I
/ ~~ ~~/ ~ ~1I1 ~ ' ~~ . ~ ~ ,~./ ~ ~`~~N~
~ ~ ~ ,~ nw .c~+ f .~..c~ ~ ` ~~``~ w.K .
% ~ ~~~~~~~ ' / \ j I ' \~S; ~
~ l ~~~ ilaC~~
. ~ \ ~ ~ ~~~ i ~ `~
: ~ 1 \\ / .~~~~~_~~_~~~~ \ ! \
~ ; / ~ -~ ~ . ~~ ;
\ . • / \ . ~ ' \ " ~p~ i~
. 1~i/~C~~ `~ \` ! 1 !L\K~1~ ~ '^`\ ``\ .
/ 1` ~ r i ~
~ ; .` ~. ~ K,- ~~ ~ ; ~ `,
t ``~\ i rM ' ~. ~ ~ `. ~. .. .
~ ~ i ~ y ~
` j t i ; 'iY~K^ ~' ~~ _ \, ~ ~` w ^ \\.
~ ~ ~ ! 1 . ~ . ... ~ ` ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ '
~ I
~ `'`~f ~ i ~~~_~~ ~~ ^ _ , ~' ~ ~ aa .e.~ `~~ `~~ ~a~
~ ~~ i ~ \~.
R!A % . ~ , . ' .~ ~.~` u.~c.~ 1. . ~` ; i • ; C
' ! ~~ " ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i .
~ • ~ i
1 'L • ~~~ .` ~ 1 O8: % 1
. ' OYKf~ 1I ~dK~ ~ . MM {
' - ~ . 1. ' - _^ `~T ~~_/.~~ . / )a~1CT 1
.` , ` -''' ~~~~~ `` `~ ~` *y+Y _~:~~ 1 ~'~~~ ~
` ,` ~~~ ` b1.~. ` ```~~ _ '
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~\ ' ;' •.:w.s~.. ~q ; '
. __-_- l.r aa~ '/~
- . . . • ~ . ~~ ~~~~~= _ t~/~ Y
• _ ,.
.. . • - ' 6 . . ,
. _ . .. . ~ ~K.~ ~
IIRA ' ~
Q
` ~
~. .. ~ ~ ~ .:' ~. .
~he:~yMm~.-t.a~rcnp0.P•u \ •~-d t~~ • -
'I;EGEND ~ -~. . . .
~`- - •
= ES:==El;emgataiy~`cliooln`~~• ' . . .
_.~:JH-~'umorS?gb:S~'chool'".: '
:.I,- Lotrl7e~siti,~%•l~esidential
:`11~;- MediuiasD~n`si~j,.iltesidential,
~ M~=-1VSedium FIigh:Density Resideatiaf ' ; '.
- : '1V'S'-•N,eig~i~othocjd 5quare. . : .
' ~ ''~ ~ N ! }I ~ 'p ~a ~ .
~ g g borh, o P.arlc .
~~'' •CP=ZiommuniXyPark..
. . OS_ Qperi Space;....'•:: . • ~• •
~ IiRA = Rurdl dtesideri~isl / Agriculture
, ~ 1~.G=~eigiiborhood Commercial ~
~ GC =-Geuera7,Commercial . •
~ I - Iridu's4na1 Park. ":- ° •
: : . :.. . :: :. . . ,: i :. :s.:.. -.
. . ~ ~ ~.. .
.....~. . ~~.
. ;~ ' . ' • ~.:caicvr.toea '
: ( -. - _ ` •"nriiri~rNn+ru~::.. .
• . . - - ~ . > -
. ' . .. .. T . - ~. ~ . . , yl:• ~.
.. . ,~ ~~; _ . ~ _-- ~r;:
_ _ Y~~ ^Y:~.
. . - -_ - :,/i:~..ii.:'• - --_= -- t~'.i,:., ~,,;1`„$;~r.a`.
= - ' - . •t:!~~~:I +
._ _ _ ,~..
_ - - ,~?
-RRA
_ _ _ ::..:: : ,s,.<;_. :r!!~;~«,•.,
. • : ~:;. ~~:., . :,l:.r;. _ - n,._.
. . ` ' _4'.~...' . .• .• • ~
';~ •::; ;<~:, .
. i.'.. ~'.
, . . - _" ':';'_ ----- .~ • . . . ~:; .:
,,~,• .. u:..~r ~ . l • -.~ _ • ~•~;,
';: :i~.':-: ~ ~. . .~.~ ,~ ~;
r'r:.r:~e,:s::-...=~ ~Y.' ~ ~~~~ ~.~ . C.ra
- ,u::, .r . r.: •.I _r:, `' : ~u,
• • I':• ^•~ J~ -• 9 - ~ -\ . ~\;' i'}\ +
';, •". •.
,' :`~~' , •. -~.;` , - ~!
~ . . • :~ ..~~ i,: ~ . ~~:"; _ .~ . -~M-: ~
.. . . ~~ , .i. . •. ::~~;:; ~': ~ ,
. . , . . `"ti:» . .,.. .'•:. a<.K... .`'.. ~,;,} • , ::.~
~ ~ . • . . 'o:..!e~.r.~... ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ .. v. ..: :.
. . ~ .. • ' ti~~'.'.: _ -_ 'i ~~~/," F' ~: i~~_~r . , . ~ ~' .. JtiA
, _ . . . i ' ~ :~; . afe:.2' ~."'~..;,
_ ~~~ ~.. I~~.. . F' .''
• , . , c ~ - ~ti',:. ' . . . . ~ 'c
~ . _ ~~.~ . .~\."I•.,::'~:::._' ~~ ~ ' %~;'•. .
' ' . ' _py. - ~~'.,j'f-' _-_ + ~'}c>:'~~' :.w~" ~p. •~.'
:. ~ .~'n ~ /
, . . . . ~i.mn:(:. _ ': ,^ _.~. .T~ .ri.. • \[~w";> • ~ i ' ._1 _-;:~;' ~ ~
. . ~ '_-v.~~i. ,. ~y~ , . . •~"~.
. . ' A6RlWt.711R6 ' " -i~~i'~ ~'~s.•'.~:LS ~~1~..~; '.'j • ~,:~_~ ~,eii
~ ~' ~ . ~ ~ Fi7lUR8571lDYAiEh _ ' ~g, ~ "^.~~~„_~ . ..~..,,~~`; ~ i ~ ,`rµ•,c : r . ~ , •. ~ .
, ' . . . . ' ^ ' . ~` ~ w K ~ ~~~~ ~~.~` '`~~, . :~ ~(. . ~ Jr~~~~ .
. . , , ~ ... ~ ' ~,1 :~.~`` -. % ~~'~~ ~ °~' `~_ ~ \`''~~~ '.~, .' ~ ~`. ~ t .
, . . . . . . ' . ~ ..:~ .~'_' .. ~,y`~Y~ ~ _r` ~•V'~ `\~,~ ' pi~KA
' ' .,RRR :~ I '~ Ji. ~ ` : ~ . __~ 'tuK ly~C. ' ' ~ .
-' .,;' ',''. ~ ° ' , ; ' . . _ w:i~~... '.;~ ~ ~_ ` "~_~~._. ~..
'!5i~: i ,~.. , '~•:rir"'•i
. , . -~
.~^ ~
_ . \
'>.; .
, ,~_ •. .
. .,•
/ ~ u~.c
~~
/'
~ . . . .. . .. ,_~.~. .~LiK~ ~l~ ~
,.
..
• ~ ',
'~ . . .~... ,. ., .._...u: ~ __ ..\
. : ' ~,- ..: ...' .....~ . . .. . , _
. . _ . ... ' a.~r++
,..
~ ' ~ • • ,.~:; , ~~~~ _
. . . . :.., ... . '~ ;: r.r°~M `' /7~
' . . . . . ..... . . ..... ..~ ' . ' - ~
•..
•;.: l
._ .; . , .~., . .... . ... . . _' ~ . '
. , ,. . .. . .. ~ ~ ~. . / , ~
_ ~ l`~ ~ ~ ~,~ :~~,,,~ . ~; ~~~:=.: : . G ~ ,~-~~. ~
{ ~,.. ~~.,.: ~'~~ _ ~x>;
... .. . i P' ,~',i`~~~r '. _ '~.•n:.~c~ . ~ • .. .~.c~ i `~~~ . ` . .a ~...1 .
. . '~ ' ^ ~ . . - ~ . . ~ I p` ~•:. 'A..y •. n.
~ ~ ~. ' R ~".~ .~` :~ _~~~~ ~ :. i ' 1 ~~ : ~`L~~ ~ C~e~es~
'r ~~ ~~~ ~ , . ' ~ ~i`` _ ~-::'+~ .
. . .. , ' ; . . '~``. _. 7 ~~~~~~ ~ . j . \,;,' . . ,
• ' - :i~•.~1. '~1~•'J ~ ' ~~~~~1.'_:~'~- , . ' :~,\~. .:~~ .
. . . ~ .,'Y. _~~A: ,~`~'• ~. ' , ` ~~ / . - . . \ ~ __ . : ~~'' .1• ~`~, ~• ,.• ~
`'.~. :. ~ - , . .:. _~: ~nu~\ : WyICj1~.
~ .~~ ~~
, . .. ~n8v.e~~~ '~~` ,,y ~ ~. ~r'^~. . `~`~:
• ' .. ' „r~ \`. . - :;: ;:..; ; ~ ~.•- ~.,,' ,
•,/,,I . .> ~ • ;.w.~e. , `. . - : j :.F'~ 'i~ ~~` '` '.,ii:. .
~\. ~ .:{, :;~~: ~:;` I ~~+' ; ~
-•. ,`;5 ~ ~ , f• ; ~ .~ . ' ;.:
. ._ „ • ' '~~~' .`,~• ~y~; r~ 1~`' ~ \`~; . ' . ~ . `•:~ . ~.~.,~, `t\\,'.
~.q ~, ~~ . . ~ • ~ ' ~ i .'~.: = i'~ y . '^'~.r',r."'._ -: .. I ~'w.y:~-~~'. `~''::-~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~,X*r "°- . ~ ^n~~•=`-:u.~ ~~: - : t • ;a~'' - ~~ ~i
_ , \ ~yr i ~ ~ "'^' :>'.._ ._ ~~~~``y'' _ ~ L•• _• • . ~: ~' . ~. _~
' ~ ~ : .~'.~ . ~ ~ • , . -''_ : OJ' -: `~~`~ a` ` ~~., au..c~ _ ~ a'~ ~ . ~'
.. . ~~5~, 4 - _`s.~.< "~~,~ - . . ~~<~ ~~' ~~
. ~ . . i ' _...~ ':03 ~ ~ 'i ~•~..
' ~ - •a ~f~`). ~\
_ ,::i*':
' '~Wi
- ~i~'~.:.~.•l'_:~a • .
•I ~
- \' ~
\ •M :.I
. •~~~• ~ ~\ ~ / "~ ` ~ ~~.~~ / A~~ ~ ~
. . '\ ~ ! '1~ '. ~_ ti..t~~E ~'". .. ' !`\ ~y.
. ,\ ` . .~ j.~+ .~~,
. . . `/' ~ ~`~`:~ .
/ • ~•• ~ .\ . .r '. i~.` ~•:.:. '~ •.~1! ~
' ~' 1 . .QYi'A~' ` ~ ' a~a~~ef~..' '...: , w y/ '" '
_;1~ ~ ~_~ ,.=i,-+„•~`""~~~ - _ , \~`~ uaK~..-` :-.L..:~jRJry .
. ^'~T~',.~ •4 __ ' . ' ' j ..~.. ~a.c~
. ~. '.r "' ``. : -
"~.~.`y r ~ ~R,. ~ `. ~ , .~',,, ,, ,{ f '
. . ~. ~ ~ ~~~ r~-.. :. • .~ ..}y`~~~~ ~1 ~' 1.
' ,.l~ '':t ~ ~~~~.Y-., ~' :. ~~L ~. .Acr-.~-'n+ ~~y~,-••
!:' . ~ 1'u \\• • :~'f,'^ . ~•w' .iti!S/~ _ ~
...:1. • . . _.. . ' ~ , . : ]~~ - 1 I} t, ~. t _~~ " J
." _ ,~` ,tiw1s~?•Qy~' o
, ~[ •'.~%- _ ~ ...A~ra. \ ~ l
. /\ ' ' y~.+~ ' ~'
.. . . . . . ~ '.'K' ~
~•'~ ~: .
. . . : . ~ i ~ . , . ~~``
_ .. . J. .i \ _ ~ .~ ~ ~~ . . _ l.I~c~~! '
~~a~, ~ .
ei:tl hwdrr.r:8ed~loi~
2.2bo i~~~At~r..'
6i,3o0' ~ ~ 0~~lt~j'
1b,dAt1 ~~~i11t1outADT .
~ . ~ ~roeKay
*++~ JM~nsdlrid~d
'
- ~ .
"~+ 6-lu~~.dlv rde
~-lane dhrld'e~
' '^~ ~•I.ni undix(ded
^-- -Z~aps dlWdaii
• --r Z-lane undri~ided
L`
~ • ~ N
, .~ •
. ~ .
.~ y
• . l ~
?
a' ~ ~ .
J
senta f~'ts Reha6f~m~ion Center M
~t'
~ ,~.
.t~
~w
~ o
~~,sso
e~a
{LD o
66000
16b
~9.500 -
1~A6U
20A00
~
usso
o ,
zx,~un .
' ~~~.8 ~tn ~ ~~ °~+on, ~i,~so00o ~~``
~ . . ~
' • /.950 ~l.~00 ~LU 6L0 ' . ,~ '~j .
. . . . e,oao Q~,~oo ~ o,ebo
~ s.saa
' .
8 H;4~
' C6NTMlPMW1: ~'~~
83;600 t8,200 •
2t
~
. E
.
~ ~p
d ~
i id
w~w e~v~ ~ ~~~0
~o
eoo
~ °°° .
e~u ~
~ 8
d
, ,z, x~~o
~
~
~ ~
~ ~~~ . . ss~~eo
~ ~
' 3.
.
61.7'~00, ~
.12.BG0 d~
tit:600
~ ~. g
Dubtin Qenerai Plan ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
East t7ubfin Existrg and 2Q~t,p proje~t~d Tr~fflc Volurnes-. ..
20~ 0 and Beyohtl Networlc .
•7t.001•Tp•Nf-HA ~ • ~ -
~
~ ~ ~~
RESOLUTlON NO. XX-10 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*******
APPROVING THE INITiATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR
1,450 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS DOOLAN CANYON
WHEREAS, a General Pian Amendment Study has been requested by Pacific Union, on
behalf of Dublin Active Investors, L.P. for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in unincorporated Alameda County and is currently
designated RM "Resource Management" under the Alameda Country General Plan and under
the County Zoning the site is designated "Agricultural"; and
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a rezoning, Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, site development review,.tentative parcel map and other associated permits
would need to be processed before development could occur; and
WHEREAS, Section 65358(a) of the State of California Government Code states that an
amendment to the General Plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quaiity Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report provided information regarding the Appficant's request and
provided finro options: approval and denial of the requested General Plan Amendment Study;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such information and testimony
hereinabove set forth and supports the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for the
1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin
does hereby approve the initiation request for a General Plan Amendment Study for the 1,450
acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Counci! of the City of Dublin on this
7~n day of December 2010, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
i~ ~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~******
DENYtNG THE INITlATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR 1,450
ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS DOOLAN CANYON AND DIRECTING STAFF TO BEGfN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND LAFCO STAFF ON THE FUTURE OF
DOOLAN CANYON
WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment Study has been requested by Pacific Union, on
behalf of Dublin Active Investors, L.P. for 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in unincorporated Alameda County and is currently
designated RM "Resource ManagemenY' under the Alameda Country General Plan and under
the County Zoning the site is designated "Agricultural"; and
WHEREAS, additional entitlements including a rezoning, Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, site development review, tentative map and other associated permits would
need to be processed before development could occur; and
WHEREAS, Section 65358(a) of the State of California Government Code states that an
amendment to the General Plan shall be in a manner specified by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report provided information regarding the Applicant's request and
provided two options: approval and denial of the requested General Plan Amendment Study;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such information and testimony
hereinabove set forth and does not support the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study
for the 1,450 acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin
does hereby deny the initiation request for a General Plan Amendment Study for the 1,450
acres commonly known as Doolan Canyon.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
direct Staff to begin discussions with the City of Livermore and LAFCo Staff on the future of
Doolan Canyon.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
7tn day of December 2010, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ia ~
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
. ~~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 11 '~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
********~~********~********~***,~****~****~
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSULTING SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND CIRCLEPOINT FOR THE PROVISION
OF ENVIRONEMENTAL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN
INITIATION STUDY TO CONSIDER IIVCULDING DOOLAN CANYON WITHIN THE CITY OF
DUBLIN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
WHEREAS, Pacific Union Holdings requested that the City Council of the City of Dublin
initate a General Plan Amendment Study to consider amending the City of Dublin Sphere Of
Influence line to include Doolan Canyon; and
WHEREAS, On December 7, 2010 the City Council of the City of Dublin considered the
applicant`s request to initiate the General Plan Amendment Study; and
WHEREAS, At their meeting of December 7, 2010, the City Council did authorize Staff to
commence the General Plan Amendment Study; and
WHEREAS, Staff and the City Attorney began investigating what was necessary to
conduct the Study and determined that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) was a prime consideration; and
WHEREAS, The applicant, Staff and the City Attorney refined the project description and
developed a Scope of Work for the CEQA compliance; and
WHEREAS, Staff and the City Attorney contacted Circlepoint, a qualified and reputable
environmental consulting firm for the purposes of defining a Scope of Work for CEQA
compliance; and
WHEREAS, Circlepoint has shown that they have the ability to perform the
Environmental consulting services required; and
WHEREAS, Circlepoint prepared a detailed Scope of Work and Fee Proposal which has
been reviewed by Staff, the City Attorney and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, Refinements are being made to the Scope of Work which will resuft in
revisions fo the proposed Fee; and
WHEREAS, Circlepoint will perForm the work outlined in the Scope of Work and Fee
Proposal once final negotiation are concluded and the applicant has agreed to fund the
necessary environmental work; and
WHEREAS, a not to exceed budget of $800,000 has been determined.
Reso No. XX-11, Adopted XX/XX/XX, Item 7.2 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2
~ ~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin
does authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Circlepoint for a fee not to exceed
$800,000 with the above-mentioned consultant upon an agreement with the applicant that all
funds necessary for the completion of the contracted services will be borne by the applicant.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2011, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reso No. XX-11, Adopted XX/XXlXX, Item 7.2 Page 2 of 2