HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Ala Co Open Space Element •
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 30, 1989
SUBJECT: Alameda County Open Space Element; Livermore-Amador
Valley Planning Unit General Plan
REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A: Memoranda from Supervisor Mary King,
September 27, 1989 and August 9, 1989.
Exhibit B: Memorandum from Supervisor Warren Widener,
September 26, 1989.
Exhibit C: Memorandum from Supervisor Edward R.
Campbell, October 18 , 1989.
Exhibit D: Memorandum from Elizabeth H. Silver,
Assistant City Attorney, October 20, 1989.
Attachment 1: Letter to Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, August 8, 1989.
0`
RECOMMENDATION: Co sider
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
Supervisor Mary King has proposed amendments to the Alameda
County Open Space Element; Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit
General Plan (see Exhibit A) . Her proposal is significantly
different from the revisions recommended by the Alameda County
Planning Commission. The City Council previously indicated its
opposition to new Policy 1. 2.3 . and the additions to Policy 2. 2
(see Attachment 1) . The new Policy 1. 2.3 . would encourage urban
development outside of existing cities. The additions of Policy
2.2 would encourage residential development up to one dwelling
unit per 20 acres up to 1 mile away from a public road.
At least two of Supervisor King' s proposals could have
significant effects on the City of Dublin:
1. County representatives to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) would be required, to the maximum
legal extent, to support or oppose proposed sphere of
influence changes, annexations or de-annexations, based
on whether the proposals were consistent with the
County General Plan.
From a legal perspective, the City Attorney's office
finds the proposal to be inappropriate, objectionable,
and not binding on board members who serve on LAFCO
(see Exhibit D) .
From a land use planning perspective, the proposal
could effectively set urban development limits at the
existing city sphere of influence lines. Additionally,
depending on how unincorporated areas within the City's
sphere of influence were designated, the County' s
ITEM No. , .4 COPIES TO: Planning File
[a:LT10-30/AlaCty]
-1-
General Plan, rather than the City' s planned land uses
and other similar factors, would control whether or not
the County representatives on LAFCO would support an
annexation.
2. Future subdivisions of unincorporated lands designated
as Residential Agricultural Open Space, to sizes to
less than 40 acres, would only be permitted when the
open space and agricultural values of those areas were
permanently protected through land dedications and
conservation easements covering at least 95% of the
land so subdivided.
It is unclear which, if any, unincorporated areas
within the East Dublin or West Dublin Study Areas might
be designated as Residential Agricultural Open Space.
If significant portions of the study areas are so
designated, a requirement that at least 9,5% of the land
be permanently protected for open space or agricultural
use could be a waste of valuable urban resources.
Certain portions of the study areas are well suited
both environmentally and economically for urban
development. Other portions are equally well suited
for open space or agricultural use. To require all
lands to set aside 95% of the area for open space or
agricultural use would be an inefficient use of
resources and could, in the long term, do more
environmental damage than good.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider opposing the
proposal 1) to require County representatives to base their LAFCO
support or opposition on whether or not a proposal for annexation
or city sphere of influence is consistent with the County General
Plan; and 2) to require at least 95% of unincorporated lands
designated as Residential Agricultural Open Space to be dedicated
upon subdivision to open space or agricultural use.
-2-
as( OF Az
1.7�
_ BOARD O F S U P E I I S O R S
— om/ '
*
C141FOtk
MARY KING
3uremnbOn rouaTM o■f*.ict
September 27, 1989
TO: OTHER MEMBERS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: SUPERVISOR MARY KING
RE: ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT and
LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY PLANNING UNIT GENERAL PLAN
On August 9 , I sent you a memorandum stating my opposition to the
revisions recommended by the Planning Commission to the above. I
also listed a number of amendments to the recommended changes which.
I would like to see.
With regard to my suggestion on mitigation fees for Open Space
lands which are converted to urban uses, I think the following
points should be considered in developing such a program:
1. The amount of non-permanent Open Space identified in the
Open Space Element.
2 . The amount of land designated as permanent Open Space in
• the Open Space Element which is not already permanently
protected and which faces strong development pressure.
3 . The approximate cost involved in purchasing conservation
easements on the lands identified in #2 above and the per
acre fee which would be needed to be assessed on lands
identified in #1 above in order to generate sufficient,
revenues to purchase such easements.
To elaborate on the proposals I made in my August 9 memo, I propose
that the following specific changes be made to the Open Space
Element revisions approved by the Planning Commission. (Page
references are to the May 22 draft of the Planning Commission
Committee) :
a. On page 2 , PRIMARY TYPES OF OPEN SPACE, change the first
sentence to read:
"Three primary types of open space have been designated:
1227 OAK STREET • SUITE $35 • OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA
OIsTRICT OFFICE: 2098o REDWOOD ROAD. SUITE 290 • CAS1
OCT-09-'89 MON 13:42 I I -__EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4`,_ 3457 #291 P03
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27, 1989
Page 2
1) Large Parcel Agricultural open space, 2) Unique Public
Open Space, and 3) Residential Agricultural Open Space. "
b. On page 3 , SECONDARY TYPES OF OPEN SPACE, change the only
sentence to read:
"Four secondary types of open space have been designated:
1) Selected Public and Other Open Space Uses, 2) Borrowed
Open Spaces, 3) connecting Open Space Corridors, and 4)
Agricultural Open Space With Urban Development
potential. "
c. On page 3, DESIGNATED TYPES OF PRIMARY OPEN SPACE, change
paragraph one to read:
"1) Large Parcel Agricultural Open Space:
All areas indicated as Large Parcel Agricultural Open
Space in the Open Space Plan Map are designated for
permanent retention."
d. On page 4, replace the title and first sentence of
paragraph 3 , "Residential-Canyon Open Space" , with the
following:
"3) Residential Agricultural Open Space:
All areas indicated as Residential Agricultural Open
Space in the open Space Plan Map are designated for
permanent retention." (rest of paragraph stays the same)
e. On page 5, "Connecting Open Space Corridors" , retain the
cxieting 1973 Open Space Plan language and delete the
proposed new language.
f. On page 5, "Borrowed Open Space", add the following
sentence to the end of the paragraph:
"The County shall advocate the preservation of the open
space values of these lands. "
g. On page 5, add the following new section #7 as follows:
"7) Agricultural Open Space With Urban Development-
Potential:
-Lands indicated as Agricultural Open Space With
Urban Development Potential in the Open Space Plan
Map may be considered for future conversion to non-
`f open space uses. "
OCT-09-'89 MON 13:44 IT EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4 3457 #292 PD1
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27, 1989
Page 3
h. On page 7, delete the second sentence of paragraph one,
which begins, "For example. . . ".
i. On page 12, "Include Natural Ridgelines and Slope Areas" ,
delete the word "generally" which was added by the
Planning Commission at the July 12 , 1989 meeting by
Resolution 89-36.
j . On page 14, "Natural Resources Within Open Space Areas
Should Be Permanently Protected", delete the proposed new
language which reads "a significant number of" .
k. On page 15, in the section on GENERAL OPEN SPACE:
IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES, add the following new
principle:
"Mitigate the Adverse Impact of Open Space Conversion to
Urban Uses:
In the event lands shown as Open Space in the open Space
Plan Map convert to urban uses, significant mitigation
shall be required by assessing fees for . the purpose of
acquiring conservation easements and/or fee title to open.
space lands identified-a$ Large Parcel Agricultural Open
Space or Residential Agricultural Open Space. The goal
of this and other mitigations which the County may adopt
shall be to ensure that all lands designated as permanent
open space are ultimately protected through conservation
easements or public ownership. "
1 . On page 16, "Protect Suitable Park and Recreation Areas" ,
add the words "Large Parcel Agricultural" between "as"
and "open space" on the third line of the paragraph.
m. On page 19, "Coordinate Agricultural Open Space Plans
with Plans of Cities and Adjacent Counties" , add the
following to the end of the existing paragraph:
"county representatives to the Local Agency Formation
Commission shall, to the maximum legal extent, support
or oppose proposed sphere of influence changes,
annexations and de-annexations, based on whether the
'affected city or County General Plans, zoning and other
regulations are consistent with the provisions of this
Element. This includes but is not limited to the
requirements for conservation easements and mitigation
fees. "
�.z
.00T-09-'89 MON 13:44 ID:FLEASANTON CA TEL NO:415 463 84b( roc
J
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27, 1989
Page 4
n. On page add FOR AGRICULTURAL OP N SPACE" :
Section on n "PRINCIPLES
"Coordinate County Actions:
County actions adopting plans and allocating funds for
the development and maintenance of infrastructure and
public services, and the protection of the environment,
shall be consistent with this Element. "
o. On page 19, "Discourage Loss of Agriculture by Division
of Agricultural Lands" , add the following at the end of
the paragraph:
"The creation of parcels smaller than 640 acres is
prohibited for lands designated Large Parcel
Agricultural Open Space, and the creation - of parcels
smaller than 40 acres is 'prohibited for lands, designated
Residential Agricultural open Space,. Future subdivisions
of lands - desigrated : as '-Residential
ize down to sizes no less than
than
40 acres,- a - on y permit e. w en the open space and
a ricultural values of these areas are permanen£ry
pro ec e• throu9 .-land dedications and conservat on
easements covering at least 95 percent of the land so
subdivided. For lands designated Agricultural open Space;
with Urban Development Potential, the creation of parcels
smaller than 100 `acres is:` not permitted ..until the
appropriate General Plan , designation for -..- urban;
development is approved, and mitigation fees paid, as
described elsewhere in this Element. ",
p. On page 19, "Limit Residential Density on Agricultural
Lands" , delete the proposed language and substitute the
f olloWing:
"Residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of one
unit per 640 acres for Large Parcel Agricultural Open
Space, one unit per 40 acres for Residential Agricultural
Open Space,ce with DevelopmentrPotential�'�for Agricultural
Open Sp
g. On page 19, "Retain Minimum Parcel Sizes Zoning for
Planning Unit" ,, d lte the title and text and substitute
Planning U ,
the following:
• ,OCT-09-'89 MON 13:45 I taw' EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4; 3457 #292P03
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27 , 1989
Page 5
"Make Minimum Parcel Size Zoning Consistent Countywide
Minimum parcel size zoning consistent with this Element
shall be adopted for all unincorporated areas of the
County. "
r. On page 24, "DESCRIPTION OF THE OPEN SPACE PLAN MAP"
amend the last sentence of the second paragraph to read:
"The description is in terms of the three primary types
of open space (Large Parcel Agricultural Open Space,
Unique Public Open Space, and Residential Agricultural
Open Space) , and four secondary types of open space
(Selected Public and Other Open Space Uses, Borrowed Open
Space, Connecting open Space Corridors, and Agricultural
open Space With Urban Development Potential) . "
s. On pages 24 and 25, "Agricultural open Space", delete the
first two paragraphs and substitute the following
paragraph:
"The Plan indicates much of the unincorporated area of
the County as Primary Open Space. Most of this open space
is designated Large Parcel Agricultural Open Space.
Parcels or portions of parcels of Primary Open Space
within three miles of existing City limits and one-
quarter mile of existing County roads are indicated as
Residential Agricultural Open Space. "
t. on page 27, delete the section titled "Residential-Canyon
Open Space" .
u. On page 27, "Secondary Open Space", change the first word
in the first sentence from "Three" to "Four", and add the
following to the end of the paragraph:
"Agricultural Open Space which is both within the
Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Area, and the existing
Sphere of Influence of Livermore, Pleasanton or Dublin,
or within the existing city limits of any city, is
indicated as Agricultural Open Space With Development
Potential. "
•
• .00T-09-'S9 MON 13:45- ID EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 41 1457 14292 P1D4
Board of Supervisors Memorandums
September 27 , 1989
Page 6
I also propose the following specific changes to the revisions
approved by the Planning Commission to the Livermore-Amador Valley
Planning Unit (Again, page references are to the May 22 draft from
the Planning Commission Committee) :
a. On page 1.3 , add the following at the end of the last
paragraph:
". . . , and to guide . the actions of =the County - and its
representatives in regard to annexations, de-annexations,
changes in spheres of influence, the development and
maintenance of infrastructure and public services, and
the protection of the environment. "
b. On page III.A-9, add the following sections:
"1.1.7 . rCounty =representatives to the Local Agency
Formation"::Commission :-shall, to the maximum
legal extent, support or oppose proposed sphere
of influence changes, -_ annexations and de-
annexations based on whether the affected City
or County General Plans, . zoning and other
regulations :are consistent with the provisions
of the County General Plan.
1.1.8 County actions adopting plans and allocating
funds for the development and maintenance of
infrastructure and public services, and the
protection of the environment, shall be
consistent with the General Plan, and, to the
extent that such actions .affect the General
Plan, shall further the policies of the General
Plan. "
c. On page III.A-10, delete principles 1. 2 . 3 .
d. On page III.A-13, delete paragraphs two, three and four,
and substitute the following:
"Encourage the retention of large agricultural holdings
in areas outside of city Spheres of Influence in effect
at the time this Plan is adopted that are more than three
miles from city limits, or more than one-quarter mile
from dedicated County roads, based on conditions in
effect at the time of adoption of this plan. Such areas
shall be designated as Large Parcel Agricultural.
Residential densities in this land use category shall
not exceed one residential unit per 640 acres, or per
•
,OCT-09-'89 MON 13:46 1 LEASANTON CA TEL NO:415`'„A 8457 #292 P05
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27, 1989
Page 7
parcel in existence at the time this plan is adopted,
whichever is less restrictive.
Encourage intensive agricultural uses on those parcels
or portions of parcels which are ,outside -of city Spheres
of Influence in effect at the time this Plan is adopted,
that are entirely within one-quarter mile of a public
road and within three miles of city limits at the time
of adoption of this plan, and where adequate wastewater
disposal and water supplies can be provided. Such areas
shall be designated as Residential Agricultural.
Residential densities in this land use category shall not
exceed one residential unit per 40 acre, or per parcel
in existence at the time this plan is adopted, whichever
is less restrictive. Future subdivisions of lands
designated as Residential Agricultural shall only be
permitted when open space and agricultural values of
these lands are permanently ._. guaranteed through land
dedications and conservation easements covering at least
95 percent of the land so subdivided.
Prevent premature subdivision of agricultural lands which
are within existing City Spheres of Influence. Such areas
shall be designated: Agricultural/Urban Development
Potential. Residential densities in this land use
category shall not exceed one unit per 100 acres. "
e. On page IXI.A-14, delete sections 2 .2 . 1 through 2 . 2. 1c,
and substitute a new section 2 .2. 1 as follows:
"Review and amend, as necessary, the zoning and
subdivision ordinances to implement the policies of the
General Plan. "
f. On page III.A-l5, amend the first paragraph of section
2 . 2 .6 by changing the first sentence to read:
"Require Administrative Site Review for the establishment
of a residential building site on any parcel in the areas
with any agricultural designation. "
g. On page III.A-15, retain the language of 2 .2. 6 (g) as
written in the draft of May 22, 1989, not as revised by
the Planning Commission on July 10, 1989. Thus, the
language should read:
"g) designing each parcel with road frontage
approximately equal to or greater than its depth from a
road. "
.00T-09-'89 MON 13:46 II' EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4-' ' '3457 #292 P06
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
September 27 , 1989
Page 8
. • h. On peg, IIY.A-16, delete the uthenwordst"New�cand
paragraph of principle 2 .4 , between
"residential" .
i. On pages III.A-20-21, under "Plan and Use Proposals,
General" , make. the following changes:
paragraph one: change "Intensive Agricultural" to
"Residential Agricultural" .
2) paragraph two change "city plan proposals" to
"adopted city General Plans"-
3) paragraph , four: delete entire paragraph.
j . On page I l I.A-2 2, amend paragraphs six and seven to read:
"Reslctential Ayt it Ultura: This catPgnry dOg .gnates flat
and gently sloping lands outside urban areas within one-
quarter mile of dedicated County roads and three miles
of city limits, as dedicated and defined at the time of
adoption of this plan, which are generally suitable The
agricultural uses on parcels of 40 acres or more.
category also allows for rural one-family residences,
wineries, and other uses compatible with agriculture.
Large Parcel Agriculture: b en space lands Swhpch are
significant privately owned open
suitable for extensive agriculture, including
grazing, on parcels of 640 acres or more. The category
allows for agricultural sac activities ass range and watershed
space and accessory uses,
management, solid waste facilities, wind turbines, and
other agricultural and one-family residential structures
consistent with site conditions and plan objectives and
policies. "
k. On pages III.A-28-34 , replace the words "Intensive
"Residential with Residential Agricultu or
('Agriculture/Urban Development Potential" as appropriate
based on the policies contained herein, d ch Delthe
acreage figures for each category as appropriate.
the language added by Planning "potential l Resolution
esolution 89-
37 which would allow for p
Residential agricultural" land south of Tesla Road.
•
.7CT-09-'89 MON 13:47 ID EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4E 1457 #292 P07
4
Board of Supervisors Memorandum
september 27, 1989
Page 9
I realize that these suggestions are quite technical in nature and
will require a fair amount of time to study. However, as the matter
is scheduled to be heard es at ions or o comm nt Board pr ors to that date.
would
appreciate hearing any qu
oc: county Counsel
Bill Fraley
•
•
I'' ,OCT-09-'S9 MON 13:47 I1 '.EASANTON CA TEL NO:415 4 `B457 #292 FOB
� �.. tom;
`'irOr .It't,1.
• o_r '�,•c t �; B O A R D O F • S U P E R V 1 S O R S
•
MARY nING
..••••••• KW....O.%t..e
August 9 , 1989
TO: OTHER MEHZERS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: .SUPERVISOR MARY KING
PROPOSED REVISIONS To THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
LIVER ORE-AHA.DOR VZLLEY PLANNING UNIT
•
Having reviewed the Planning Commission ' s recommended Livermore-
Amador Valley General Plan Amendment and Open Space Element Draft,
I am unable to support it as currently presented. I thoroughly
agree that there is a need for some revision and update of current
Board policy in this regard and I appreciate the obvious time and
energy expended by the Planning Commission Subcommittee in drafting
their recommendations. However, I believe the recommended changes
fall short of the important goal of providing clear definition of
our Board' s responsibility to protect valuable agricultural lands
and necessary open space for future generations in Alameda County.
The ever increasing expansion of our urban and suburban communities
requires that this Board clearly delineate some urban/rural
boundaries, not only for the protection of the environment but also
so that the cities can realistically plan for their future growth
and for the services which will be demanded of them.
Our ultimate goal and responsibility must be to prepare carefully
for transportation, water, sewer and other service needs for this
County as we move into the next decade and century. For me, the
Planning Commission's recommendations do not achieve this very
necessary goal and, furthermore, would set a precedent for future
general plan revisions that is unclear and ambiguous in defining
our commitment to permanent open space.
Without the assurance that the County is pledged to setting aside
some areas as permanent open space, every proposed development
project will become a pitched battle between those who seek to
maintain open spaces and those who seek to develop them. If areas
suitable for development can be defined, then everyone on both
sides of the issue will know what the ground rules are, and
planned, intelligent development can proceed.
IZZI OAR STR£CT • SUITE 730 • OARLANQ GALIFOA`.IA 7■61= • 14151 272'4621 ■ /AA 11I:) 461.7013
•
UCT-09-'8 9 NUN 1.5:4U 11J:I-LtHjHN I UN LH I mL NU;41 40J reJ�
I '
Page 2 • -
These are knotty problems for which there are no simple answers.
The following are suggested changes to the recommended plan that
I feel will make it a more durable guide for County land-use policy
into the next century:
1. Retain the existing language stating
that lands
designated as agricultural in the Open Space Element are
to be permanently retained as agricultural. These areas
should be designated Permanent Agricultural . Areas Which
may be appropriate for future urban development should
be identified and distinguished from Permanent
Agricultural with a term such as Secondary
Agricultural/Development Potential.
2 . Accept the Planning Department recommendation for a
, Residential Agricultural designation which allows smaller
parcels for all Permanent Agricultural lands within 1/4
mile of County roads and 3 miles of City limits (5 miles
for Tesla Rd. ) , with these modifications:
a) The minimum parcel size should be 40 acres, not 20
acres, with no more than one residential unit per
parcel_.
b) The 1/4 mile limit, should be applied based on
existing County roads and not changed whenever a
road is extended or a new road dedicated. Similarly,
the three and five mile from city limits
restrictions should be based on current city limits
and not changed each time an annexation occurs.
c) The Large Parcel Agricultural designation. would
apply to all other lands shown as Permanent
Agricultural in the Open Space Element and should
have a minimum parcel size of 640 acres.
d) Incorporate the above policies in the Open Space
Element of the General Plan so they apply to all
unincorporated areas rather than just the Livermore-
Amador Valley Planning Area.
3 . Within the Residential Agricultural Areas, follow the
Planning Department recommendation to allow parcelization
with the limitation that development sites must be
limited to only 10 percent of the land, as close to the
road as possible. However, for this limitation to be
meaningful , future parcelization should only be approved
if mitigated by the removal of development rights from
the other 90 percent of the land. The development rights
should be removed through granting of an irrevocable
conservation easement to a third party such as Trust for
Public Land or a specially created county farmland trust.
,OCT-09-'89 h10N 13:48 ITJ:PLEASANTON CA TEL NO:415 463 8457 #292 PIO
Page 3
The conservation easements should also include specific
provisions to protect and encourage productive
agricultural use of the areas which may not be used for
development.
4 . Amend the language to indicate that' t=ail easements and
viewshed protections would be required as a condition of
approval of any development in areas designated as
Connecting open Space Corridors-
5 . For lands which are shown in the present Open Space
Element as Agricultural and which under the new plan
would be shown as land which, over time, will be
urbanized, create a category with a name such as
Secondary Agricultural/Development Potential lands. When
these lands actually convert from open space to urban
uses, they would pay into a mitigation fund. The
mitigaticn fund would be used to purchase development
rights or fee title to parcels of land which are key to
protecting the integrity of productive agricultural lands
and other open spaces. The fee should be based on the
number of acres of land converted rather than the number
of housing units built or square footage of offices
built.
6 . County policy should be to use its role in the LArco
process to ensure that any future annexations of land are
done in conformance with the County General Plan. The
County 's representatives to LAFCo should oppose any
1 annexation which does not continue the General Plan's
goals. Language to this effect should be incorporated
into the General Plan.
The provisions discussed above are an attempt to guarantee long-
sought permanency for some agricultural areas in exchange for
a permission to develop urban uses in other areas. I would appreciate
hearing your comments and suggestions on this very important
subject.
MK:dm
cc: Bill Fraley
Gayle Eads
John Woodbury
Mark Evanoff
Gary Zimmerman
•
•
•
( BOARD OF S U PER V I S O R S
•
•
•
is
•
WARREN WIDENER
•
SUPERVISOR.T.T11,CIS•RIGT
!'
M E M O R A N D U M �`
•
',r
•
•
•
TO: EACH MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
I . .
FROM: WARREN WIDENER
RE: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE LIVERMORE-
AMADOR VALLEY PLANNING UNIT AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT DRAFT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 1989
After carefully reviewing •the proposed changes recommended by the
Planning Commission regarding the. Livermore-Amador Valley Planning
Unit and Open Space Element Draft, I have concluded that such a
plan, as presently drafted, will seriously jeopardize our County's
open space and agricultural lands. Therefore, I will be voting not
to support the Planning Commission's recommendations. •
Supervisor ' s Kings memorandum of August 9 , 1989 offers an
acceptable alternative that would address many of the issues raised
by the Planning Commission while making a strong commitment to
permanent open space.
I do plan to introduce one additional item regarding this matter
before the Board on Tuesday, October 5th. My item will direct
staff to prepare ballot • language for placing a County Charter
amendment on the June 1990 ballot that would specify that future
_changes to the Open Space Element may only be changed by a vote of
the electorate. Alameda County residents should be given an
opportunity to approve changes to our Open Space. Element because
such changes touch the lives of everyone for generations to come.
I hope that I can count on 'your support. Please let me know if you
have any questions or need any further information.
cc: John Woodbury
Gayle Eads
Mark Evanof f ��,
•
•
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 536 • OAKI AND. CALIFORNIA 94612 • 14161 272.6095
I
DIsrnICT OFFICE: 2000 CENTER STREET. SUITE 201 • BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94704 • 14151 840.9319
8pri p' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EDWARD R.CAMPBELL MEMO
SUP!RVISO.PiPtIT DISTRICT
TO: Other Members, Board of Supervisors
FROMs Edward R. Campbell
DATE: October 18, 1989
SUBJECT: Alameda County General Plan/Open Space Element
Livermore--Amador Valley Planning Unit General Plan
The purpose of this memo is to request that each of you vote
to refer the substantial revisions contained in the "Mary King
proposal" back to the Planning Commission for further review and
deliberation.
This request is made on behalf of all landowners, public
agencies and all other constituents within my supervisorial
district who have not had a fair opportunity to review and
comment on Supervisor King' s substantial revisions to the
Planning Commission recommendations. If the Mary King proposal
is adopted by this Board on October 24, 1989, as scheduled, there
are a host of deficiencies which subject any such action to legal
challenge and invalidation by the court:
1. STATE PLANNING STATUTES -- Counties are required to
prepare, adopt and amend general plans and elements of general
plans in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65350-
65362. Any substantial modification of the Planning Commission' s
recommendations proposed by this Board, not previously considered
by the Commission during its hearings, shall first be referred
back to the Commission for recommendation. See Government Code
Sections 65356. The proposal submitted by Supervisor King was
not even prepared until after the Planning Commission' s
recommendations were forwarded to this Board. Under these
circumstances, there is no way that Supervisor King's proposal
has been considered by Lhe Pldiiziizly Cunuuis ion or the landowners,
public agencies and others who appeared before that Commisssion
to comment on substantitive recommendations prepared by planning
staff and a subcommittee of the Planning Commission , Anpervisnr
King readily acknowledges that her plan was prepared by
representatives of the Sierra Club and the Greenbelt Alliance
after she received the Planning Commission' s recommendations.
Any vote by this Board to approve Supervisor King's proposal
without Lefers:al back to the Planning Caftmissierf would i leanly*- Co.
1221 OAK STREET . S IT x:' fa
U E 536 OAKLA. -
•
violate State planning statutes. This is a substantive and not a
mere technical statutory requirement to insure full public notice
and comment.
2. THE BROWN ACT -- State law requires that Board action be
taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
See Government Code Section 54950, et seq. An action by this
Board includes "a collective commitment or promise by a majority
of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a
negative decision. " See Government Code section 54952.6. In
considering the King proposal, three members of this Board made a
commitment to approve the King proposal prior to the first public
meeting or hearing. This collective commitment was reported in
the press and confirmed by Supervisors Perata and Widener in
public session on October 5, 1989 . Under these circumstances,
any action taken by this Board to approve the King proposal would
be invalidated by the prescriptives of the Brown Act.
3. ENVIRNOMENTAL QUALITY ACT -- The adoption or amendment
of a General Flan is a project subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . See 24 CAL.Adm Code Sec.
15378 . The existing EIR was prepared based on Planning
Commission's recommendations. There has been no EIR prepared on
the King proposal and therefore there has been no compliance with
CEQA. The time for agencies to comply with CEQA is before the
agency makes a decision on the project. CEQA requires this
County to disclose the environmental effects of the King proposal
and to search for ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage
that could otherwise result from those decisions . Public
Resources Code Section 21100. Because CEQA is an environmental
full disclosure statute, failure to provide the public with all
the required information and the EIR, including review comments,
before making a decision, subverts CEQA' s purpose. Rural
Landowner's Association v. City Council (1983) 143 CA3d 1013, 192
CR 325. This Board has given no opportunity to the cities, the
landowners, and other public agencies to comment on the specific
environmental effects of the King proposal . All comments
received on the existing EIR were directed to a completely
different proposal. The current EIR does not address the King
proposal in the following specific respects:
-- There is no summary in the EIR of the King proposal;
-- There is no project description for the King proposal in
the current EIR;
---- There is no description of the environmental setting as
it pertains to the inconsistencies between the King proposal and
applicable general and regional plans;
-- There is no discussion of the significant environmental
effects of the King proposal;
-- There is no analysis of unavoidable significant
environmental fftscts;
-- There are no mitigation measures proposed to minimize
significant effects;
2
• 1 4 �,
-- There is no discussion of alternatives to the proposed
adoption of the King plan;
-- There is no discussion related to the King plan of the
relationship between shorterm uses and longterm productivity;
-- There is no discussion of the significant reversable
changes engendered by the King proposal;
-- There is no discussion of growth inducing impacts;
-- There is no discussion of effects of the King proposal
found not to be significant; and
-- There is no identification of organizations and persons
consulted on the King proposal and none could be identified since
the proposal has not been circulated_
The inadequacy of the current EIR has also been questioned
by the Greenbelt Alliance in a letter prepared by Mark Evanoff,
dated July 10, 1989. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your
information. In summary, the EIR at present does not evaluate
the King alternative and is completely inadequate in this regard.
4. CONSITUTIONAL ISSUES -- The King proposal designates a
substantial portion of this County ' s agricultural land as
permanent open space with 640 acre minimums. Such a proposal
deprives property owners of all of the economic value of their
land and represents a taking by this County without compensation.
Further, the landowners, public agencies and other constituents
within my supervisorial distict have been deprived of their right
to due process. There has been no notice and opportunity to be
heard on the specifics of the King proposal. A collective
commitment was made by three members of this Board to vote for
the King proposal before there was any public meeting for
comment. In addition, the King proposal restricts the County's
LAFCO representative from considering and voting on annexation
and de-annexation proposals . The King proposal further
challenges the independence and sovereignty of cities within the
County by requiring compliance with county General Plan policies
and procedures. For all of these reasons, I believe the King
proposal subjects this County to a civil rights action under
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. In addition to the
potential constitutional challenge, the King proposal violates
the express provisions of Government Code Section 56841,
requiring the independent deliberation of LAFCO.
A copy of this memorandum has been filed with the Clerk,
Board of Supervisors, so that the public record clearly reflects
the issues outlined herein. I am also distributing a copy of
this memo in advance of the October 24 , 1989, meeting so that
each of you have the opportunity to review these issues and
respond to my request to have the entire matter referred back to
the Planning Commission as required by State law.
T believe this rnnrse of r+nt i nn i s t,hf:t nnly one available to
the Board, given the substantial. inadequacies of the King
proposal under the Government Code, the Brown Act, CEQA and the
Constitution.
3
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK &WEST
MICHAEL R.NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION PENINSULA OFFICE
STEVEN R.MEYERS 1220 HOWARD AVE.,SUITE 250
NATALIE E.WEST GATEWAY PLAZA
ELIZABETH H.SILVER 777 DAVIS STREET,SUITE 300 BURLIN(4 5) 8-94010-4211
MICHAEL S.RIBACK SAN LEANDRO,CALIFORNIA 94577 F (4141 15))3 3442-00
FAX(42-0886
MOLLY T.TAMI (415)351-4300
ANNE E.MUDGE FAX(415)351-4481 MARIN OFFICE
MICHAEL F.RODRIQUEZ
1202 GRANT AVE.,SUITE E
OF COUNSEL MEMORANDUM N (415)892-A 8878 94945 2-887845
THOMAS F.BERTRAND
REPLY TO:
San Leandro
TO: Larry Tong, DATE: October 20, 1989
Planning Director
FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver,
Assistant City Attorney
RE: County General Plan Amendments DCT 2 4 A9b9
DUBLIN PLANNING
I have reviewed the memorandum of September 27, 1989, from
Supervisor Mary King to the other Board of Supervisors members
regarding the County's general plan, together with the other
documents which you provided to me.
Supervisor King proposes adding language to the County
General Plan to direct County representatives to LAFCO to support
or oppose proposed sphere of influence changes, annexations or
deannexations, based on whether the proposals are consistent with
the county general plan, "to the maximum legal extent. "
(September 27, 1989 memorandum, page 6, proposed § 1. 1.7 and
other sections. ) I believe this proposed language is
inappropriate for several reasons. First, how members of LAFCO
vote on proposals is not appropriate for inclusion in the County
General Plan, which is 'meant to be a general planning document.
Second and more importantly, the proposed language would bind the
two members of the Board of Supervisors who also serve as members
of LAFCO with respect to how they vote on a matter before them in
their capacity as LAFCO members. This violates the rule that a
legislative body may not divest itself or its successors of
powers vested in it by law. 45 Cal.Jur. 3d, Municipalities,
§ 177. A legislative body has no power to bind its successors
with respect to future legislative or quasi-legislative actions.
Thompson v. Board of Trustees, 144 Ca1. 281, 77 Pac. 951. For
this reason, I believe this language is a nullity, which no doubt
explains the inclusion of the qualifying language "to the maximum
legal extent. " In conclusion, I believe this language is
objectionable for legal and policy reasons and, in any event, the
language is not binding on Board members who serve on LAFCO.
l"G
TO: Larry Tong
FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver
RE: County General Plan Amendments
PAGE: 2
Supervisor King also proposes adding language to the
Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit which would require lands
converting from open space to urban uses to pay a mitigation fee.
(August 9, 1989, memorandum from Mary King to Board of
Supervisors, page 3 , para. 5. ) Although this provision does not
directly affect Dublin, I would note that such a fee could only
be imposed if the "nexus" required by the Nollan decision could
be found when lands convert to urban uses.
The other provisions of Supervisor King's memorandum deal
with the zoning designations; I have no specific comments
regarding these proposals.
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & WEST
ELIZABETH H. SILVER
EHS:rdw
114\MEMO\TONG.EHS
t,i 1 Via L VLLAL• Planning/Zoning 829-4916
Development Services
' ., Building & Safety 829-0822
• P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 • Ei; eering/Public Works 829-4927
•
August 8, 1989 •
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Alameda County Open Space Element;
Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit General Plan -
Dear Board Members:
The Dublin City Council strongly opposes the new Policy 1.2.3 and the
additions to Policy 2.2 which the Alameda County Planning Commission has
proposed for the Alameda County Open Space Element; Livermore-Amador Valley
Planning Unit General Plan.
The new Policy 1.2.3 would encourage urban development outside of
existing cities. This major policy shift could significantly conflict with
• amendments being studied for Dublin's General Plan.
The additions to Policy 2.2 would encourage residential development up
to one dwelling unit per 20 acres up to 1 mile away from a public road. Such
development could create very undesirable development patterns that would also
conflict with the amendments being studied for Dublin's General Plan. -
The Dublin City Council appreciates being given the opportunity to
review and comment on the proposal and does not object to the other proposed
policy revisions.
Sincerely,
4
Paul C. Moffatt
Mayor
PCM/LLT:ga
cc: Livermore City Council
Pleasanton City Council
Wm. H. Fraley, Alameda County Planning Director
,Larry Tong, Planning Director;`
[August.1]
aiwuka3 3