HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Open Space Options CITY CLERK
File # 0420-20
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2000
SUBJECT:
Open Space Preservation Options in the Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area
Report Prepared by Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Report, Open Space Preservation Options in the Western
Extended Planning Area
2. Minutes of workshops (February 3, 2000 & May 10, 2000)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hear staff presentation on preservation options.
2. Take testimony from the public.
3. Review and discuss Open Space Preservation recommendations
for Western and Eastern Zones.
4. Discuss and give direction whether the City should pursue a
program of preserving Open space in the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area.
5. Give direction to Staff regarding proposal to remove the Western
Zone from the City's Sphere of Influence.
6. If appropriate, give Staff direction to prepare a specific Open
Space Preservation implementation program, including possible
Sphere of Influence changes and to report to the Council by
January 2001.
7. Authorize the City Manager to prepare budget transfers for Staff
and consultant work associated with the Open Space Preservation
implementation program from the Open Space Budget Reserves
and return to the City Council for approval.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The cost for the preparation of an Open Space Preservation
implementation program could come from the Open Space Budget
Reserves. A detailed cost will be prepared with any budget transfer
request.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council requested that a Western Dublin Open Space Preservation Study be conducted prior to
or as part of the General Plan Amendment Study to consider options for permanently preserving certain
open space, including methods for compensating landowners who could potentially be affected by the
open space preservation in the Western Extended Planning Area. The Study that has been prepared
COPIES TO: Sphere of Influence Property Owners
In House Distribution
ITEM NO. ~
provides a framework for implementing the initiative and related policies, if approved by voters in the
November 2000 election.
Goals of the Open Space Preservation Strategy
The Report identifies and evaluates appropriate and feasible open space preservation strategies for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. As defined by City staff, the open space strategy should
achieve the following goals:
· Develop feasible open space preservation mechanisms that can equitably share the cost of permanent
preservation of the western hills.
· Preserve environmentally sensitive areas--for example, slopes over 30 percent slope, landslide areas,
visually sensitive areas such as hillsides and ridgetops, wetlands, and wildlife habitat areas.
Create regional trail linkages along Skyline Ridge that run north-south across the Study Area along
Divide Ridge on the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and create other lateral trail linkages to local
recreation resources where appropriate.
Create opportunities for assisting East Bay Regional Park District to complete the Dublin Hills Open
Space Regional Preserve and for providing a major recreational resource for current and future
residents of the City and the Tri-Valley.
· Protect viewsheds by retaining present agricultural character on the hillsides and ridgetops visible
from 1-580 and parts of the City of Dublin.
Description of the Study Area
The Western Extended Planning Area (the Study Area) is located on the western edge of the City of
Dublin in northern Alameda County between the communities of Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley.
The Study Area is inside the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence (SOI) but outside city limits. It consists
of approximately 3,100 acres of rangeland with a series of ridges and canyons, including a number of rural
residential units. Interstate 580 creates the southern boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra
Costa County line sets the northern boundary, Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the Dublin city
limits are on the east. A row of PG&E power lines cuts through the central part of the project site in a
northeast-southwest direction.
Planning Context
On February 16, 1999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General Plan
Amendment Study for those properties located within the City of Dublin sphere of influence lying west of
the existing City limits and to submit a measure to the voters adopting an Urban Limit Line (ULI) in the
Westem Extended Planning Area (Resolution No. 25-99 and No. 24-99 adopted February 16, 1999). The
proposed ULI would be located along the existing city limits; lands west of the ULI would be designated
Rural Residential/Agriculture. If Dublin voters approve the ULI initiative in November 2000, the
development in the Western Extended Planning Area if annexed to the City would be limited by the Rural
Residential/Agricultural designation to one unit per 100 gross acres for the next 30 years unless changed
by the voters of Dublin (City of Dublin, Resolution No.24-99, February 16, 1999). The intent of the ULI
is to protect the natural resources and to restrict further development in the western hills, thereby guiding
future development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where urban services can be provided
in a more efficient manner.
Study Effort
Thc Consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, has prepared a Report. This effort includes review and
assembly of City data and policy documents, physical evaluation of the Study Area, market review and
land value analysis, and assembly and evaluation of potential open space preservation techniques and
funding mechanisms. The Consultant responded to both staff comments and those provided by citizens
following the two public workshops held regarding the Study. Thc first of these workshops was held at
the outset of the Study and the second to present thc Draft Report.
Preservation Techniques Considered
If this area is annexed, the City of Dublin has three basic options in preserving open space within the
Study Area: (1) regulation; (2) compensatory regulation; (3) and outright acquisition, as described below.
Regulation. Land use regulation, including general plan land use designations and policies, zoning,
and subdivision regulations, are generally simple to administer and do not place a significant burden
on local government since the cost of conservation falls, on the affected landowners.
Compensatory Regulation. Due to the limitations of traditional land use regulation and the cost of
direct acquisition, a number of innovative conservation implementation techniques have been
developed over the years, which can be referred to collectively as "compensatory regulation
techniques." Generally, these techniques fall somewhere between standard land use regulation and
outright acquisition programs including such techniques as dedications and exactions, development
agreements, purchase of development rights, transferable development credits, and mitigation
banking.
Outright Fee Acquisition. Direct acquisition is relatively simple to implement compared to some of
the compensatory regulation techniques described above. Willing seller acquisition programs have the
advantage of compensating affected landowners but the disadvantage of being expensive to the public,
as the cost of conservation falls on the government. Financial prudence requires that the City should
attempt to achieve as many open space objectives as possible using the regulatory methods described
above. However, some especially significant pieces of land may need permanent protection. Also,
strategic links in the regional trail system may need to be acquired in order to complete the trails
proposed in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan.
Findings
As noted above, this report describes a range of open space preservation options for the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area and evaluates how these options could be applied. Due to the Study Area's
unique characteristics, it has been divided into two sub-areas: an Eastern Zone comprising the eastern
portion of the Study Area adjacent to the existing City limit (931 acres); and a Western Zone comprising
the area lying east of Skyline Ridge. The following section outlines preservation strategies for these sub-
areas.
Funding
Funding requirements depend upon the mix of techniques implemented. The Report describes a wide
array of potential funding sources for open space fee such as easement acquisitions, taxes, assessments,
impact fees, regional sources, state and federal sources, and grants. Due to concerns regarding long term
maintenance and liability it will be important to structure acquisitions in a manner that limits such
obligations and risks such as transferring lands to the EBRPD (or other entities) and the use of
conservation easements, which leave land in private ownership.
Preservation Strategy
Central to the recommended strategy is the division of the Western Dublin Area into western and eastern
zones. Unique strategies are offered within each zone.
As earlier stated the City of Dublin has three basic options in preserving open space within the study area;
1) regulation; 2) compensatory regulation; 3) and outright acquisition. As one approach, this report
recommends a program designed to fit a combination of acquisition, transfer of development rights,
possible limited development and easements to preserve trail linkages, steep slopes and minimizes
impacts on adjacent residential areas in the Eastern Zone.
Eastern Zone. The recommended strategy for the Eastern Zone includes an internal Transfer of
Development Credit (TDC) program, outright fee acquisition of about 150 acres for the EBRPD
Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve, and acquisition of trail easements to complete the
regional trail linkages described in the EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan. The TDC program would apply
to all properties within the Zone and would prohibit development on slopes greater than 30 percent
and on ridgetops (sender areas). A specific definition of potential development areas and densities
would need to be developed. Limited residential development would be allowed on the canyon floors
below the 770-foot elevation line (receiver areas), provided that the building sites avoided steep slopes
and landslide areas and employed design standards to minimize visual impact on adjacent
neighborhoods (Assumes that the Resolution No. 114-98, Approval of PA 98-029 Development
Elevation Cap at or below 770-foot for the Eastern Extended Planning as stated in the City of Dublin
General Plan Revised July 7, 1998, applies to the Eastern Zone Preservation Strategy). In return for
the residential development, landowners would be required to dedicate permanent conservation
easements on all areas over the 770-foot elevation line, as well as trail easements to provide linkages
to the regional trail on Skyline Ridge.
Western Zone. Since the Western Zone cannot be served with City services without significant
investment in infrastructure, it is proposed that this Zone be removed from the City's Sphere of
Influence and that the base agricultural district zoning be retained by Alameda County. Landowners
wishing to develop their properties will be able to apply for permits from the County; however, they
will be restricted to the base Alameda County zoning of a minimum parcel size of 100 acres. Trail
easements should be acquired where possible to complete the regional trail linkages described in the
EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan for the Calaveras Ridge Trail. Acquisitions of land for expansion of the
Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve could occur as funds and willing sellers allow.
Future Open Space Preservation Program
With direction from the City Council, Staff needs to prepare a specific program to determine:
Eastern Zone:
· Exact methods for preservation
· If some development would be considered in the Eastern Zone, what areas, densities and locations for
development would be considered.
· Analysis of the impact of any develoPment in regards to the Initiative if passed.
· Details on land costs, specific trail linkages.
· Complete financial proposals.
4
Western Zone:
· Specific definition of areas included in a possible Sphere of Influence change.
· The LAFCo procedure for removal of areas within the present City Sphere of Influence.
· Any financial implications.
Staff would complete this program by January 2001 and report to the City Council. Costs associated
would be developed at the time of a budget transfer and could be taken from the Open Space Budget
Reserve, which was established during Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the Open Space recommendations for the
Western and Eastern Zones, take public testimony, and give direction on whether the City should pursue a
program of preserving Open Space in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. In addition, it is
recommended that the City Council direct Staff to prepare an Open Space Preservation Program,
including possible Sphere of Influence changes, and complete the study by January 2001. The City
Manager would be authorized to prepare a budget transfer from the Open Space Budget Reserve and
return to the City Council for approval.
G:\agenda\00\CC-Open Space Agenda-Stmnt
5
DRAFT REPORT
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS FOR THE WESTERN
DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Revised
June 2000
EPS #9232
/ TTACHMENT /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Goals of Western Dublin Open Space Preservation Strategy .................................
Organization of Report ................................................................................................ 2
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 2
Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 4
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 5
History of Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.; ............................................ 5
Development Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................ 13
Description of Open Space and Agricultural Resources ....................................... 14
Land Values in Study Area ....................................................................................... 16
III.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS ....................................................................... 17
Open Space Preservation Techniques ...................................................................... 17
Outright Fee Acquisition ........................................................................................... 22
Open Space / Agricultural Funding Sources ......................................................... 23
Grants / Other Government Sources ...................................................................... 29
Private Sources ............................................................................................................ 30
IV.
WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION STRATEGY ..................................... 31
Implementation Framework ..................................................................................... 31
Development Contraints and Open Space Resources by Subarea ...................... 32
Preservation Strategy Matrix .................................................................................... 34
V. LEGAL VALIDATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 37
Appendix A: Landowners in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
On February 16, 1999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General Plan
Amendment Study for those properties located within the City of Dublin sphere of influence
lying west of the existing City limits and to submit a measure to the voters adopting an Urban
Limit Line (ULI) in the Western Extended Planning Area.~ The proposed UL! would be located
along the existing city limits; lands west of the ULI would be designated Rural
Residential/Agriculture. If Dublin voters approve the ULI initiative in November 2000, the
development in the Western Extended Planning Area would be limited by the Rural
Residential/Agricultural designation to one unit per 100 gross acres for the next 30 years if the
property is annexed to the City unless changed by the voters of Dublin.2 The intent of the ULI
is to protect the natural resources and to restrict further development in the western hills,
thereby guiding future development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where
urban services can be provided in a more efficient manner.
The City Council requested that, as part of the General Plan Amendment Study, a Western
Dublin Open SPace Preservation Study be conducted in order to consider options for
permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for compensating landowners
who could potentially be affected by the proposed ULI. Thus, the purpose of this study is not
to establish or evaluate the proposed public policy but to provide a framework for
implementing the ULI and related policies, if approved by voters in the November 2000
election. The open space preservation strategies offered in this report will be presented by City
staff to the Dublin City Council for their consideration and possible implementation.
GOALS OF WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
This study identifies and evaluates appropriate and feasible open space preservation strategies
for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area (herein the Study Area). As defined by City
staff, the open space strategy should achieve the following goals:
· Develop feasible open space preservation mechanisms that can equitably share the cost of
permanent preservation of the western hills.
Preserve environmentally sensitive areas-for example, slopes over 30 percent slope,
landslide areas, visually sensitive areas such as hillsides and ridgetops, wetlands, and
wildlife habitat areas.
Resolution No. 25-99 and No. 24-99 adopted February 16, 1999.
City of Dublin, Resolution No. 24-99, February 16, 1999.
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options,for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Create regional trail linkages along Skyline Ridge that run north-south across the Study
Area along Divide Ridge on the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and create other
lateral trail linkages to local recreation resources where appropriate.
Create opportunities for completing the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve as
proposed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and for providing a major
recreational resource for current and future residents of the City and the Tri-Valley.
Protect viewsheds by retaining present agricultural character on the hillsides and ridgetops
visible from 1-580 and parts of the City of Dublin.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter I describes the purpose and goals of the
study and presents findings and recommendations. Chapter II describes the Study Area's
history, development opportunities and constraints, open space, and agricultural values and
presents a summary of comparable land values. Chapter III describes a range of open space
preservation options and gives examples of where they have been used successfully elsewhere.
Chapter IV presents a proposed open space preservation strategy for the Study Area and
estimates the potential costs associated with these strategies.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted above, this report describes a range of open space preservation options for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area and evaluates how these options could be applied.
Because of the Study Area's unique characteristics, it has been divided into two sub-areas: an
Eastern Zone comprising the eastern portion of the Study Area adjacent to the existing City
limit; and a Western Zone comprising the area lying east of Skyline Ridge. An area generally
visible from 1-580 transects both of these zones. The following section outlines a set of
recommendations for these sub-areas.
EASTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
Objectives of open space preservation in the Eastern Zone include protecting the ridges and
hillsides visible from the existing eastern Dublin neighborhoods, protecting ridge tops and
steep slopes from development, and completing the EBRPD's proposed Dublin Open Space
Regional Preserve and the regional trail linkages in the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
2
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Open Space Strategies
The recommended strategies include an internal Transfer of Development Credit (TDC)
program, outright fee acquisition of about 150 acres for the EBRPD Dublin Hills Open Space
Regional Preserve, and acquisition of trail easements to complete the regional trail linkages
described in the EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan. The TDC program would apply to all properties
within the Zone and would prohibit development on slopes greater than 30 percent and on
ridgetops (sender areas). Limited residential devel6pment would be allowed on the canyon
floors below the 770-foot elevation line (receiver areas), provided that the building sites
avoided steep slopes and landslide areas and employed design standards to minimize visual
impact on adjacent neighborhoods.3 In return for the residential development, landowners
would be required to dedicate permanent conservation easements on all areas over the 770-foot
elevation line, as well as trail easements to provide linkages to the regional trail on Skyline
Ridge.
Cost Allocation and Funding
The cost of preserving the ridgetops and steep slopes would be born primarily by the
landowners that elect to participate in the TDC program; comparison would be provided
through the additional development opportunities. The Dublin Hills Open Space Regional
Preserve would benefit all residents in the Tri-Valley region as well as existing and future
residents of the City of Dublin. For purposes of analysis it is proposed that the approximately
$900,000 cost of acquiring land for the Regional Preserve be allocated 50 percent to regional
residents, 25 percent to existing Dublin residents, and 25 percent to new development in
Dublin. To complete the EBRPD trail linkage, trail easements will need to be acquired for
$1,500. The cost distribution will be shared in a way similar to the Regional Preserve. In
actuality, other factors may affect cost allocation, including availability of funding and the
interests of participants. The regional funding would most likely come from existing EBRPD
funds plus State funds, such as Proposition 12 bond proceeds. Local funding could be raised
through a combination of development fees and City sources. The regional trail easements
could be funded in a manner and allocation similar to the Regional Preserve.
WESTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
The objectives of open space preservation in the Western Zone are to protect the ridgetops and
steep slopes, maintain the rural character of the area, complete the regional trail linkages in the
Calaveras Ridge Trail, and protect the view-sheds visible from 1-580 and parts of the City of
Dublin.
3 Assumes that the Resolution No. 114-98, Approval of PA 98-029 Development Elevation Cap at or below 770-foot
for the Eastern Extended Planning as stated in the City of Dublin General Plan Revised July 7, 1998, applies to the
Eastern Zone Preservation Strategy.
3
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Open Space Strategies
Since the Western Zone cannot be served with City services without significant investment in
infrastructure, it is proposed that this Zone be removed from the City's Sphere of Influence and
that the base agricultural district zoning be retained by Alameda County. Landowners wishing
to develop their properties will be able to apply for permits from the County; however, they
will be restricted to the base Alameda County zoning of a minimum parcel size of 100 acres.
Trail easements should be acquired where possible to complete the regional trail linkages
described in the EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan for the Calaveras Ridge Trail. Acquisitions of land
for expansion of the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve could occur as funds and
willing sellers allow.
Cost Allocation and Funding
Under this approach, the City would have no cost burdens. The City could, however,
cooperate with the County and EBRPD towards achieving common objectives.
NEXT STEPS
1. Complete public review, legal evaluation, and comments.
2. Finalize report and recommendations.
3. Pursue funding mechanisms.
4
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW
The Western Extended Planning Area (the Study Area) is located on the western edge of the
City of Dublin in northern Alameda County between the communities of Dublin, San Ramon,
and Castro Valley. The Study Area is inside the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence (SOI) but
outside city limits. It consists of approximately 3,100 acres of rangeland with a series of ridges
and canyons, including a number of rural residential units. Interstate 580 creates the southern
boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra Costa County line sets the northern
boundary, Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the Dublin city limits are on the east. A row
of PG&E power lines cuts through the central part of the project site in a northeast-southwest
direction (see Figure II-1).
Most of the project site is privately owned- with the exception of about 160 acres owned by the
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) -- and is zoned by the County of Alameda as an
Agricultural District which sets a minimum parcel size of 100 acres.4 Four of the properties,
comprising about 537 acres, are under Williamson Act contracts, which means that property
taxes are based on agricultural rather than market value.5 The largest parcel is 598 acres, and
the smallest is less than a fourth-acre. There are 15 separate landowners, and about 67 percent
of the land is held by four owners (see Table II-l). Schaefer Ranch, now owned by Shea
Homes, is outside the Study Area because this property has already been annexed to the City of
Dublin and is committed for future development (see Figure II-2). Appendix A includes a
detailed listing of all the landowners in the Study Area.
HISTORY OF WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Planning efforts in Western Dublin began in 1989 in response to proposals for development in
the area. In keeping with the General Plan requirements, the City of Dublin prepared and
approved a specific plan, an environmental impact report (EIR), and a general plan amendment
for the area. The Western Dublin Specific Plan proposed several residential tracts on 727 acres
surrounded by open space, with minor acreage for commercial and public uses.6 A total of
3,260 residential units were proposed, of which 1,850 units are single family and 1,410 units are
multi-family. At buildout, the area would be expected to house an estimated 8,383 people.
4 Alameda County General Zoning - Chapter 17.06 Agricultural Districts.
s The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.) provides for landowners to voluntarily place their
property in an agricultural preserve under contracts that are automatically renewed each year, for rolling 10-year
periods, unless the owner or the County gives notice of non-renewal.
6 Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR with Revisions for Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment, May, 1992. 1-12:13, 1-24.
9232rptl.doc
Figure !1-1: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Regional Context
Contra Costa
County
580
PG&E
Alameda
Power Lines
County
~~,~'.'.'.~'.i! '~"':~;~'"'-.'~-
Economic & Planning Systems, fn~
Sycamore V~ Open Spac
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
!
County Boundary
Line
Shadow'Cl~=
Reg'~R~eE~ea
0 2 4
I
Miles
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
h:t9232dublVnapslfig_/l_ 1.wot
Table I1-1
Summary by Property Owner in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Strategy
Property Acres
Owner Total % of Total
Assessed Values
Land
Improvements Total
Davilla Eden Canyon Family Partne/ea
Machado Manuel J
Nielsen Ranch Partnership
Nielsen Harold T and Alice, Ro~ed
Cronin Heights Milestone Partnership
East Bay Regional Park District
Machado John G
Wiedemann Jeffrey C & Nancy A/tr
Bartling, Lemoyne
Loveland, Ray
Eastwood, Joseph
Vanvoorhis Thomas
Morris Cordelia/tr
Davilla Anthony H & Fields Russell A
Dublin San Ramon Services District
1,228.42 39,6%
392.83 12,7%
248.00 8.O%
207.43 6.7%
175.81 5.7%
159.00 5.1%
147,03 4.7%
144.25 4.7%
99.99 3.2%
92.29 3.0%
89.92 2.9%
82,11 2.6%
22.95 0.7%
10.75 0.3%
0.51 O.0%
Total 3,101.29 100%
$1,321,178
$33,454
$423,163
$288,232
$7O3,OOO
$0
$280,205
$12 509
$334 878
$291 476
$199 919
$76 948
$37 692
$10 246
$2 462
$4,015,362
$95,900
$31,724
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$19,000
$0
$0
$25,336
$0
$0
$221,960
$1,417,078
$65,178
$423,163
$288,232
$703,000
$0
$280 205
$12 5O9
$384 878
$310 476
$199 919
$76 948
$63 O28
$10 246
$2 462
$4,237,322
Sources: First American Real Estate Solutions; City of Dublin Planning Department
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Plann#~g Systems, Inc, 4/13/00
H:i9232dubl~data lfares.xls
\
\
Alnmed,~
County
Figure 11-2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
Wiedemann
Manuel Machado
Bartllng & Davilla Eden Canyon
Eastwood III Family Padnershlp
Nielsen
Oronin Heights
~ilestone Partners
Machado
Nielsen
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
/ Morris--"
/
Bay Regional Parks Land to be Acquired
Dublin Extended Planning Area
Schae
/
I- 580
* Machado Property Already Acquired
/
/
h:t9232dublVnapsVig_ll.. 2. wor
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options ,for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
The Specific Plan included a 12-acre country club and associated facilities, community facilities,
and a pedestrian-oriented Village Center. Employment at the three commercial centers and
country club facilities was estimated at 200. Public facilities included an elementary school, fire
station, reservoir, and a park-and-ride lot located on 338 acres. The Plan set aside 2,178 acres
for open space, which included an 18-hole golf course on 175 acres, internal and perimeter
private open space within and around the project neighborhoods, a system of neighborhood
parks, and the Hollis Canyon Linear Park.
In July 1992, the Dublin City Council voted in favor of the Western Dublin Specific Plan and a
General Plan Amendment that would permit residential and commercial uses in the Western
Dublin Area (Resolution No. 89-92). Due to growing concerns about the environmental
consequences of the proposed development in the Western Dublin Area, Measure A--a
citizen's initiative--was placed on the ballot in JanUary 1993 to approve or deny the City
Council Resolution No. 89-92 that would adopt a General Plan Amendment and the Western
Dublin Specific Plan. Measure A received a majority of "No" votes, effectively preventing the
adoption of the Specific Plan and forestalling urban development in western Dublin.
The City Council directed City staff to work on the Urban Opportunity Area-General Plan
Amendment as a high priority in Fiscal Year 1997/98. In April 1998, the Dublin Planning
Commission held public hearings regarding a resolution that would recommend the City
Council to adopt the PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. The
proposed Urban Opportunity Areas (UOA) represented a long-term commitment to manage
growth within the City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas; it
identified where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years. The UOA
boundary within the Western Extended Planning Area is the 770-foot elevation line. This
boundary was chosen because development beyond this point would result in the expansion of
water service pressure zones, except for already approved projects; would increase reservoir
sizes beyond what has been already constructed and approved; or would impact visual quality,
biology, geology, traffic and circulation, and areas which have slopes over 30 percent.7
The UOA General Plan Amendment was adopted in the summer of 1998 for the Eastern
Extended Planning Area; however, it was not adopted for the Western Extended Planing Area
due to concerns about allowing any development in the Area. Shortly after the UOA debate, a
few residents of Dublin proposed a land use initiative for the purposes of controlling growth
within the Western Extended Planning Area. A committee of two City Council members,
planning staff, legal counsel, and initiative proponents was established to discuss the proposed
initiative; the results of the committee's work were presented to the Dublin City Council in the
fall of 1998.
In February 1999, the Dublin City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. The purpose of the Study is to consider establishing
an urban limit line along the western city boundary- pending the vote on the Urbin Limit Line
7 Agenda Statement City Council Meeting May 19, 1998 - Public Hearing: PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area -
General Plan Amendment, by Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner.
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
measure- and to consider appropriate land use designations and policies related to
development in the Western Extended Planning Area. The Study is to be completed before the
November 2000 election. A moratorium on all general plan amendments for the area has been
adopted and will be effective until approval of the general plan amendments for the area.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study, the City Council directed Planning staff to
conduct an open space preservation study for the Western Extended Planning Area to
determine the most feasible open space acquisition and preservation program that could be
accomplished in the area.s EPS was hired in November 1999 to complete this open space
preservation study.
CURRENT PLANNING AND ZONING
The Study Area is in unincorporated Alameda County and within the City of Dublin's Sphere
of Influence (SOI) and is therefore zoned by Alameda County. In addition, the Study Area is
included in the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and in the City of Dublin's long-range planning
documents.
Alameda County General Ordinance Code
According to the Alameda County general ordinance code, all agricultural land, including the
properties in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, is designated as an agricultural "A'
district to (1) promote implementation of general plan land use proposals for agriculture and
other non-urban uses, and to (2) conserve and protect existing agriculture in places where more
intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. Every use in an
"A' district shall be on a building site having an area not less than one hundred acres.9
City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7, 1998
In Land Use and Circulation: Parks and Open Space Recreation, the guiding policies for open space
preservation are as follows:
1. Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their
natural resource value; and
2. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent as permanent open space for public health
and safety.
8 Western Dublin Open Space Study - Request for Proposal by Carol R. Cirelli. Senior Planner, City of Dublin on
October 6, 1999.
9 Alameda County General Ordinance Code Title 17.
10
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space P reservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
The Dublin General Plan also cc ~tains a number of specific policies for the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area, including open space preservation of natural resources for public
health and safety, open space for outdoor recreation, and erosion and siltation control,so
Open Space Preservation of Natural Resources. Development generally shall be confined to
areas where slopes are under 30 percent as part of the overall cluster development concept on
approved development plans. Within projects proposing clustered development and ancillary
facilities in the Western Extended Planning Area, land alteration on slopes over 30 percent may
be considered where the following conditions are present:
· Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
· Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as
housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities.
· Long-term visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby
communities.
Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended Planning Area
shall be protected where possible. Grassland sites shall be considered for development in
preference to native shrub and woodland areas.
Open Space for Outdoor Recreation. The guiding policies for open space of outdoor recreation
in the Western Extended Planning Area will (1) provide a north-south trail link across the
Planning Area, as part of the regional trail network; and (2) create a local trail network which
links large areas of permanent open space, while providing convenient access from nearby
residential areas. The plan will (3) maximize visual exposure to open space and provide
multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open space; and (4)
provide active recreation facilities to serve neighborhood residents.
Erosion and Siltation Control. The guiding policies of erosion and siltation control are to
maintain natural hydrologic systems by containing any net increase of runoff onsite or with
approved offsite measures and to regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with
special concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation.
County of Alameda - East County Area Plan
The purpose of the East County Area Plan is to present a clear statement of the County's intent
concerning future development and resource conservation within East County to the year 2010.
The East County encompasses 418 square miles of eastern Alameda County and includes the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and a portion of Hayward, as well as surrounding
10
Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment, pp. 7,9, 15.
11
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
unincorporated areas. ECAP contains a number of goals and policies for open space and
agriculture and states several policies pertaining to the West Dublin Hills as follow,n
Policy 69: The County shall work cooperatively with the cities of Pleasanton and Hayward, the
Castro Valley community, the East Bay Regional Park District, and landowners in order to
retain Pleasanton Ridgelands as permanent open space and reserve a regional trail corridor
connecting Sunol with the West Dublin Hills. Accordingly, the County shall oppose City
sphere of influence expansions and annexations outside the Urban Growth Boundary in this
area for purposes of urban development.
Policy 70: The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublin for
agricultural or open space uses to serve as a community separator and to reserve a regional trail
corridor connecting the San Ramon westside hills with Pleasanton Ridge, consistent with the
East County Area Plan.
Policy 71: The County shall recognize West Dublin as a valuable open space buffer separating
the community of Castro Valley from the East County planning area. The County shall
encourage the City of Dublin to retain this area as open space to be consistent with the County's
designation of this area as "Large Parcel Agriculture."
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & PROPOSED INITIATIVES
The Western Extended Planning Area is subject to at least three proposed changes in regulatory
policy, which if approved by voters could significantly affect development opportunities and
future land use decisions in the Study Area. The three proposed policy changes are listed and
described below.
1. City of Dublin Proposed Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area.
2. The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative.
3. The Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative.
City of Dublin Proposed Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area
On November 7, 2000, voters will determine whether to adopt an urban limit line in the
Western Extended Planning Area, with such a line located along the current city limit line.
Lands west of the Urban Limit Line would be designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture, and
the location of the Urban Limit Line and the Rural Residential/Agriculture land use
designation would be effective for a period of 30 years, unless changed by the voters of Dublin.
The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative
The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative seeks to encourage local government
organizations to work with the residents of Alameda County, inner city revitalization projects,
n East County Area Plan, A Portion of the Alameda County General Plan, Volume 1 Goals, Policies, and Programs,
May 5, 1994, Alameda County Planning Department, pp. 17.
12
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
community organizations, environmental groups, transit agencies, housing developers, and
park districts to ensure that Alameda County retains its quality of life. Provisions of the
initiative include the following:
Establishing a 30-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that will protect most of Alameda
County's remaining agricultural and other open space lands. Only development that is
consistent with existing zoning would be allowed in the protected area outside the UGB.
Any other development within this protected area must be approved by a Countywide
public vote.
Slowing down future residential growth in the East County area, including the three
incorporated cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, a small portion of Hayward, and
the Castro Valley and Palomares canyonlands, to a level that the environment can sustain
in the long term.
Seeking to focus development of public facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure in the
unincorporated East County area to be consistent with the reduced level of growth allowed
by this initiative.
Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative
The Tri-Valley Business Council is preparing a Tri~Valley open space initiative as an alternative
to the Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative. The Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative
proposes to establish an urban growth boundary line based on the City's General Plan areas.
However, details regarding the wording of this Initiative are unknown at this point. It is the
intention of the Tri-Valley Business Council to place the initiative on the November 2000 ballot.
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1985, AND REVISED
JULY 7, 1998
The City of Dublin General Plan requires erosion control plans for any proposed development
in the Western Extended Planning Area. In general, areas of steep slopes (more than 30
percent) should be restricted to permanent open space, as part of an overall clUSter
development concept on approved plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall
require substantial mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community.~2
go
Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent as permanent open space. One of the
guiding policies for the Western Extended Planning Area is to regulate grading and
development on steep slopes with special concern for potential problems of erosion and
siltation. An implementation policy would be to restrict areas of steep slopes (more than
~2 City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7, 1998, p. 15.
13
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
30 percent) to permanent open space, as part of an overall cluster development concept on
approved plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall require substantial
mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community, in keeping with the standards
of General Plan Policy 3.I.E.~3
Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space. Most of
the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning Area is concentrated in the Western
Extended Planning Area. In addition to California live oaks, other species such as laurel
are a vital part of this plant community. This woodland has important visual and
biological qualities. Implementing policy would be to require the preservation of oak
woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and
developed, the policy would permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of
the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review
process.14
DESCRIPTION OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE
Hay production, cattle grazing, and other ranching operations are the primary existing land
uses within the Western Dublin project site. The hills and valleys of the project site are typical
of rangeland in the area.is The grassy slopes and riparian woodlands of the project site show
evidence of continuous grazing. Cattle trails have left terraces on the steep grassy slopes. A
portiOn of the extended planning area is under the Williamson Act.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Guiding policies for open space for outdoor recreation is to expand park areas to serve new
development and maintain and improve facilities at existing schools. As it relates to the Study
Area, an implementing policy would be to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or
equestrian trails within designated open space areas by restricting structures on the hillsides.~6
Another guiding policy is to create a local trail network which links large areas of permanent
open space, while providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Lastly, the policy
calls to maximize visual exposure of open space and to provide multiple lOcal physical access
points to increase public enjoyment of open space by promoting land dedication or reservation.
It would also provide improvements for a ridgeline regional trail and other trail links?
13 Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment March 1996, p. 15.
14 Ibid.
15 Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR with Revisions for Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment, Report 5 Volume I, May 1992. P. 3-21.
16 City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7,1998, p. 3-2:3-3
17 City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7,1998, Part 2, p. 9.
14
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Linkage to Local Open Space Resources
According to the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, it is the intent of the City of Dublin
to balance open space goals with housing and recreational needs in the Western Extended
Planning Area:s An open space corridor on the main ridgeline would be preserved with a
regional trail extending across the site. Key ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other
important features would be protected.
East Bay Regional Park District
Calaveras Ridge Trail
Cities, counties, and several park districts, including the East Bay Regional Parks District
(EBRPD), are engaged in a cooperative effort to plan and implement a "regional trail system"
for the San Francisco Bay Area. The 1997 EBRPD Master Plan shows the proposed Pleasanton
Ridge to Las Trampas (Section 3c) segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail, traversing the Study
Area? This segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail is proposed to extend from a staging area
close to the 1-580/Schaefer Road interchange, north through Schaefer Ranch and into the Study
Area, along Skyline Ridge, joining the Alameda/Contra Costa County border along Divide
Ridge, and then continuing over to Wiedemann Hill and onto the Bishop Ranch Open Space
Regional Preserve. The Calaveras Ridge Trail is planned to ultimately link the Sunol
Wilderness to the south to the Las Trampas Wilderness to the north and then traverse through
the existing Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park and Bishop Ranch Open Space Regional Preserve
and the proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.
Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve
The EBRPD Master Plan also states that access to a regional trail link will be from "sta~ing
units" located at frequent intervals along the trail. The EBRPD provides guidelines to plan for
areas along a trail link that will be used for staging purposes. The Master Plan also identifies a
portion of the Study Area for a proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve. The
Master Plan defines a Regional Preserve as an area with outstanding natural or cultural features
that are protected for their intrinsic value as well as for the enjoyment and education of the
public. The essential feature of a Regional Preserve may be open space, wilderness, scenic
beauty, flora, fauna, or archaeological, historic, or geological resources.
An Open Space Preserve will generally consist of at least 200 acres of undeveloped open space
land within or bordering an urban area. An Open Space Preserve may be used for agriculture
or for passive recreational activities that do not require substantial facilities or improvements.20
The EBRPD has received a ll6-acre dedication from the Kaufmann & Broad project in the
California Highlands and expects to receive another dedication of 106 acres as part of the
Schaefer Ranch development project. The Schaefer Ranch project will also construct and
dedicate a staging area for the Dublin Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail at Donlan
~s Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment March 1996, p. 3. as described in the City of Dublin General Plan.
~9 Master Plan 1997 East Bay Regional Park District, Figure 3 Regional Parkland and Trail Map, page 74.
20 Master Plan 1997 East Bay Regional Park District, pages 40-43.
15
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Point. These significant open space dedications to the south of the Study Area are expected to
provide not only a staging area for the proposed link in the Calaveras Ridge Trail but will also
establish the initial phase of the proposed new Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.2~
In December 1998, the EBRPD purchased 160 acres on the Skyline Ridge towards the northern
edge of the Study Area. The EBRPD is land banking the property until such time that the
Calaveras Ridge Trail can be constructed and/or plans for the proposed Dublin Hills Open
Space Regional Preserve can be implemented. The proposed trail alignment passes directly
through the center of the EBRPD land-banked property. A 147-acre privately owned parcel
separates the EBRPD parcel in the north of the Study Area from the dedicated open space and
staging area on the Schaefer Ranch property to the south. The next EBRPD ownership is at
Wiedemann Hill, which is directly northwest of the Study Area just over the Alameda/Contra
Costa County border. The 70-acre Wiedemann Hill property was dedicated to the EBRPD as
part of the Wiedemann Ranch development project and is linked directly to the Bishop Ranch
Regional Open Space Preserve via dedicated trail easements.22 Therefore, a portion of the Study
Area forms a potentially important link in the Calaveras Ridge Trail and the proposed Dublin
Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.
LAND VALUES IN STUDY AREA
According to the Alameda County Assessors Office, agricultural land sales for purposes of
agriculture have been scarce in the Dublin area. Historically, agricultural grazing land in this
part of the County has sold in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 per acre.23
The most recent acquisition in the Study Area was a 160-acre parcel acquired in December 1998
for approximately $3,100 per acre by the East Bay Regional Park District.24 This parcel has
limited access, visually sensitive areas, and some slopes over 30 percent. Other acquisitions in
the area have been in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per acre according to a local realtor.25
2~ and 2~ Telephone conversation with Steven Fiala, Trails Coordinator, East Bay Regional Park District on February
16, 2000.
23 Telephone conversation with Sue Jenlik, Alameda County Assessor's Office January 6, 2000.
24 Telephone conversation with Suzanne Lusk, East Bay Regional Park District, on January 31, 2000.
25 Telephone conversation with Henry Bettencourt, a local realtor on January 17, 2000.
16
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
III. OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES
The City of Dublin has three basic options in preserving open space within the Study Area: (1)
regulation; (2) compensatory regulation; (3) and outright acquisition, as described below.
REGULATION
Land use regulation, including general plan land use designations and policies, zoning, and
subdivision regulations, are generally simple to administer and do not place a significant
burden on local government since the cost of conservation falls on the affected landowners.
Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) / Agricultural Large Lot Zoning
Zoning is a form of local government land use control. Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) is
designed to stabilize the agricultural land base by designating areas where farming or ranching
is the primary land use and by discouraging other land uses in the area. APZ ordinances, also
known as agricultural large lot zoning, restrict the density of residential development in
agricultural zones. The maximum densities in APZs can range from as small as one residential
unit per 20 acres to as large as one unit per 640 acres. As discussed above, all the land in the
Study Area is zoned in Alameda County's Agricultural District, which allows one unit per 100
acres.
APZ areas work best where there is a strong agricultural economy and an incentive to remain
in agriculture. Agricultural large lot zoning has worked well in Yolo County, which has prime
soils and a strong agricultural economic base; it has also worked well in parts of Marin County.
However, APZ areas are not so effective where there are urban development pressures and low
returns on agricultural investments.
Agricultural large lot zoning may be sufficient to preserve open space where there are well-
documented physical constraints to development, such as steep slopes, unstable soils, and
erosion hazards. Such regulations may allow rural residential development in the canyons
while prohibiting development on steep hillsides, land slide areas, and visual buffer zones. The
main advantage to using regulatory methods to protect the steep hills and ridge lines is that
they require no public funding. The main disadvantages are that regulation offers no monetary
compensation to landowners, and regulation may not be permanent, as future governments can
amend zoning laws and general plan designations.
17
923 2rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
COMPENSATORY REGULATION
Due to the limitations of traditional land use regulation and the cost of direct acquisition, a
number of innovative conservation implementation techniques have been developed over the
years, which can be referred to collectively as "compensatory regulation techniques.'26
Generally, these techniques fall somewhere between standard land use regulation and outright
acquisition programs. A few of the more commonly used techniques are described below:
· Dedications and Exactions
· Development Agreements
Purchase of Development Rights
Transferable Development Credits
· Mitigation Banking
Dedications and Exactions
Dedications and exactions are levied on developers by either cities or counties for the privilege
of developing land in the jurisdiction. Dedications and exactions differ from impact fees in that
they typically are negotiated on a project-by-project basis, generally during development of the
tentative subdivision map. Exactions differ from dedications in that they typically involve cash
payments for offsite improvements.
Open space lands (in addition to the standard park dedication requirements) can be required as
dedications by the landowners as part of a specific plan. The cost of the dedication is borne by
the development and must be within the overall cost burden that can be supported by project
values when all other development costs are considered. The City of Dublin and the EBRPD
have successfully negotiated and secured over 100 acres of open space for staging areas and
trails as part to the Schaefer Ranch and the California Highlands development projects.
However, since the proPosed General Plan Amendment and the UL! initiatives make the
probability of another specific plan being adopted in the Western Hills very unlikely, there is
probably little opportunity for future major dedications and/or exactions of open space. There
may, however, be opportunities for trail easement dedications as part of limited scale rural
residential developments.
Dedications of trail easements could be required as part of any future development approval or
subdivision processes. The advantages of acquiring land or easements via dedication are, of
course, that they require no public funding other than development and operation of the trail
system. The major disadvantage, as an open space preservation tool, is that there is no
guarantee that key pieces outside the urban development area needed to complete trail
linkages, for example, will be dedicated in a timely manner to produce a complete trail system.
26 This discussion is extracted from an article "Implementation Techniques and Strategies for Conservation Plans" by
Madelyn Glickfield, Sonia Jacques, Walter Kieser and Todd Olson in Land Use & Environment Forum Vol. 4, No.
1 / Winter 1995.
18
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options.for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
While recent court decisions have limited unrelated or arbitrary dedication requirements, local
agencies are still free to require dedications and exactions that provide a connection or "nexus"
between the development and the dedication.
Development Agreements
A development agreement offers a means to overcome the "nexus" requirement of dedications
and exactions. As a contract between the jurisdiction and a developer, there is more flexibility
in imposing dedications and exactions where no strong nexus can be shown. Development
agreements between public agencies and developers provide developers with assurances that
the land use regulations for a project will not be changed in the future; they specify the
commitments of both the public and private sector parties to financing, impact mitigation,
phasing, and other elements of the development program. Since major urban development is
unlikely in the Western Hills area, development agreements may not be a useful open space
preservation tool.
Purchase of Development Rights
A government or private non-profit land trust can establish a conservation program to acquire
perpetual conservation easements (also known as the purchase of development rights, or PDR)
that restrict or prohibit future development or subdivision of land. These legal agreements are
created between private landowners (grantors) and qualified land trusts, conservation
organizations, or government agencies (grantees). The grantors may receive Federal estate tax
benefits and/or income tax benefits as a result of donating all, or a portion of, the value of the
easement. Grantees are responsible for monitoring arid enforcing the terms of the easement.
Land protected by conservation easements remains on the tax rolls and is privately owned and
managed. All conservation easements are legally binding on future landowners. Conservation
easements on agricultural land are specifically designed to protect farmland, and grantors can
continue to use the land for agricultural purposes, restrict public access, and give, sell, or
transfer their property (subject to the terms of the easement). The grantee pays the grantor the
difference between the value of the land for agriculture and the value of the land for its
"highest and best use," which is generally residential or commercial development.27
PDR programs are most successful where there is a strong agricultural base and an incentive
for farmers to continue investing in agriculture and passing the farm or ranching operation
onto the next generation. In Marin County for example, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust
(MALT) has, by using PDR, protected over 26,000 acres on 40 separate farms, with a combined
acquisition cost of $17.4 million since its inception in 1980.28 The combination of strong
agricultural large lot zoning, a viable dairy industry, and financial commitment from the
County enabled the PDR program to be successful.
27 This section excerpted in part from "Saving American Farmland: What Works" by the American Farmland Trust,
1997.
28 Telephone conversation with Lisa Bush at MALT on February 11, 2000.
19
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
In Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has
protected over 27,500 acres, at a cost of $51.5 million since its inception in 1990.29 The Sonoma
County PDR program was successful due to strong General Plan Policies for agricultural
protection, a thriving and diverse agricultural economy including dairy and wine grapes, and a
0.25 percent county sales tax that generates over $12.5 million annually for the PDR program.
Agricultural conservation easements may have limited applicability in the Dublin Study Area
except for those landowners who wish to remain in ranching and/or desire to will their land to
the next generation and thereby avoid the family estate tax. Other types of easements may be
appropriate in the Study Area, such as scenic easements and trail access easements. Scenic
conservation easements may be used to preserve key ridge lines and buffer zones. Access
easements may be used to acquire land for trails. If the land can remain in private hands, and if
there is an underlying economic use, a conservation easement may be the most appropriate
conservation implementation tool.
Transfer of Development Credits Program (TDC)
A TDC program is another form of compensatory regulation that attempts to preserve a
particular resource (sending area) by directing development to specific locations which can
support increased densities (receiving area). Development credits are assigned to all properties
in the sending area. Developers in the receiving areas are encouraged to purchase TDCs in
order to receive a "density bonus" allowing them to develop at higher densities than the base
zoning would allow. Perpetual conservation easements are placed on the lands in the sending
area when a TDC is sold.
While there are many examples of communities with TDC programs in their Open Space
Elements, there are few examples of successful TDC programs that have resulted in a
significant resource protection effort. The problem with many TDC programs is that while it is
relatively easy to find willing buyers of TDCs if the base zoning is set appropriately and if there
is sufficient market demand, often there is a shortage of willing TDC sellers.
Frequently, TDCs are the least developable and therefore the least threatened parcels in the
sending areas; they are sold first while the most threatened lands (often those with the most
significant open space resource value) retain their development credits and remain
unprotected. This can result in a fragmented non-contiguous open space resource area
interspersed with scattered development. A targeted acquisition program, which follows a list
of acquisition priorities based on resource value and the degree of development threat, would
more likely result in a comprehensive and successful open space protection program.
Another problem with TDC programs is that they are cumbersome to administer. In the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, a TDC program would have little chance of success
without a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or equivalent agreement, between the City
and the County. The MOU would have to reinforce the base zoning in the sending area and
29 Telephone conversation with Maria Cippriani, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
on February 15, 2000.
20
9~2~t1.~c
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
ensure that both jurisdictions' General Plans are compatible and consistent with an open
space/resource protection program.
South Livermore Valley Area Plan
In the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in Alameda County, a number of open
space/agricultural preservation and enhancement policies have been Successfully implemented
and include a TDC program. The purpose of the SLVAP was to preserve existing vineyards
and wineries, enhance the recognition and image of the area as an important premium wine-
producing region, create incentives for investment and expansion of vineyards and other
cultivated agriculture, and preserve the area's unique rural, scenic, and historic qualities. One
component of the program allows for an onsite TDC whereby landowners with 100-acre zoning
parcels can create up to five 20-acre parcels by agreeing to plant and cultivate 90 percent of the
parcel with vineyards or other perennial crops such as olive orchards; they can place a
perpetual conservation easement over the parcel, restricting the building site to a 2-acre
envelope for one house or one winery. Approximately 46 newly planted and protected 20-acre
parcels have been created since the Plan's adoption in 1993.
In a second program in the South Livermore Area and within the SLVAP, property owners
seeking increased density iri a designated area negotiated TDCs from property owners in a
designated donor area. It has been reported that the development credits have sold for
approximately $60,000 to $70,000 each?
The South Livermore Area Plan TDC program has been successful so far due to a combination
of factors, including premium prices for rural residential estates in the scenic Livermore Valley,
the high value of vineyards, the tradition of viticulture in the area, and the presence of the
Wente family, who has supported the program and offered vine pruning, harvesting services,
and technical advice. It will be a challenge to re-create the same market conditions in the West
Dublin Hills, unless there is a core group of landowners interested in establishing viticulture or
an equally valuable perennial crop in the Study Area.
On-Site TDC In Western Dublin Hills
An onsite TDC program could be considered in certain areas of the Western Dublin Hills if
there are some parcels that have the capacity to support additional development (receiver
areas), which if they meet certain criteria could be granted development permits in return for
dedicating permanent conservation easements over adjoining hillsides, ridgetops, and other
sensitive areas (sender areas). For an onsite TDC program to work it must show that the
receiver areas can support the urban infrastructure without major environmental or visual
impacts, and furthermore, that the cost of extending City services to these areas is financially
feasible.
30 "Options for Funding the Acquisition of Open Space and Agricultural Land In Contra Costa County" prepared by
the Community Development Department (John Kopchik) for the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors
Finance Committee.
21
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options.for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Mitigation Banks3~
Mitigation banks are becoming one of the tools used to meet endangered species mitigation
requirements. Mitigation banks are established by surveying resources and consulting with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers if wetlands are involved. After a series of consultations, the regulating
agencies determine the types of habitat and endangered species mitigation that the bank can
support and the number and density of credits available for sale. Generally, the land in the
mitigation banks must be protected with a perpetual conservation easement granted to one, or
more, regulating agencies, and an endowment fund created for long-term habitat and species
monitoring.
Once a mitigation bank has been established and has received permits from the regulating
agencies, developers seeking mitigation for the same type of habitat/species preserved by the
bank may purchase credits at a mutually negotiated price. The regulating agencies prefer the
development requiring mitigation to be close to the mitigation bank, but some banks have been
allowed to mitigate for projects up to forty miles away and sometimes in a different county.
Mitigation banks have the advantage of protecting natural resources with private development-
related funds without the need to impose impact fees. Public agencies in the construction
business, e.g., Caltrans, sometimes need to purchase mitigation bank credits to mitigate for
transportation projects. Mitigation banks can compensate landowners who, due to the
presence of endangered species on their properties, are unable to secure development permits.
The major disadvantages of mitigation banks are that they can take years of negotiation to
establish, and obtaining agency permits can be a very time-consuming process. Furthermore,
even after receiving the right to sell credits, the mitigation bank owner is vulnerable to changes
in regulating agency policies and to real estate cycles. Another disadvantage of mitigation
banks from the environmental perspective is the uncertainty regarding the ability to preserve a
unique habitat in the long term when it is isolated on a relatively small and unconnected piece
of property.
OUTRIGHT FEE ACQUISITION
Direct acquisition is relatively simple to implement compared to some of the compensatory
regulation techniques described above. Willing seller acquisition programs have the advantage
of compensating affected landowners but the disadvantage of being expensive to the public, as
the cost of conservation falls on the government. Financial prudence requires that the City
should attempt to achieve as many open space objectives as possible using the regulatory
methods described above. However, some especially significant pieces of land may need
permanent protection. Also, strategic links in the regional trail system may need to be acquired
in order to complete the trails proposed in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan.
Ibid.
22
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Fee acquisitions should be considered where more intense public use is required, such as for
staging areas and trailheads. Fee or easement acquisition, in willing seller programs, must also
be considered when regulation alone may fail to protect the resource due to its proximity to
existing or planned future development, and when there are no significant physical or
economic constraints to development.
OPEN SPACE/AGRICULTURAL FUNDING SOURCES
CITY GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES
Cities can only levy general taxes specifically authorized by the State legislature, such as
transient occupancy tax and property transfer tax. The resulting revenues will accrue to a
City's General Fund and thus compete with other programs for available dollars.
Consh'uction Tax
A construction tax is a form of excise tax that is levied on new construction. The tax rate can be
based on a variety of measures as determined in the enabling legislation, such as total square
footage or construction value, and can be levied on both residential and commercial
development. Enactment requires a two-thirds vote if the tax revenues are dedicated to a
special use.
Property Taxes
In 1986, voters approved an amendment to Article XIIIA to permit property tax rate increases
by a two-thirds voter approval, but only to support general obligation bonds. The major
problem with a general obligation bond is that the revenues can only be used for one-time
development or land acquisition costs and not for maintenance or operations. However, a
bond measure supporting open space/agricultural acquisitions could be placed before Dublin
voters if sufficient voter support for an open space/agricultural preservation bond measure
could be raised.
ASSESSMENTS
Assessments are charges levied against real property by cities and counties to finance the
construction or maintenance of public improvements. The passage of Proposition 218 requires
a majority voter approval among landowners within an assessment district.
Assessments must be levied in proportion to the direct benefit conferred upon the property,
and the benefit to the assessed property must be greater than the benefit received by the public
at large. As stated in Proposition 218, "no assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which
exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Once
a special assessment district is formed, the local authority may issue bonds secured by the
23
9232tpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options.for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
assessments. Assessments differ from impact fees in part because they may be levied on
existing development as well as new development. The complicated procedural requirements
for establishing valid special assessment districts, combined with the need for a public vote,
make this an unattractive and administratively burdensome method of open space/agricultural
preservation financing.
MELLO-ROOS CFD
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) tax is a charge levied on properties in a
district to pay for public facilities that benefit district properties. Mello-Roos taxes can be used
for a greater range of projects and services than assessments, including parks, schools, police,
and fire services. Unlike general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos special tax revenues can also be
used for maintenance activities and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Approval of a Mello-Roos district requires an election of two-thirds of the registered voters in
the designated area. However, the majority of Mello-Roos districts to date have been formed
under a provision, which permits district formation by the owners of two-thirds of the land if
the district contains less than 12 voters.
The flexibility of a Mello-Roos CFD, in that it can be used for both capital and operating
expenses, makes this mechanism the most attractive option for open space/agricultural
preservation financing in the post Proposition 218 environment. It is relatively straightforward
to establish and it can be used for a variety of services and facilities. For example, a CFD tax of
about $25 per household per year for the entire City of Dublin could raise about $200,000
annually on a pay-as-you-go basis for open space/agricultural land acquisition costs.32
IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are charges levied upon new development by local governments to fund facility or
service requirements. Impact fees are commonly levied for facility improvements such as
parks, open space, roads, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and schools. Impact or
in-lieu fees may also be used for environmental mitigation under CEQA. Development
impacts, such as the loss of agricultural land as documented during the environmental review
process, may be partially mitigated by a
32 Based on 8,367 residential households in the City of Dublin as of January 1, 1999.
24
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
variety of methods, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Impact/in-lieu fees are generally
charged on a one-time basis when the building permit or the certificate of occupancy is issued.
When a City institutes new fees for a park, open space, or any other purpose, there must be a
consistent and logical link between the standards of service established in the General Plan and
the projects being required to pay the fees. Fees that do not exceed the reasonable cost of
providing the facilities can be levied without a public vote. If the fees are not properly linked to
actual new facilities required, they may be judged to be special taxes. Hence, impact fees
require that the enacting agency establish a formula within the enabling legislation, which
equates the new development with the need for expanded facilities.
Impact fees have a number of limitations as a financing technique, including:
· Impact fee receipts may not meet the timing need of the improvements. In addition, fees
may vary dramatically depending on the level of development and as such should not be
the sole source of revenue for debt payments on bonds.
· Impact fees increase the equity required which may, in turn, cause an increase in housing or
commercial prices, a reduction in land value, or result in a project not being financially
feasible.
The City of Dublin plans for about 14,000 new dwelling units and 14.8 million new commercial
square feet between now and buildout in 2020.33 Approximately 5,000 units have already been
approved. An open space in-lieu fee of $1,000 per residential unit for new development in the
City, for example, could raise several million dollars for open space acquisitions in the Western
Dublin Hills if the preservation of Western Dublin open space is deemed to be of citywide
benefit through the City's General Plan.
General Funds
The City of Dublin could allocate a portion of any budget surpluses or unallocated funds to
acquisition of fee interests or conservation easements in the Study Area. These funds could be
used as the local match often required by competitive statewide grant programs. The
advantage of using general funds is that it requires no voter approval; the disadvantage is that
these funds will have competing demands and cannot be a dedicated long-term funding source.
The City can also contribute towards an open space acquisition program by dedicating staff
time and resources towards writing grant proposals and coordinating with conservation
organizations/agencies such as the EBRPD.
REGIONAL
Countywide or Tri-Valley Sales Tax
33 Projected housing units and commercial square feet based on Land Available for Development in Dublin, facsimile
from Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, Dublin Community Development Department on February 14, 2000.
25
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options J:or the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Alameda County voters could support open space preservation by approving a sales tax
increase for a regional conservation program as residents of Sonoma County have done. It is
estimated that if the current sales tax rate of 8.25 percent were increased by tA cent, this could
raise about $46.3 million in annual revenues.34 These funds could be used for conservation
projects all over the County, and Dublin could compete for a share of these funds for
acquisitions in the Western Hills. Strong voter support and an excellent educational and
promotional campaign would be required to secure the necessary two-thirds vote.
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
The East Bay Regional Park District has a limited number of funds available for acquisitions of
fee or trail easements in the Study Area; however, they are eligible for direct funding for the
Statewide conservation bond because Proposition 12 was approved by voters in March 2000.
The EBRPD can also compete for statewide grants from resource agencies and from private
foundations (see discussion of Proposition 12 below).
Tipping Fee Alameda County Waste Management
Starting January 1, 2001, all entities disposing waste into the Altamont landfill could potentially
pay $1.25 per ton to mitigate Altamont's expansion. Final adoption of the $1.25 per ton fee is
scheduled March 2, 2000. Approximately $0.75 of $1.25 will be used for open space acquisition.
Of the $0.75 about 80 percent will be dedicated to the Eastern Area (region undefined) and 20
percent dedicated to the Western Area (region undefined). Annual revenues from tipping fees
are expected to be about $1.87 million, of which approximately $1.12 million could be available
for open space acquisition? Distribution of revenue collected for open space acquisition is
unknown but will be based on the decisions by an advisory committee consisting of a
representative from Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Sierra Club. Half of the remaining $0.50 fee
will fund the City of Livermore's Performing Arts Center, while the other $0.25 will fund
recycling and diversion educational program and job training?
34 "Agricultural Enhancement and Open Space Conservation in the Tri-Valley - A Research Report" by Bill
Eisenstein for the Tri-Valley Business Council, August 1999, page 32.
35 Based on Alameda County Waste Management District's revenue of $27,000 to $29,000 per quarter from the $0.075
per ton tax rate according to Ron Gee of the Alameda County Planning Department, February 14, 2000.
36 Telephone conversation with Ron Gee, Alameda County Planning Department Feb. 3, 2000.
26
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
STATE
The last park bond act approved by voters in California was the 1988 Proposition 70 Wildlife,
Coastal, and Park Land Conservation, which funded $776 million for conservation and
recreation acquisitions and improvements. With Proposition 70 funds all expended, California
voters were asked to approve another park and open space bond on the March 2000 ballot.
Proposition 12 -- the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2000 contains $826.5 million for local and regional parks. Since approval of this
bond measure by voters in March, the EBRPD and/or the City may apply for grants for the
protection of key resources in the Western Dublin Hills. Proposition 12 specifically contains the
following funds that could potentially be used for acquisition of fee interests and/or trail
easements in the Study Area for the proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve and
for portions of the Calaveras Ridge Trail:
· Per capita grants to EBRPD - $9 million
· Roberti-Z'berg Harris grants to EBRPD for acquisition and development of local parks and
recreational lands and facilities - $5.4 million
· Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy - $55 million
· Competitive Statewide grants - $266 million
· California Department of Parks and Recreation grants to local agencies for non-motorized
trails - $10 million
· Unallocated funds Statewide - $7.5 million
· California oak woodlands - $5 million
FEDERAL
The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal source that is funded by outer-
continental shelf lease revenues and royalties. Its funds are allocated through four Federal
agencies: the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service;
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A portion of the National Park Service funds are then
distributed to states, which are then allocated to local jurisdictions (counties, cities, and park
and recreation districts). The "stateside" allocation of the LWCF has not been funded since
1995.
Prior to 1995, the National Park Service grants were designated for the acquisition,
development, or rehabilitation of neighborhood, community, or regional parks, or facilities
supporting outdoor recreation activities. Past grants have been as high as $5.5 million but have
averaged approximately $70,000. No more than 50 percent of a project could be federally
financed, although exceptions were sometimes made. Local governments would seek funding
from their state government, administered through
27
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
the state's comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Although the Fund often earns more than
$900 million annually from leases and royalties, in recent years Congress has diverted a
substantial portion of this funding to deficit reduction and other programs.
However, after years of resistance, Congress voted to allocate $465 million for FY 2000, of
which $40 million is made available for state matching grant money, which state and local
governments can then use to protect land and create or improve recreational opportunities
locally. The EBRPD and the City of Dublin could apply for the State matching grants through
the LWCF; however, competition for these funds will be intense.
Urban Parks & Recreation Recovery Act
The Urban Parks & Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR) was created in the 1960s as an urban
"arm" of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Like the LWCF, UPARR has received
no appropriations in the past several years. When fully funded, UPARR had, at the national
level, approximately $100 million annually to allocate directly to local jurisdictions for
provision and rehabilitation of community parks in the urban core, especially in low income
communities. Congress voted to allocate $2 million for UPARR in FY 2000. Competition for
these funds will be intense, and Dublin may be too suburban and too well-off to qualify.
Better America Bonds
Another component of the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative includes a
proposed new financing authority called Better America Bonds (BABs), which are tax-exempt
bonds that fund environmental enhancement projects. This bonding authority would be
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and would be allocated
through an annual competition open to state and local governments. The bonding authority
would be limited to $1.9 billion annually for five years, beginning in 2000. Holders of the 15-
year bonds would receive Federal income tax credits.
The Better America Bonds program is intended to assist local governments assume the massive
financial burdens of major environmental projects which have widely diffused public benefits.
Funding would go to projects in four program areas: (1) restoration of urban parks; (2) clean up
of abandoned industrial sites in the urban core; (3) acquisition of permanent easements on
suburban open space; and (4) protection of wetlands and natural flood zones.
Qualifying purposes for BABs would include:
· Acquisition of land for open space, wetlands, public parks, or greenways to be owned by
an issuer or a 501(c)(3) entity. (Acquisition of land and facilities would only be eligible if
they were available for use by members of the general public.)
· Acquisition of permanent easements to protect land from development.
· Construction of visitor facilities, such as campgrounds and hiking/biking trails, in
connection with acquired land or other open space.
28
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
· Remediation of land to enhance water quality, control erosion, or remediate for toxic
contamination on publicly owned land.
· Environmental assessment and remediation of property owned by state or local
government due to abandonment by the prior owner, for the purposes of establishing
public open space.
The Better America Bonds proposal is currently before Congress as part of the Clinton
Administration's proposed budget. Applications would be reviewed by the EPA in
conjunction with the Community Empowerment Board and in consultation with other Federal
agencies. Issuers of the bonds must have a reasonable expectation that 95 percent of the
proceeds would be spent for qualifying purposes within three years, and that the project or
property so financed would be used as public recreation or open space for at least 15 years.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancements Act (ISTEA) was reauthorized in 1998 as
TEA-21, with expansion of many existing "Enhancements" project categories and addition of
several new ones. TEA-21 is the Federal government's comprehensive transportation funding
package. The potential for urban parks funding in this context is generally limited to bicycle
and pedestrian trails and projects that directly mitigate the impacts of a transportation-related
improvement, above and beyond what would normally be required. Funds could be available
to Dublin in association with any 1-580 improvement projects.
The Recreational Trails Program, the most relevant funding area, funds up to 80 percent of
project costs on a wide range of motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Funds are
administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which in 1998 had $4.2
million to disburse ($2.9 for non-motorized trails and $1.3 million for motorized trails). The
maximum grant to date has been about $400,000, while most grants average about $140,000.
Future grant proposal deadlines will be October 1st each year for the next four years. The
EBRPD and/or the City of Dublin could apply for funds to help complete the Western Dublin
Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
GRANTS/OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
There are a variety of grant programs and other funding sources for open space/agricultural
acquisition. Certain foundations offer funds for purchasing conservation easements on
agricultural land. The Packard Foundation, for example, offers grants for agricultural
preservation under their Conservation Program's Transactions Grants. The Conservation
Program has an emphasis on acquisitions of agricultural land over 100 acres in size in
undeveloped or rapidly developing areas. The new five-year Conserving California's
Landscapes Initiative designates $175 million over a five-year period for acquisitions in four
regions. Historically, the Foundation has concentrated its charitable giving to acquisitions
29
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
along the Central Coast and in the Sierra regions. The Foundation's geographic interests are
expected to expand in future years and could potentially include parts of Alameda County.
Other foundations that have given funding for land conservation are the Hewlett, Irvine,
Wallace Genetic, and Heller Charitable Foundations?
PRIVATE SOURCES
GIFTS
Individuals and corporations can make gifts of fee and less-than-fee interests for open
space/agricultural protection. Typically, gifts are made of the fee interest or development
rights. While this may or may not be a prime motivating force, substantial tax advantages may
accrue to those who make such gifts. Sales at less than market value (bargain sales) can also
offer these advantages. Gifts can be received by both public and private nonprofit agencies.
DONATIONS AND GRANTS
The City either independently or working in concert with a land trust can solicit donations and
grants from private individuals and corporations. Although such grants and donations may
not generate large sums, a program to solicit donations and grants will be valuable to create
public awareness and involvement in open space/agricultural land protection.
"Agricultural Enhancement and Open Space Conservation in the Tri-Valley - A Research Report, by Bill
Eisenstein for the Sierra Business Council, August 1999, page 45-49.
30
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
IV. WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
As described in the previous chapter there are a variety of open space preservation techniques
and funding sources used to preserve open space and agricultural lands in California. It is
important to match the tool to the problem, as described in some of the case studies, as not all
techniques are appropriate for all situations. Funding sources for acquisition of easements or
fee ownership should be matched to the resource to be protected and the benefit area of the
protected resource. Different funding options apply to the various beneficiaries of open space
preservation.
New Development. New development that creates demand for open space resources and
impacts existing open space may be charged a fee for open space mitigation. Therefore,
new development in the City could be charged a development impact fee for open space
and trail acquisitions. However, it is important that the fee not jeopardize the financial
feasibility of future development projects, and that it meet the legal requirement for a
"nexus" -- i.e., that there be a supportable relationship between the impact and the level of
the fee.
Citywide. To the extent that the whole City of Dublin benefits from the protection of their
views of the Western Hills and can enjoy access to the area through a trail system, a
Citywide funding source could be created, such as an open space and trail acquisition bond
measure or a Citywide parcel tax. These measures would require the support of Dublin
voters.
Regional. For lands with regional significance, such as trails that can link existing and
future regional parks with City parks, matching funds could be sought from regional
agencies, such as the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Funding for regional
participation may come from voter-approved bond issues or other agency funding sources.
Based on preliminary research on land values in the area, it is estimated that property values
may range from $2,500 in more remote areas to $10,000 for grazing land close to the City of
Dublin. If all 3,100 acres in the Study Area were acquired outright, this could cost in the range
of $7.8 million to $31 million. It is not realistic to consider acquisition of the entire Study Area,
as not all property owners will want to sell, and this magnitude of funds, at least at the higher
end of the range, is not likely to be raised. Therefore, some combination of land use regulation,
compensatory regulation, and acquisition will be required.
31
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES BY
SUBAREA
The land in the Study Area can be described according to the degree of physical cOnstraints to
development, such as existing rural residential uses or steep slopes, and the resource values for
recreation, scenic view shed, or community-separator and greenbelt. Based on these criteria
there are two significant subareas within the Study Area: (1) the area located between the
Dublin City limits and Skyline Ridge (the Eastern Zone); and (2) the area located between Eden
Canyon Road and Skyline Ridge (the Western Zone) as shown in Figure IV-1. The
development constraints and open space resources are described below for each subarea.
EASTERN ZONE
There are approximately 937 acres in the Eastern Zone. This zone is bounded on the west by a
major north-south scenic ridge, known as Skyline Ridge, on the east by the Dublin City limits,
on the north by Divide Ridge along the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and on the south
by Hansen Ranch, EBRPD open space, and Schaefer Ranch. The area is dominated by Skyline
Ridge, which runs from Donlan Point in the south and Divide Ridge in the north, and has
elevations up to 1,300 feet and two 1,000-foot foothills close to the Dublin City limits. In
between the ridge and the hills are areas of woodland and coastal scrub, and a significant
portion has slopes over 30 percent. Most of this Zone is used for cattle grazing and ranching
operations.
According to maps prepared for the Western Dublin Specific Plan, there are pockets of deep-
seated landslides that run in a northwestern direction stretching from an area somewhere south
of Brittany Lane towards Skyline Ridge. A portion of the area just south of Brittany Lane is
below the 770-foot elevation line and could theoretically be developed if City services were
extended from the City limits and development was sited to avoid the landslide areas and the
slopes exceeding 30 percent? The Eastern Zone, while having significant constraints to
development, is also the most accessible area with at least three Dublin City streets that stub
into it.
The proposed alignment for the Western Dublin Hills segment of the Calaveras Regional Trail
traverses the spine of Skyline Ridge in the Eastern Zone. Therefore, the Eastern Zone, which
includes the EBRPD property, offers the greatest opportunities for creating regional recreational
resources and linkages to existing local and regional parks. The Eastern Zone also serves as a
community separator between Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley, and if preserved would
create a permanent greenbelt on the western edge of the City. This area is most visible from the
western Dublin neighborhoods and would be most affected if a portion of the Eastern Zone
were developed.
38 Assumes the 770-foot elevation cap in the Eastern Extended Planning Area (PA 98-029) applies to the two
subareas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
32
9232rptl.doc
Appendix A
Lnndownors In (ho Wostor, Dublin F. xlonded Pfmmlng Arch
West Dublin Open Space Preaarvntlon Sirn tegy
Sales
No. APt~ Owner Name Acres Date
Sales
Price
Price/ Assessed Value
Acre Land SlUg Total
Wllllemson Bldg. Year
Act Sqfb BIL
3. O66A-2201-017-1 Broiling, Lemoyne [1) 05.10 Pre 1965
085A-1200.001.10 SaMltng, Lomoyna (1) 34.83 Pre 1966
12 941-0010-006.00 Cronln Helghls Mlleslona Partnership 176.81 10/04/88
lb. 0B§A-t900.OO3-OO Davllla Anthony H & Fields Russell A 10.75 12/04/81
la 065A-20OO-OOl-01 DaHlia Eden Canyon Family Pedtte/ea 597.80 08/21/94
2a 085A-2201-0O6.00 Davltla Eden Canyon Family Patina/es 30.00 06/21/94
2b, 085A-2300.002.00 Davllla Eden Canyon Family Partne/ea 160,00 06/2t/94
20 085A-2300.003ooo Davllla Eden Canyon Fmnily Partne/ea 247,20 08/21/94
2d, 085A. 1100-002-07 Davllla Eden Canyon Family Patina/aa 147,04 06/21/94
20 086A. 110t.003.02 Dav~lla Eden Canyon Family Patina/sa 40,38 06/21/94
1 Ic 941.0100.007-55 Dublin San Ramon Sen/ices Dlstdct 0,51 07/19/85
6a 085A.2400.001-04 East Bay Regional ~ark District 05.00 12/15/98
8b 085A.2400.001.O6 Easl Bay Regional Park District 14.00 12/16/96
8c 941-0010-003.02 East Bay Regional Park Dlshlct 13.00 12/15/96
ad 941-0010-003.01 East Bay Regional Park DIsfdc! 67.OO 12/15/98
3. 085A.2201-017-2 Eastwood, Joseph (1) 69.26 Pre 1965
3. O65A.2201-017-4 Eastwood, Josepl~ (1) 0.41 Pre 1965
085A-1200-OO2-OO Eastwood, Joseph 0.19 12/t 0/98
085A-1101-OOl-01 Eestwood, Joseph (t} 7.38 Pre 1965
086A. 12OO-OO1-1 f Ees~ood, Joseph (t} 12.68 Pro f965
9. 085A-2201-017-5 Loveland, Ray ti) 18.72 Pre 1966
085A-1150-001-05 Loveland, Ray 20.00 12/10/98
085A-1101-001-02 Loveland, Ray (1) 2.15 Pre 196§
O65A-1200.001-12 Lovelend, Ray (1) 51.42 Pro 1965
ga 085A-2400-001-07 Machado John (3 15,00 02/22/83
9b 085A-2400.001-05 Machado John (3 66.00 02/22/83
gc 941-0010-004-02 Machado John G 4,00 02/22/83
9d 941.0010-004-01 Machado John G 36,00 02/22/83
9s 941-0010-005.00 Machado John G 28.03 02/22/83
6a 085A-2300.004-00 Machado Manuel J 72,83 02/22/83
6b 085A-2400.001-03 Machado Manuel J 320.00 02/22/83
17 085A-1101-002;00 Mor~s Cordella/tr 22,96 08/0t/89
1 lc 941-0100-007.39 Nielsen Harold T and Nice, Robed 8.25 02/08/gg
1 lc 941-0100-O07-64 Nielsen Harold T and Nice, Robert 198.18 02/08/99
33 941.0100-007.59 Nielsen Harold T and Nice, Robed 3.00 02/08/99
11a 941-OO10-OOl-01 Nielsen Ranch Padnemhlp 49.00 08/26/95
11a 085A-18OO-OO2-02 Nielsen Rendt Padnarshlp 25.00 08/28/85
t ld 941-OOI 0-002.00 Nielsen Ranch Partnership 125.00 08/28/85
t If 941-0010-001.02 Nielsen Ranch Paflnershtp 13.00 08/28/85
1 lh 085A-1900.002-01 Nielsen Ranch Padnershfp 35,00 08/28/85
10 086A-2201-012-OO Vanvoorhls Thomas 82.11 05/01/97
7a. 085A-19OO-OOl-01 Wtedemsnn Jeffrey C & Nancy/Vtr 134.25 03/09/94
7b. 065A-1800-001-02 Wledemann Jelfray C & Nancy Mr 10.00 03/09/94
Total
3, t0f.29
$277,400
$277,400
$277,400
$279,5OO
$279,500
$279,500
$279,5OO
$279,5O0
$0 $144,463 $0
$190,395 $50,000
$0 $703,0O0 $0
$0 $10,248 $0
$o $635,892 $gl,367
$o $51,204 $o
$0 $213.441 $4.108
$0 $277,781 $425
$0 $111,200 $0
$0 $31,660 $0
$0 $2,462 $0
$0. $0
$o $o $0
$o $o $o
$0 $0 $0
$0 $153,537 $0
$0 $912 $0
$0 $399 $o
$t 8,oo6 $o
$2LOO§ $0
$0 $41,508 ,$0
$o $49,00O $1,ooo
$5.235 $o
$195,732 $16,oo0
$0 $26,592 $0
$0 $126,8o6 $0
$o $7,025 $o
$o $68,622 $o
$o $49,56o $o
$0 $0,202 $0
$0 $27,252 $31,724
$0 $37,692 $25,330
$708 $24.916 $0
$708 $261,411 $0
$708 $1,905 $0
$1,364 $87,982 $0
$1,304 $35.822 $0
$t,364 $224,443 $0
$1,364 $23,342 $0
$1,364 $51,574 $0
$0 $76,948 $0
$0 $11,603 $0
$0 $846 $0
$4,015,362 $221,960
$144 463
$240 395
$703 000
$10 246
$727 259
$51 204
$217 549
$278 2o6
$111 20o
$31 660
$2,462
$0
$0
$0
$0
$153,537
$912
$399
$18,005
$27,o66
$4 1,508
$60,0OO
$5,236
$213.732
$26,692
$125,806
$7,629
$68,622
$49,560
$6,202
$58,976
$63,028
$24,916
$261,411
$1,905
$67,962
$35,822
$224,443
$23,342
$51,574
$70,948
$11,683
$846
$4,237.322
Yes
Yes
2,262 1916
2,236 1920
791 1924
1,356
1,265
(1) Parcels split In 1999 according to the Alameda Courtly Assessor.
Sources: First Amedcan Real Estate Solutions; City of Dublin Planning Oepartmenl; Alameda Counl~' Assessors O~flce;
Economic & Planning Systems, inc,
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
WESTERN ZONE
There are approximately 2,164 acres in the Western Zone, which is bounded on the west by
Eden Canyon Road, on the east by Skyline Ridge, on the north by Divide Ridge and the
Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and on the south by Schaefer Ranch and the 1-580
Corridor. Divide Ridge, with elevations up to 1,600 feet, forms a scenic backdrop to the Study
Area from which one can see views of Tassajara Valley and Mount Diablo to the east and views
of the Western Dublin Hills and Pleasanton Ridge to the west and south.
The Western Zone is characterized by the rolling Palomares Hills and woodland and coastal
scrub in Eden Canyon, bordering on the 1-580 corridor, and in a central core area. Eden Creek
runs at the bottom of Eden Canyon. Oak Ridge, which has elevations up to 1,000 feet, runs
north-south from the 1-580 corridor to Divide Ridge and forms the eastern side of Eden Canyon.
There are a few existing rural residential properties in the southwest comer of this Zone. The
remainder of the Western Zone has steep slopes over 30 percent, several deep-seated
landslides, patches of woodland and coastal scrub, and a few canyons under the 770-foot
elevation line. A significant portion of this Zone is used for cattle grazing and ranching
operations. Approximately 537 acres, consisting of two separate ownerships, are under
Williamson Act contracts.
The Western Zone has limited access to City services, except potentially for those properties
bordering on Schaefer Ranch, which is the City limit on the southern boundary of the Zone.
The Western Zone is oriented more towards Castro Valley than towards Dublin, since schools
and other urban services are provided by the unincorporated community of Castro Valley.
While access could be gained from Eden Canyon Road, there is unincorporated land on either
side, and therefore extension of backbone infrastructure would be expensive and inefficient.
PRESERVATION STRATEGY MATRIX
The open space preservation goals identified for the Study Area by the City can be
implemented through application of regulatory and acquisition techniques. While many
variations of such a program are possible, a conceptual implementation strategy has been
developed for each of the three subareas by resource type. This strategy can serve as a basis for
developing and implementing a preservation program for the Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area. A narrative summary of the recommendations was presented in Chapter 1.
Table IV-1 provides a detailed description of the strategy, linking specific preservation options
discussed in this report to the unique open space resources found in each of the sub-areas, as
described above.
34
9232rpt1.doc
Table IV-1
Open Space PreservaUon Strategies and Cost Allocation and Funding
West Dublln Open Space Preservation Study
Subarea/Open
Space Strategy
Implementation Strategy
Assumed
Cost
Financing
Mechanism
Distribution o! Costs
All Dublin New Dublin Re¢onat/
Residents Development Other
CIt~wlde
Eastern Zone
Internal Transler of Development
Credit [TDC) Program
$0
Dedication for
Increased Density
Bo nus.
n/a n/a Na
Ridge Topes & Slopes >30%
Prohibit development on slopes >30%,
& ridge tops (sender areas) maintain base
zoning (I,e,, minimum tot size 100 acres),
Require dedication ol conservation easements
over areas above 770 elevation line,
Require dedication of trail easements to link
with regional trail on Skyline Ridge,
Canyon Floors below 770 feet (1)
Allow limited residential development
(assuming a mln. lot size of 0.25 acres)
below 770 foot elevation line providing building
sites avoid steep slopes & landslide
areas (receiver areas), Employ design
stanclards te ltmlt visual impact on ~dlacent
neighborhoods,
$0
TDC n/a n/a nla
Regional Open Space Preserve
Fee acquisition o1150 acres to complete the
EBRPD's proposed Regional Preserve in the
Western Dublin Hills Open Space
150
$900,000 (2)
Grants/State Bonds/ 25%
Local special tax/ $225,000
In-lieu developer fees
25% 50%
$225,000 $450,000
Regional Trails
Visual Bufier
Acquire trail easements to complete
regional tmtl llnk~ges as described
In tile EBRPD 1997 Master Plan.
Protect views from Sky[ ne Ridge by providing
adequate bulters,
1.5
$1,5oo (3)
$0
Grants/State Bonds/ 25%
Local special tax/ $375
In-lieu developer fees
25% 50%
$375 $750
n/a n/a n/a
H:t9232dubl~atatstrategyoxt$
Table IV-1
Open Space Preservation Strategies,and Cost Allocation and Funding
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Study
Subarea/Open
Space Strategy
Implementation Strategy
Acre
Assumed
Cost
Financing
Mecha nism
Distribution of Costs
All Dublin NewDublln Regional/
Res[dents Development Other
Cltywlde
Western Zone
Total Cost; Percentage
Remove from City Sphere ct In[luence (SOl)
$0
n/a n/a n/a
100%
25% 25% 50%
Total Cost= Amount
$901,500
$225,375 $225,375 $450,750
1] Assumes the elevation oep In the Eastern Zone and Western Zone Is 770-feet, slmllar to the elevation cap (PA 98-029, Resolution 114-98] In the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
2) Assumes an average land cost of about 6,000 per acre,
3] Assumes a 20-loot wide access easement totaling 1.5 acres will be acquired lot the EBRPD reglonal trails Ior $1,000 per acre.
Sources: City ol Dublin, East Bay Regional Park District [,EBRPD), Economic & Planning Systems, lac,
Economic & Ptflnning Systems, lac, 5/4/t)0
H:Lg232dub~ldatats~rategy. xls
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
V. LEGAL VALIDATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The preservation strategy presented in this report must be thoroughly investigated by the City
Attorney as to its legality. Should the City Council decide to pursue open space preservation in
the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, any specific approach will be evaluated in detail.
37
9232rpt1.doc
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Study Workshop Minutes
February 3, 2000
Staff Members Present: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Ciretli, Senior
Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 7:20 by Mr. Peabody. He 'asked every'one to introduce
themselves.
Ms. Cirelli welcomed everyone. She introduced the consultant team hired by the CiD' to prepare
the open space preservation study. Walter Kieser, Managing Principal of Economic and
Planning Systems; Sonia Jacques, Vice President; and Jeannie Young, Research Assistant. She
stated that she ~vould first talk about the origin and purpose of the study. The consultant team
x~.5tl discuss the various topics being studied, and at the end of the meeting there wilI be a
question and answer per/od. As part of the City's goals and objectives the City Council directed
Staff to prepare a Western Extended Planning P~rea Open Space Preservation Study. The
pm-pose of study is to examine the variofis open space presentation options for the area beyond
the existing City limits out to Eden Canyon Road. Based on the study, Staff will prepare a report
with all the viable and feasible techniques for preserving open space and to compensate the
current landowners. The consukant will describe the possible techniques, which include transfer
of development rights and purchasing of conservation easements. The Council's decision to
proceed w/th the study came from the discussions at the Dublin Ridgeland Voter's Voice
in.iriative Committee meetings held in 1998. This open space study Mil Serve as a backg-round
information for the City Council when considering the Western Extended Planning Area General
Plan Amendment Study. She stated that th/s General Plan Amendment study will consider
esrablishing an Urban Limit Line along the current City limits in the Western Extended Planning
Area pending the vote on the Urban Limit Line Initiative that will be placed on the November
2000 ballot_ The study will also determine appropriate land uses and general plan designation
for properties within the Western Extended Planning Area. She stated that the consultants will
now present the different topics that will be studied.
Ms. Nielsen asked the time frame for the General Plan Amendment study.
Ms. Cirelli said Staff is currently working on k and trying to have it completed by the'end of
summer. She stated that it will depend on when the Council wants to bring it to public, it may be
early fall.
Ms. Nielsen asked if it would be before the election.
Ms. Cirelli responded yes.
Walter K_ieser, Consultant, stated that they will be giving a brief presentation. The purpose of
the study is to explore some of the tools that the City will have available for preserving open
space and the associated costs. The area being studied is approximately 3,500 acres located in
the West Dublin Ex'tended Planning area. He stated that from an economic standpoint, their firm
G: minuter~2000/west dublin open space preservation study workshop minutes
ATTAC HPlENT
Mil treat the open space as an integral part of the urban area and as an economic benefit to the
community. They will establish the costs of the program and who will pay thosd costs. They will
also determine how those funds will be collected and disbursed and who will manage the open
space.
Sonia Jacques, Consultant, stated there are a series of options that range from land use
regulations to out tight purchase of the land. The City currently has land use regulations in
place, but the zoning can be changed. To protect the land forever is to buy it and put it in the
hands of a public agency. She stated that one method commonly used is the purchase of
development rights from the landowners. There is the option of transferring development
credits, .which is transferring the development tights from an area that will not be developed to
an area that can support additional development. The final option is the outright purchase of the
land. She discussed the potential funding sources, which are local funding, regional funding,
state funding, or federal funding. Local funding involves in lieu fees paid on new development
in Dublin; or existing residents could be assessed with an annual mx. Regional funding could
come from sources such as the East Bay Regional Parks District, or a countywide sales tax.
With state funding the City would, be competing with all the other open space projects within the
state.. On the positive side, there may be state funding through Proposition t2 that will be on the
March ballot, which if passed, would provide 826.5 million for local afid~egi°'nal parks. She
.stated that federal fundin_o covers land and water conservation:~hich~C0n~ess has fully funded
40 million nationwide. S-he said they would 'like to hear[Te~dbi~i fr~)m the community on the
following issues: What are the open space resource v'alUfiS!:i~;~e Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area? How should these resources be managed: For view sheds from 1-580 corridor
and backdrop to the City? For habitat protection? For agricultural protection? For recreation
such as hiking and tiding trails? How do these open space resources link to other resources in
the region? Who would most benefit from permanent preservation of this area? Who should pay
for the permanent preservation of these open space resources? Who should manage this open
space resource in perpetui~?
Ms. Cire!Ii asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Morgan King asked what is the open space resource value.
Mr. Peabody stated that Staff is looking for comments on this study. Staff will prepare a report
for the City Council with viable options on open space. The next workshop will cover some of
the options in more detail.
Marjorie LaBar stated that there are projects in the west side that are in existence or under
construction. She is concerned that the protection of their view shed on the west side be a
manageable existing piece of property and to work around those existing projects.
Mr. King asked how Pleasanton preserved the foothills for open space.
Linda Chavez, East Bay Re~onal Parks District responded that the District has had a regional
trail planned. Their recent Master Plan includes a Dublin Hills open space designation for the
area. She stated that there will be designated open space from the Schaefer Ranch project.
There are possible connections underneath Schaefer Ranch Road that will eventually connect to
Pleasanton Ridge.
Ms. Jacques stated that there is a mitigation bank connected to Schaefer Ranch because they
needed to have habitat credits. There was an endangered species that was found on the property
and they acquired a large portion of land.
Mr. Bewiey asked if the area on Schaefer Ranch was allowed development if they purchased an
open space area in Pleasanton.
Ms. Chavez stated that in the Schaefer Ranch development area the), found red legged frogs after
the project was approved. The Schaefer Ranch development purchased some open space land in
Pleasanton to preserve the habitat of the red legged frog.
A member of the meeting stated that he has heard Marjorie LaBar state she Wants to preserve
%ur" view shed. He feels that she should not say "our" view shed because that open space land
has private owners. He was concerned with the philosophy of open space being treated the same
as other infrastructure and community facilities such as schools and roads.
Ivlr. Kieser stated they make that point because they consider it a community investment and
because open space .has economic value to the urban fabric of the City.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council will decide the value of open space. This study will
provide information on the different options available. The objective is to identify how the City
will treat open space and how it Will be valued.
Mr. Fields stated that the study should include residential development as part of the philosophy
because that property has the value to build homes on it. The boundary was originally created
for development.
A member of the meeting asked why a General Plan-Amendment study is being done if the West
Dublin Open Space Preservation study includes the 3,500 acres.
Mr. Peabody said that establishing open space is different than establishing a land use policy for
the western extended planning area. The City Council directed Staffto do a General Plan
Amendment study to identify the land use plan and identify the necessary policies for the area.
A member of the meeting stated that by including the 3,500 acres of open space there isn't
an,whing to mitigate against. He asked what would be included in the mitigation if there isn't a
value or area defmed.
Ms. LaBar stated that the West Dublin Open Space has value being open space. She stated that
there are many residents that feel the responsibility to compensate the landowners for that value.
Roxarme Nielsen stated she would tike the fair market value determined for the area. She
explained that each parcel of land has different circumstances and should be considered in the
study.
Mr. King stated that the residents are aware that there are property owners for the West Dublin
Open Space area. He explained that he would like to see both sides win in the situation.
Currently the landowners do not have any development rights. The property is zoned agriculture
and Alameda County has a greenbelt alliance for the area. He stated that the City might want to
preserve this area for open space and establish the type of benefit the public would get from it.
He would like to see a win-win situation for the property owners and the Dublin residents.
A member of the meeting said he isn't hearing any friendly solutions. He feels that the residents
of Dublin are trying to control land that does not belong to them.
Mr. Fields asked the price that East Bay Regional Parks District paid for agricultural land.
Ms. Cirelti stated that it was $2,500 per acre.
A member of the meeting stated that 2 wee-ks ago East Bay Regional Parks District paid
$400,000 for 60 acres west of Foothill Road in Pleasanton.
Ms. Chavez stated that when the District purchases land, the land is appraised and negotiated
be~,een the Parks District and the landowner.
A member of the meeting asked if the City will review the different mechanisms to preserve the
open space as well as the land value if development occurred.
Mr. Peabody said the objective of the study is to establish the most practical and usable method
to preserve open space.
Ms. Jacques stated that their plan is to accumulate a range of preservation strategies.
A member of the meeting asked if the plan for Tassajara Road development in East Dublin has
been determined.
Ms. Cirelti stated portions of land around Tassajara Road are currently being developed.
Morgan King said that the most feasible solution would be a recreational type land use for the
area.
Tom Ford said there is the option of land trust, wtfich allows the landowner to stay on the land
and receive financial outcome from it. He read the following "conservation easements have
become more widely used by ranchers and farmers in California, but some confusion remains
about what conservation easement is. In recoomeition of this confusion, the California Rain Plan
Trust has prepared a document to help landowners work through conservation easement. A
conservation easement are tailored to fit a land owners individual situation and the terms of the
easement are established only at the detailed discussion between the landowner and California
Rain Plan Trust. The landowners continue to have complete control of the public access of the
property." He stated that this type of situation may work for Dublin.
Ms. Nielsen stated the property owners are very familiar with the land trust but that it does not
work for everyone.
A property owner stated that there is approximately 2,700 acres that can't be seen and shouldn't
be considered a "view shed."
Bud Nielsen asked if the study will determine whether this is a proper place to preserve open
space.
Ms. Jacques responded no; that question is not part of this study.
Ms. Nielsen said the General Plan-./Xznendment Study would address that.
A member of the meeting stated that part of the study should look at other infrastructure as a link
to this open space area.
Mr. Fields would like the study to include the buildabte areas within the 3,500 acres. The high
peaks, view areas and hi ~king areas should be mitigated.
A developer stated that they do feasibility studies, put in all the infrastruc~e, and then they add
them up to see if it is affordable; it is not the same as preserving 3,500 acres of open space.
Ms. Nielsen stated that she would like the General Plan Amendment study done in conjunction
wdth this study.
.Mr. Peabody stated that Sta~'is work_ing three issues; the question of preservin_q open space,
policies for General Plan Amendments, and the election in November which will help de~ernfine
the outcome of the West Dublin Open Space.
A member of the meeting stated that the City should go to LAFCO and have the land taken out
of Dublin's Sphere of Influence.
lvlr. Peabody stated that there would be another study workshop in approximately one month.
He smd that Staffwould have concrete suggestions to discuss.
The following issues were taken from tlteJTip chart at the meeting:
1. Linking other resources, large enough area, operating expenses, and large contiguous
parcels. ·
To use the open space area for passive recreation.
7.
&
lt~.
I1.
12.
What is the habitat value, and the ridgeline view- (EBRPD)
Mitigation banking
What is the property value for residential development?
"Map" viewshed and "developable areas"
"Willing Sellers" do not want to see a "cookie cutter" approach.
Little "ag" value
What is fair market value for the land?
Housing shortage
"Government Entity" as "partner" could be problem (re: conservation easements)
Polling- valuable
WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION STUDY
MEETING MINUTES
May 10, 2000 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Staff members present: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Walter Kieser, Managing
Principal, Economic & Planning Systems; Jeannie Young, Research Assistant, Economic & Planning
Systems and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary.
Mr. Peabody called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He welcomed everyone and once again introduced
himself and Walter Kieser, City hired Consultant for the open space preservation study.
Mr. Peabody explained extra copies of the draft report and minutes of the previous meeting were available
for everyone. He requested everyone present to sign their names along with their addresses on the sign-up
sheet in order to continue receiving agenda notices.
Mr. Peabody briefly talked about the procedure and explained that Mr. Kieser would be giving a visual
presentation about the various options mentioned in the draft report. He reminded everyone that it was
the City Council's direction to prepare a report with options for a possibility of open space in the Western
Dublin Extended Planning Area. The purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the Initiative but asked
everyone to focus on the options listed in the report. The purpose was to obtain comments from all the
members present in the meeting and forward the report with the requested changes to the City Council.
Mr. Peabody informed that minutes of the meeting would be prepared and distributed.
Waiter Kieser explained that the draft report was based on the comments, thoughts and suggestions given
by the members present during the February 3, 2000 meeting. Mr. Kieser gave a presentation of the
options listed in the report.
A member in the audience asked Mr. Kieser to show on the map where the dividing line was located?
Mr. Kieser answered that it was along the axis of the Regional trail.
Ms. Nielsen asked when the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve was done?
Mr. Kieser answered that it was just a plan.
Ms. Nielsen asked when was the plan formulated? A member in the audience answered that the Dublin
Master Plan indicated that a Dublin Hills Open Space Plan was done in 1997. The trail in the area had
been shown. Mr. Kieser stated that the Dublin Hills Open Space Plan was in the master plan and was
related to the trail. The trail itself would transect the area that would be part of the preserve. However, he
stated, there was no precise boundary defined. The District had obtained a number of parcels in that area.
Therefore this was not a defined area.
Mr. Kieser explained that the recommendations in the report were conditioned by the principles such as
cost, what was fair and equitable, how complex it was and whether or not the plan was sustainable. He
stated that the tools available for approaching this project were:
Land Use regulations
Compensible Regulation
Outright Purchase
/ ' ' ACHMENT
Mr. Kieser stated that the above points had been elaborated in the draft report.
various sources of funding available to the City that included the following:
He stated that there were
1. Local Funding
2. Regional Funding
3. State Funding
4. Federal Funding
Marie Cronin asked if the overheads were included in the report. Mr. Kieser affirmed that the overheads
were a repeat of the report.
Mr. Kieser stated that the last overhead offered a strategy based on the site characteristics, cost, available
funding and available tools. The first strategy suggested that the Western area should be detached from
'the Sphere of Influence, since the area was remote and difficult to access. Mr. Kieser stated that the
western area should be left to the Alameda County and its policies to regulate any development in the
future.
A member in the audience asked if there was a map indicating where the line is?
Mr. Kieser said that there was a map in the report that showed the line.
A member in the audience asked if there were restrictions on Alameda County to develop below the
ridgeline.
Mr. Kieser stated although the land was currently in the City's Sphere of Influence, the land use policy
was regulated by County & County Zoning Ordinance.
Marie Cronin asked if the City would be recommending to LAFCO in addition to the City Council to
remove that part of the land from the Sphere of Influence.
Mr. Kieser stated it would be done "via an amendment processed through LAFCO". He further explained
that the Sphere of Influence was a policy adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission and only
they could change it. To change the sphere, the City would have to make an application to that regional
agency and the regional agency in its wisdom would either agree or disagree.
Ms. Nielsen asked the landowners who would be removed from the Sphere of Influence, would it be
detrimental to them.
Mr. Kieser indicated that based on the location of the area it was unlikely that the City could provide
services to the area.
Ms. Nielsen asked if the area didn't receive services from the City, what agency would be responsible for
providing services to that area.
Mr. Kieser said that the area would go back to the County and if services were to be provided, it would be
through Eden Canyon.
Ms. Nielsen asked if the landowners consent was required for removing the area from the Sphere. Mr.
Kieser answered in the negative. Mr. Kieser further explained that the Sphere of Influence was a policy
adopted by LAFCO based on the recommendations by City or County. Since the Open Space was not an
annexation there would be no protest proceedings.
David Bewley asked in what respect would the Initiative be more difficult.
Mr. Kieser stated that a proposed project in that area would require providing water services over the hill,
which was expensive in itself. Additionally, it involved financial hurdles along with constructing roads to
access the area. Mr. Kieser further stated that in addition to the above it would require a ballot to allow
these services.
Marie Cronin asked if the area east of the line was within the Sphere of Influence. Mr. Kieser said that it
was correct. Ms. Cronin asked if that line was the urban limit line or could that land be developed. Mr.
Kieser stated it could be developed provided it was annexed and the development application was voted
on.
David Bewley summarized that the Initiative made no procedural changes to the existing development
process other than the vote. Mr. Bewley asked if there would be any addition or subtraction of policies or
services from the City's Sphere of Influence as a result of the Initiative. Mr. Kieser said that it was his
understanding that no development application would be accepted or no changes to the terms of Initiative
would be accepted without a positive vote.
Mr. Peabody requested the members to reserve questions or clarifications until Mr. Kieser had completely
explained the eastern zone in further detail.
Explaining the Eastern Zone, Mr. Kieser said that given the fact that some of the remaining areas in
Eastern Zone had steep slopes in addition to dealing with endangered species, a Transfer of Development
Credits Program could be entertained in the area whereby it spreads around the value. In other words it
compensated a larger area for the benefits of development in a smaller area. Mr. Kieser stated that there
were areas in the Eastern Zone that would be suitable for this type of program.
The second option to consider would be to collaborate with East Bay Regional Park District in creating
the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve and to do fee acquisitions using City available funding
resources. After acquiring some of the land in the Eastern Zone suitable for Transfer of Credits, the City
would grant the land to the District as a part of that preserve concept.
Mr. Kieser stated that the Eastern Zone had to additionally deal with the scenic ridgeline issue. Through
the report, Mr. Kieser said, they have attempted to value some of these acquisitions. He reiterated that
once the report was adopted and a formal policy was formulated under the City Council's direction, a
careful assessment would be done to put a price tag either for the administrative work involved in setting
up for the Transfer of Development Credits Program or the aforementioned acquisitions.
A member in the audience asked what was ground zero for the 770-ft elevation and was there any
document that photographically showed where would that cut across the dividing line.
Mr. Kieser said it was basically from the sea level and there were documents that show the exact location.
Mr. Peabody indicated that staff could show maps that indicate the location.
Mr. Kieser stated that the 770-ft. elevation was based on the water delivery service. He said that beyond
that elevation, there was no water service because of the way tanks and pumping were configured. In
addition to being an engineering limit, it was also related to visual exposure.
Tom Ford asked why would the landowners in that area want out of the Sphere of Influence because
under the Open Space Initiative the County is out of the development business.
Mr. Peabody asked if he was talking about Save Agriculture and Open Space Initiative?
Mr. Ford replied he was.
Mr. Peabody said that the Council directed staff to find out a viable program if the City were to get
involved in the Open Space business. It could be effected by the Countywide Initiative although the
Countywide Initiative did not talk about annexation to the City. The purpose of Mr. Kieser's presentation
was to seek suggestions on how to proceed with the open space preservation. It may fit in with one or
more programs that were going on.
Mr. Kieser said that the purpose behind the detachment from the sphere was not to spend financial
resources over a ridgeline in an area where the City may not have a development interest. It was a matter
of being effective in a smaller area rather than deluding effectiveness in a larger area.
Mr. Peabody asked the members if they had any questions relating to the report.
Mr. King stated that the plan looked in some ways like an elaborate version of what the City Council
considered to be an urban opportunity area. There were some residents in Dublin who felt that there
should be no development at all in the Western Extended Planning Area. He suggested that an option that
the entire area should be off limits to development and a suggestion on how that would handle cost should
be included in the report.
Ms. Nielsen further suggested to include in the cost the highest and fair market value to the owner.
Mr. Peabody asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Bewley stated it was his understanding that the entire extended planning area had been divided into
the eastern and western zone and the strategies mentioned related to the Eastern Zone. Since the western
zone fell under Alameda County Sphere of Influence and the current land use policy for the area was
agriculture, would the strategies for that area be discussed later?
Mr. Kieser stated that he had already alluded to it, but he would repeat to make it clear. He said like any
other Sphere of Influence area, the County would regulate land use policy for that area, until a proposal
for annexation was presented. This was generally associated with a development application and the City
would then pre-zone the land and the policy that the City would want would become a part of that
annexation proposal. The annexation proposal could be all of that area or part of it. Therefore, there was
no current land use policy since the City did not own it.
Mr. Bewley asked if this related to the western zone.
Mr. Kieser said this related to the Eastern Zone since it was still not part of the City.
Mr. Kieser stated that the draft was a technical input for the City Council's consideration of a policy. As
long as the area was under the County it would be governed by the County's land use policy.
Mr. Bewley suggested that when the options were presented to the Council, the Open Space Study should
have validity in both options and must be incorporated in both options.
Mr. Peabody asked if anyone had any other questions.
Marie Cronin asked what was the highest elevation in the Schaefer project.
Mr. Peabody said that some areas were in excess of 800-ft or even closer to 900-ft.
Morgan King asked what was the rationale behind disconnecting the western zone from the Sphere of
Influence. Was it because the feasibility of development was not very good?
Mr. Kieser stated that there were several considerations. One of the reasons was that the feasibility of
development was challenged by access, service access, and elevations.
Mr. King suggested an alternative option whereby the entire area would be brought into a plan by the City
of Dublin called Dublin Wilderness Park and to leave it as a preserve. A paragraph in the report should
state additional cost involved in doing this.
A member in the audience sought clarification about annexation. The area that would be in the Sphere of
Influence and would be declared open space, would that area be annexed so that the City had the
jurisdiction of the area. Additionally, the report suggested that the City had the right to decide what was
going to be done with the land although technically the land would be under the County's authority. "Are
you going to annex the land whereby you have the right to zone the land as residential or how does it
work?'.
Mr. Kieser said that it could be either way. The City, he stated, would adopt General Plan policy whether
it was annexed or not. Cities could often establish land use plans for their Sphere of Influence.
The member asked if the Sphere of Influence would stay there forever.
Mr. Kieser said that it could or alternatively the City could annex the area following LAFCO procedures
and as was discussed earlier impose "open space type zoning".
The member felt that the purpose of the Sphere was to extend urban services sometime in the future or to
determine whether this land was suitable for urban development or to extend urban services.
Mr. Kieser said that was generally the case. One of the reasons for detaching that area to the west from the
Sphere was for that very reason.
The member asked what about the east. On one hand there was the open space area and on the other there
were areas that would not have urban services. Why would it stay in the Sphere?
Mr. Kieser said that it would be in the Sphere because under this proposal the City would have the area in
the open space business. The City would have that area in its Sphere whether it was annexed or not. The
City would have a policy in place to preserve the better part of the area in open space. He said that they
recommended a TDC type system to allow some development in that area as part of that preservation,
although there were other options such as outright purchase. The idea was to have this area within the
City's Sphere and/or in City limit. There were many examples of cities that had acquired and regulated
land for open space uses within City limits. Therefore, he said, although it was right to assume that a
Sphere was normally under LAFCO rules and as an area where services would be extended, it was not
necessarily the case. It could be either way.
Mr. Bewley stated that it was his understanding during the initial discussions in February that some of the
owners in the western zone had requested not to be included in Dublin's Sphere of Influence. He asked if
that was still the case.
Mr. Kieser said that one of the things that influenced them was that comment.
A member in the audience asked what was the consideration for moving the north-south line to further
west to stop development on the top of the ridgeline. He suggested moving the line further west or if it
could be moved below the ridgeline so that the development did not sit on top of it.
Morgan King joined in and said that it could be a third option. He suggested a first option could be to
have the plan as it had been laid out. The second option could be to have the entire western extended
planning area in the Dublin Wilderness plan. The third option would be to move the line further west in
order to provide more space for City recreational open space planning.
Mr. Peabody said that the boundary was used as a mechanism to divide things physically.
Ms. Nielsen asked if the ridges were protected by General Plan.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council did not adopt any plan. The elevation was used for water
service.
Ms. Nielsen stated that the General Plan had elevation.
Mr. Peabody said it was correct but there were no policies or land use designations for western Dublin.
Ms. Nielsen stated the County policy dictated no development on the ridgeline. Ms. Nielsen further stated
that they had sent a letter to rescind the formal request until they could further study the issue of release of
Sphere of Influence. She said that they didn't want to do anything that was detrimental to the landowners.
Marie Cronin asked if Dublin wanted to be in the open space business. If that was the case, she felt
Dublin should be able to purchase the land to create open space. The City of Dublin should set a price,
open escrow and put in money by a certain date. She felt that to create high ideas without a way of
implementing them, the open space program didn't have any validity.
Mr. Kieser stated that they were proposing her suggestion. They would like to put a price tag and put a
program together that generated enough resources to accomplish the acquisitions suggested by Ms.
Cronin either throUgh fee acquisitions, conservation easements and/or compensible regulation. They feel
that the eastern area could be acquired and compensated in a way that was fair, reasonable and affordable
over time.
Morgan King asked Mr. Kieser for a couple of promising ways in which money could be generated from
the different financial options available.
Mr. Kieser stated that their principle was to have a diverse outlook in this regard especially from the
benefits standpoint. Typically the state and federal monies were attracted when there were some local
funding sources, such as impact fee on development throughout the City or to make park and recreation
purchases. He said that this kind of funding had been used previously and had worked well. Additionally,
the voters would be asked to support general obligation bond.
Mr. King wanted an example of this kind of funding.
Mr. Kieser said that Sonoma County passed a quarter cent sales tax that generates $8,000,000 a year and
which funds its open space district. There were other examples of this kind of funding sources.
Ms. Nielsen said that it was good that different funding sources were being looked at and if the price was
right there were owners who were willing to sell.
A member in the audience asked if the report stated not all property owners wanted to sell and if they did,
it would depend on the price. He felt that if the land went to open space it should not matter which end it
was in because the price would be equal. He said if the public wanted open space it would not be cheap.
"Why wouM it be any cheaper than if somebody wanted to develop residential units there. It should be as
expensive or more."
Mr. Kieser stated that normally the funds were not instantly available. It would accrue and grow over
time.
Karen Sweet from Vision 2010 project wanted to know if Dublin included agricultural vitality element in
its open space planning.
Mr. Peabody stated that she was referring to a possibility of a long-term agriculture area.
Ms. Sweet wanted to know if Dublin was separating agriculture from open space.
Mr. Peabody stated that in this case they were separating it since it was a local issue.
A member in the audience stated that this hearing did not necessarily have to be a heavy planned unit
development. They could be zoned into rural mini farms. He felt that there were other alternatives to
consider other than open space.
Mr. Kieser stated that the recommendations in the report on the planned unit district were consistent to
some extent with the member's comment. The area would be divided into development envelopes.
Mr. Peabody stated that on the Eastern Zone there were specific policies that related to preservation
ridgelines, steep slopes and there were vast areas in the east that were rural residential. The main reason
for this was that the majority of the area was very steep, had some environmental issues related to it, very
difficult to access but conceivably there could be a few houses there.
Mr. Bewley asked if the open space study precluded analysis of large tracts.
Mr. Peabody said it did not.
Margaret Tracy wanted to know why was 30% chosen as the slope criteria.
Mr. Peabody said it was a City adopted policy that areas over 30% slope had to be preserved in their
natural state.
A member in the audience stated that the City should fund another study for the landowners in addition to
the open space.
Ms. Nielsen asked if the price for a 20-ft. wide easement trail was $1500 per 1.5 acres, how long would
the easement be.
Mr. Kieser stated that it would be approximately one mile.
Ms. Nielsen asked when an agreement with the landowners was reached how long would it take for them
to receive funds.
Mr. Kieser said that it would depend on the transaction.
Ms. Nielsen asked of the 937 acres in the Eastern Zone how many acres were below the 770-ft. elevation.
Mr. Peabody said that staff could find that information for her.
Ms. Nielsen asked if a developer agreed to the TDC program, would it be correct to assume that he was
basically burying the cost of PrOviding the open space by the mitigation to do that plan.
Mr. Kieser stated that was correct.
Ms. Nielsen asked would that exempt him from the citizen approval that this Initiative has.
Mr. Kieser stated no.
Ms. Nielsen stated that one of the greatest fears of a landowner with agricultural land was the lack of
viability for the land and no economic return for the development.
Mr. Peabody stated the next plan of action would be to put the notes together from the meeting, answer as
many questions as possible that were raised and put them as addendum's to the report. The report would
be forwarded to the City Council in the end of June. He then thanked everyone for attending the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
The following points were taken down from the overhead slide in the meeting:
Open Space Preservation Strategy
Western Zone: Exclude from the City's SOI via an amendment processed through LAFCO
Eastern Zone: Establish a planned district zone restricting development on ridgelines and steep
sloping areas. Define a residential development area below the 770-foot elevation
subject to strict design standards. Apply a Transfer of Development Credits
Program to distribute value.
Collaborate with EBRPD in creation of the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional
Preserve, including acquisitions of approximately 150 acres of land and trail
easements.
Ensure that scenic ridgelines are preserved, either through acquisition or TDC
program.