HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 UrbanOpptyPlanAmend
-'
\
.
.
.
. CITY C"LERK
File # t1LJ[11[[I]-(!][Ql
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 19, 1998
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area - General
Plan Amendment C!20
(Report prepared by: Carol R. Cirelli. Senior Planner)
EXIDBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit 1:
Draft City Council Resolution Adopting P A 98-029
Urban Opportunity Area - General Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Resolution Recommending
City Council Adoption of P A 98-029 Urban
Opportunity Area - General Plan Amendment
April 28. 1998 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Letter from Gary Balsdon to the Planning
Commission dated April 27. 1998
Map depicting City streets and the Western Extended
Planning Area - Urban Opportunity Area
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
RECOMMENDATION: J 1.)
{WI 2.)
" 3.)
4.)
5.)
Open the public hearing.
Receive staff presentation and public testimony.
Question staff and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Approve P A 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area - General Plan
Amendment; or give staff direction and continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed staff to work on the Urban Opportunity Area - General Plan Amendment
project as a high priority project for this Fiscal year 1997/98. A properly noticed public hearing for this
project was held before the Planning Commission on April 14. 1998. Staff met the legal noticing
requirements for the project by advertising in the local newspaper; posting at 3 public places; and
notifying appropriate public agencies. Because there were some public concerns raised prior to the April
14th meeting. staff recommended a continuance of the public hearing to the next Planning Commission
meeting in order to give affected property owners and the general public an opportunity to comment on
- --.---'- - - --- -..........- - - - --- ---- - - - - - ----- - -.......-- ---- - - - - -- ---
COPIES TO: In-House Distribution
ITEM NO. ----'J
g:\urbanoa\ccsr
':';~
the"project. Notices explaining the project and the public hearing process were serit out to all affected
property owners within the Eastern and Western Ex.1ended Planning Areas on April 14th.
1
After the April 14th Planning Commission meeting. staff received calls from several concerned
individuals and property owners. Staff met with some of these individuals and with the Dublin San
Ramon Services District Water Committee.
.
The second Planning Commission hearing for the project was held on April 28. 1998. At that meeting.
there were approximately 14 individuals who gave public testimony and all had major concerns with the
project. Some of their major concerns include:
. inadequate public notification
· Urban Opportunity Area maps should show more detailed and specific constraints. i.e..
contour lines; restrict development on 15% slopes instead of 30%; sensitive vegetation;
sensitive habitat; and stream corridors
· Urban Opportunity Area policies (policy Band C of Western Extended Planning Area) are
not specific enough
. no consideration of the Alameda County General Plan
· area shaded "Urban Opportunity Area" within the Western Extended Planning Area gives
"blessing." or "prior approval" to the area for future development
· no logic with serving Schaefer Ranch up to 1.000 feet and no other lands within the
Western Extended Planning Area that are above the 740 foot elevation
· Milestone property should be included within the Urban Opportunity Area
· Developers can pay for expanded water services beyond current water service elevations
Several individuals also requested that the project be continued to another future date until public .
concerns have been adequately addressed (see Exhibit 4. letter from Gary Balsdon).
DESCRIPTION:
Dublin General Plan
The City's General Plan includes guiding and implementing policies for two extended planning areas- the
Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Western Extended Planning Area. The extended planning areas
represent land outside the current city boundaries which bears relation to the City's planning and
represents the largest remaining area available for future development in Dublin.
The Eastern Extended Planning Area boundary was amended in 1994 with the adoption of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA). The Western Extended Planning Area. located along the north
side ofI-580 and west of the existing development in Dublin. follows the boundary of the City's western
sphere of influence line. The Dublin General Plan includes new policies for both extended planning areas
with the recent Schaefer Ranch GP A and Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment project approvals.
The implementing policies for residential development within the extended planning areas that are not
covered by the Eastern Dublin GP A or the Schaefer Ranch GP A state that "utilities and public safety
services will be provided at urban standards without fmancial burden to Dublin residents and businesses."
and "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands." .
2
.
The City continues to support these policies; however. the General Plan does not include a graphic
representation identifying areas where orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts to the
environment. or to public services and infrastructure. For this reason, the City is proposing an amendment
to the General Plan that identifies a geographic area of urban development potential within the Dublin city
limits and adopted sphere of influence. This area is referred to as the "Urban Opportunity Area." The
Urban Opportunity .Area identifies where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years.
The benefits of delineating areas of urban opportunity include ensuring the protection of visually sensitive
ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas. and ensuring that any new development requiring
urban levels of service within the extended planning areas occurs in a logical. orderly manner adjacent to
existing development.
Urban Opportunity Area Boundaries
The Urban Opportunity Area (UOA) boundary within the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area is the
770 foot elevation line. which is the highest serviceable elevation for water service within this area based
on the adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. and the Dublin San Ramon
Services District's Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan dated June. 1997.
Almost all ofthe development areas within the UOA are within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Several smaller areas (north near the Contra Costa County line and east of Croak Road) are outside the
adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, but within the City's adopted sphere of influence as defined by
the Local Agency Formation Commission.
.
The UOA boundary within the Western Dublin Extended Planning .Area is the 740 foot elevation line.
Tbis boundary was chosen because development beyond this point would result in the expansion of water
service pressure zones. except for already approved projects; an increase in reservoir sizes beyond what
has been already constructed and/or approved; or major impacts to visual quality. biology, geology, traffic
and circulation. and areas which have slopes over 30 percent.
UOA - General Plan Amendment
The general plan amendment will consist of adding language at the end of Section 1.4 after the discussion
of the Primary Planning Area of the General Plan. The amendment includes a general description of the
UOA; a description of the UOA boundary within the extended planning areas. and UOA implementing
policies within both extended planning areas (see Draft Resolution, Exhibit 1. Attachment I-A).
General Plan figures have also been amended to reflect the UOA policies (see attachments to Attachment
I-A). Figure 1-2. Dublin General Plan - Extended Planning Area Land Use has been amended to show
the UOA policies. and Guiding Policy 2.1.4 A. was deleted from the map. but still retained within the
tex.1; a new Figure 1-4 has been added showing the UOA boundary within the Eastern Extended Planning
.Area; and a new Figure 1-5 has been added showing the UOA boundary within the Western Extended
Planning .Area.
Exhibit 5 of the staff report depicts a larger scale of the Urban Opportunity Area within the Western
Extended Planning Area. The purpose of this map is to show the relationship of the Western Urban
Opportunity Area with existing City streets and developments.
.
All UOA policies are consistent with the existing General Plan policies and programs that recognize the
eAlent of urban development within areas that would not result in impacts to public services. visually
...
;)
sensitive ridgelands, biologically sensitive habitat areas. and infrastructure. The proposed General PI~
Amendment merely defines areas of urban development potential within both extended planning areas and
depicts these policies on a map. The UOA is a long-term commitment by the City to manage growth
within the current City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas.
It is important to note that property owners within the UOA are not guaranteed development rights or .
given prior approval for development. These property owners would still need to request a general plan
amendment. prezoning. annexation and proceed with the normal entitlement process. This entire process
will require extensive environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
and public review period.
In addition. although the UOA maps depict areas where development should be precluded. property
owners outside the UOA are not totally excluded from applying for general plan amendments and
entitlements. As Policy "B" under both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Area policies states.
urban land uses may be approved for areas beyond the UOA only when information covering the project's
notential environmental impacts is available. as reviewed through a general plan amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the UOA General Plan Amendment. The UOA policies
support existing General Plan policies of ensuring that any new development requiring urban levels of
service within the extended planing areas occurs in a logical manner adjacent to existing development;
and incorporating open space systems and preserving Dublin's visual qualities and biologically sensitive
habitat areas within both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning areas.
.
.
4
.
.
.
/#()/
RESOLUTION NO. - 98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
ADOPTION OF P A 98-029 URBAN OPPORTUNITY AREA - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS. the City recognized the need to identify a geographic area of urban development
potential within the Dublin city limits and the adopted sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS. this geographic area of urban development potential is referred as the "Urban
Opportunity Area"; and
WHEREAS. a General Plan Amendment is proposed that would identify an Urban Opportunity
Area; incorporate an Urban Opportunity Area boundary within the Eastern and Western Extended
Planning Areas; and include new General Plan policies addressing the Urban Opportunity Area; and
WHEREAS. the purpose of the Urban Opportunity Area is to clearly identify areas of urban
development potential where orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts to the
environment. or to public services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Opportunity Area is a long-term commitment by the City to manage
growth within the current City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas. and
identifies where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment is consistent with other
policies and programs of the Dublin General Plan that recognize the extent of urban development within
areas that would not result in impacts to public services. visually sensitive ridgelands and biologically
sensitive habitat areas; and
WHEREAS. According to Section 15061 (a)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). the project is exempt from CEQA because the project will not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment and the project is within the scope of the following public record
documents: Dublin General Plan (incorporating the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the
Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment); the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ErR; the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
EIR; and the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment ErR; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the P A 98-029
Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment on April 14. 1998 and considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS. due to a some concerns raised prior to the April 14. 1998 meeting regarding P A 98-
029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. staff recommended a continuance of the public
hearing to the April 28. 1998 Planning Commission meeting; and
EXIDBIT 1
;? e-{ )./ .
WHEREAS, on April 28. 1998. the Planning Commission considered all vvrinen and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing. and adopted Resolution No. 98-18 recommending City Council
approval of the Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment; and .
WHEREAS. the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the P A 98-029 Urban
Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment on May 19. 1998 and considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
1. The P A 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. as described in
Attachment I-A of this Resolution. is consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
2. This General Plan Amendment is necessary for identifying a geographic area of urban
development potential within the Dublin city limits and the adopted sphere of influence.
within the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas. where orderly and logical
growth can occur without major impacts to the environment. or to public services and
infrastructure.
3. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with other policies and programs of the Dublin
General Plan that recognize the extent of urban development within areas that would not
result in impacts to public services and infrastructure. visually sensitive ridgelands and
biologically sensitive habitat areas.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that the Dublin City Council hereby
approves PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. attached as Attachment I-A and
incorporated herein by reference.
.
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May. 1998.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAlN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
.
g:\urbanoa\ccsr
.
.
.
3 rr: J-/
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
URBAN OPPORTUNITY AREA
AMENDMENT 1.4: PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
[Add the following text to end of Section 1.4]
Urban Opportunity Area - Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas
The Urban Opportunity Area is a long-term conunitment by the City of Dublin to manage growth
within the current City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas. The Urban
Opportunity Area identifies where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years. The
purpose of the Urban Opportunity Area is to clearly identify geographic areas of urban development
potential within the Dublin city limits and the adopted sphere of influence where orderly and logical
growth can occur without major impacts to the environment. or to public services and infrastructure.
The term "urban" means residential and non-residential development. with associated public
infrastructure and services. that is consistent with the General Plan.
The Urban Opportunity Area policies are consistent with existing City General Plan policies and
programs that recognize the extent of urban development within areas that would not result in impacts
to public services. visually sensitive ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat. The Urban
Opportunity Area policies support the City's existing policies of ensuring that any new development
requiring urban levels of service within the extended planning areas occurs in a logical. orderly manner
adjacent to existing development; and incorporating open space systems and preserving Dublin's visual
qualities within both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning areas.
Urban Opportunity Area - Eastern Ex1ended Planning Area
The Urban Opportunity Area in Eastern Dublin is defined as a geographic area of urban development
potential located within the City limits and adopted sphere of influence in Eastern Dublin below an
elevation of 770 feet (see Figures 1-2 and 1-4). The Urban Opportunity Area is bounded by open space
and rural residential areas to the east and north. and areas of high elevation. This area identifies where
urban development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years in Eastern Dublin. It reflects the
"conununity of interest" where public services. schools. commercial services and transportation
linkages tie this area into and through other areas of Dublin. The 770 foot elevation reflects the highest
serviceable elevation for water service based on I) the adopted General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan; and 2) the adopted Dublin San Ramon Services District - Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan
dated June. 1997.
Attachment I-A
(Exhibit 1)
// / "/1
7 ""[) r
Physical characteristics within this area (i.e.. rolling hills, flat lands. creeks and proximity to major .
transportation links. such as freeways. major streets and BART) enhance the sense of community and
association with Dublin. Almost all of the development areas shown as part of the Urban Opportunity
Area are within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Several smaller areas (north near the
Contra Costa County line and east of Croak Road) are outside the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area. but within the City's adopted sphere of influence as defined by the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
The City of Dublin has defined a plan for phased and appropriate urban development of this area either
through the General Plan and/or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Logical extension of public services
and infrastructure in this area will be accomplished in an orderly and environmentally sound expansion
and the 770 foot elevation reflects the logical boundary for this extension.
Implementing Policies - Urban Opportunity Area - Eastern Extended Planning Area
A. The City shall utilize the 770 foot elevation as a planning tool to provide a transition/buffer area
between urban development and agricultural/open space land uses east of the sphere of influence
line which do not require an urban level of public service and infrastructure.
B. Urban land uses may be approved for areas beyond the Urban Opportunity Area only when land
use information is available covering the potential impacts associated with natural resources.
public health and safety. visually sensitive resources. biologically sensitive habitat areas. .
infrastructure. future land uses and other issues. as reviewed through a General Plan
Amendment.
C. A new specific plan or amendment to the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be required
before any urban development is approved for those areas outside the Urban Opportunity Area
not covered by the present Specific Plan. The Specific Planes) shall include new policies and
action programs which further the goals and policies of the General Plan and are designed
specifically for the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Urban Opportunity Area - Western Extended Planning Area
The Urban Opportunity Area in Western Dublin is defined as a geographic area of urban development
potential located beyond the City limits and within the adopted sphere of influence in Western Dublin
below an elevation of 740 feet (see Figures 1-2 and 1-5).
Implementim! Policies - Urban Ooportunity Area - Western Extended Planning Area
A. The City shall preclude development beyond the Urban Opportunity Area (740 foot elevation)
that would result in: 1) the expansion of water service pressure zones. except for already
approved projects. 2) an increase in reservoir sizes beyond what has been constructed and/or
2
.
Attachment I-A
(Exhibit 1)
.
.
.
5~:J-1
approved. as of date , the effective date of the Urban Opportunity Area amendment, or 3)
major impacts to visual quality. biology. geology. traffic and circulation. and areas which have
slopes over 30 percent.
B.
Urban land uses may be approved for areas beyond the present Urban Opportunity Area only
when land use information is available covering the potential impacts associated with natural
resources. public health and safety. visually sensitive resources. biologically sensitive habitat
areas. infrastructure (including roadway access). future land uses and other issues, as reviewed
through a General Plan Amendment.
c.
For areas that are below the 740 foot elevation. the City shall not approve development on
slopes over 30 percent and/or where visual. biological. water service. flood control. geologic and
traffic and circulation constraints exist.
GENERAL PLAN FIGURE AMENDMENTS
[Figure 1-2 has been amended to show the Urban Opportunity Area policies and delete Guiding Policy
2.1.4 A as a technical refinement - Guiding Policy 2.1.4 A is still a policy within the Dublin General
Plan]
[Figures 1-4 and 1-5 have been added to show Urban Opportunity Area boundaries within the Eastern
and Western Extended Planning Areas]
g:\ urbanoz\gpatextl
3
Attachment I-A
(Exhibit 1)
r
..
.< .=
..:i5
c :>
cQ::
c c ..
.. .. c
- .. -
;..-...
~ ; Z
.;IolE
c=<
~ N -=
I3tE:
~.Eo~
~ ~ Z
~ .. c
'" .. ..
Iollllt,?
a
-
c..
-
e
CD
c
~
c
--
-
.c
:J
o
r----
--, .,...,..----, q
I .....,..1
I I ~-,-
L-
..
~ 1
I
I :J
I ~
I r- eo
;..
..
t
<:
.t-
';:
:>
1:
eo
c.
C.
0
'[]~ yYYrYSS'il
.(.:::-;'="~.. .
,'... Ii 1.... .r:::. '''>-)J
A-:...... '.':':' ......... ....
....:.:..u .........:........ ....
....:.:.:.:.::;'2 f:':':':':':::::'i' S':':
............~ .........J... ....
_...... II" ........ c"
:::~~~~:~ ...r~:W ~:~ i~~:~
.......'fo:';<... .....1'" ....J:s .'.
..............osr.:..... ..........01....
..... . . . . . ;<,..~.:>:1. . .. -i ....
..::::::::::::::::::~:;;::;:if';;~ I
.. ., .... E {;' . .' . . . . . . . . . ........i. . .
.:.:.:.::::::::: :.:.:.::::::::::::::::.:.:::::::::r:::::
............... .r...............................<{.....
...............: _ ...............................1......
.............4.... ~.............................. ....
.............. I .............................. '.'
....... ...... ........... ..
.I:~t:;~ IL ::::~:~:~:r~:~:~:~:::{::::
:::::::.:.....:.:.:::;oi,fi:i~~;i.:.: []
r-..
]5
.= ;::;
E g
..t:::
~~
,Z-"
==
; ~
g8
5.-
~~
~ e
"'0:
:E"E
;: i;
~"B
~~
~ c>
c>t.
" .~>.E
05~
__""C ()
o...t:
~ ~.~
]5~
e:'i~
-= ~.E-
Jli ~
k~~i
i
.(f)
i:>
...
_~ ~ ~ 2
~-e~;
"E.. ~ ~ ;;
: t ; ~
~ ~].~
.g ~ -; ~
e ~ ~ g
"ii....W'lO
o~fi~
~ $ 8":E
~ 5 ~ ~
r--",:; ::I t)
10-- - c
-siB:;
0....:1: u
'" - on c
:.:: 'IIU ., Li
.~;~~ .
= ""CII as.... II,)
~.~~e-E
~B.[t:;:
O.E.2-ao
~iS~:;"ii
i-'.E~-5~
c
'"
.J;J
::;
-<
~ G1
e; .;: ;
..e :;'~ L1
=>.~~~~
!!:!c"'C~CQ
=o~-c:
11 .g;; .~ .~ .=.
o 0"" 11II
"" .. ..
~~:;~r;
:.~-a~-;
.., .". III 1iI'I-
:; ;:i ~"'CI:E
","<gEe-
~j~.:~t
"n c:.=~.~ ~
~.!561.M.~
~~o~5t
g:.?;-::g ;.-=
: E-= &.~~
~~ ~..r+~~
E<.5~~~
~.~b6:S~
;; S ~ e t]
~~~~~-;
-€ ~~ ~ 6 :;
~oi:!~~
c:i
~~g ~
~~.ti ..
_ ._ C A.I l.:.J
~~;c.~~"'-=~
._,....,."'C IIC -
.~5.~~n~~
:i ~ 5 E:Q -5 ~
~~:: ~8.:g]
.E ~ :; ~ ;t -:=
c.~:-=~~~
Eg.~~~..!!1f)
~~:~::lo11
1U..8~t]:~
i = 1l ~ = -= .;;;
6.~~~-i~~~
~~ c.g~~ ~<
~ ~ :- :l ]' ~ .;; .w
==.:<p...~ i g
~~c~~1c..!!!
c..Cl..E7E= ..!!!I:-.
IIJ~ c..::iI ~ E~-c
~:E~E~~~.g
s::; =' > CI. iV CIO G.I ~
< Q ... oc..c c fl -
"'0 ~ ~o &l
E
;;
,!l
u
'"
,
b ~ fL(
'"
~
.
:! ..:
rD 0
" ~
Ol D> r3
0; .... D> ~
E c:( ~ ~
~ D> ;: co
tD c
<> ~ ..
'" !:: III .. g:
.;;: 0.
Ol In ~ ;0
~ !:: " ~ c:
~ !:: rn '" ..!:" J2 .
rD ::J 0.. DO
'" e ...'" t1.
'" "..,
i; c.. "C ~ "[l co' " ""
" r: ~:: '"
!:: r: '"
r,; "C "E j ..
rD ... .. c
D> '" :>
~ Q) ...J "[l .Q ....... .. ;..-,
"C Iii ",- .., c:
'7 :is ...... :5
0: !:: D> ::> -5~ ~
.. ~ a: n. -=
.. .. Q) en..... OJ
" ~ -' 9 '"
..
i: .. :< DWJ~
~ w ::::::: ,.. ~
/ '"
~ ::~:~:: " -<
,.
'" -<
ill
j~ 8 :; .;. ~
;;~i.~C; m~~
-e~(.).=;uot)
~:!.; ll. ~-o<:O.6
-= g ~ ~ ~.~.~'2
~=:g~...gc;~
6 '(; N.::: g: 't:: g. 0
~-= ~ ~ ~ &. Ii ~
.t::J_~ClCQ.:;Q.
5.g;!~1i~'~~
E Cl,l. t:l...E ""'Ci ~ 0 "'C
c..ii~ii~of:;;a
~:.E_2:;:Mrt
;.. c 4) N - -= c:;...2
~8:.:fg.:.g~
~~.;.~u~o~
..:! t- ~ ~ 5 ii .;;-.0
~i"o':.8~!~
...<"..;>....2
:! ",,'~ ~ ~ .~ 5 ~
1h.'2 S Q..~ E: ..:"'ii3
.~3~g.:t~ii;.
~ ~:;~-g-=~ ~
_ c.-= G.) 0 \Un" c
_ ...... ..... A,l-
l-o:::-~J5~ ~ ~
.,
..
]1
c;
;..
:;
..
<:
.l:-
'c
"
;:
c>
C.
C.
o
c:
.J;J
~
-<
'" '"
0; ...
;!"!!l ~ 5 ~ ~
;.g ~ ~ ~rf
_ ~ ::: IP !:!: VI
1~ ri i g
..c.~g~-E~
~ ~ t:;..E:- E-:
~ "':;l ~ -= en ~
c:-~::;;;~-=
,0 ~ g'~ ~ ~
__ =.t:;.. -- - -
~~.;.6~:5
0;0 :: _ ~ U G) -
~r~t;~1
~ ~ R~ ~ ~ ~
~<~~~.E~
~ -j-rr~ ~~
.- c > :I VI ~ =::
-g E: 8 '::? e 0
-:~:EE.~~,~
~~~gl"4g>
~~i;~.982
... ~ 1..-=
::i
."
g
~l~
'" ..
."';::: c.~
~~+3
-= ~ u
.~]i
~ g. ~
_ou
~~5.;
~ ~ ~ r;
o C - [I')
un
..D ~ ~ rS:'
~i]~
~ 4> t:1J -
-= t -= 'u
~ "';;:; 0 ~
~~:E~
;; c ~ u
~ g :.::;
o ==.~ e
~ r. > ~
.
u
~u
l~
2
l.\j
~
--.I
---
,-
,
,
,
,
,
\
\
\
,
,
.
ca
CD
'-
<C
C)
c:
ca't:
CDC::
,-ca
<CO:
~oo
==CD
c::oo
:::::Jc::
"'CD
'-....
tlti)
Oc::
'-
C::<D
ca....
..orb
,-ca
::)w
---,
----II __.J I
r--... I
I L__
I
~
'"
~ ~
.. c::
] .H..
o 'i"-..
~ 1 ::: <
; -;;: iil~ !:'
- g bg.-;
E' ~ ~ l::... -::
t ;:;.g..: 8-
.. ,;; 5 >g "-
"2 D: .f ;; o,go 0
- '"D E CD <:::z:: c
I>> .f; ::::; ~ ~:= .e
0) & ,.. J:: g"i: :;l
1>>_-"-,,,,<
~n:ID0
I I .
~ 1c{~1
:;
Cl
u::
<J8
as
Q)
l-
e(
0)
c:::
.-
t:
. as e
mas
'--
<(a..
>,"0
::::m
e"O
:::::st:
..,m
I- ..,
ox::
a.w
a.
CC:
I-
em
as.....
.oct)
,-cP
l.<>::>
<>::>
~
~
l.U
~
..
c
"
..
., -<
~ t)
_! !:N
m ;~ ~
5 ~! ~
~ !~s
i .: '; ::
E :.E.f
o ::I >- tn
~ ] S E
~ ~:~
. . ..
..
c
t
.. -<
'E 11I:I ~
"ii ~!:
.; ~~~
6 :::] ~
o ~.s"'~
_ ., ~r':I
C. a1 "C'-
~:-=~:
o == &> 0
CD -.: I Ib ~
> = ~E c..
cp &l tLI C C
c ~gC1Jiii
. . . .
avO'!! tJOl"-y-g to!Ys
. ,"'~' ,
~"":"
cP
.,,-'to ~~
cP'? Z~~
,.. -; CO
,,,-~ '_""''to
co~~ ~
-~, .;t
,,~
( .......
I {., ........
: -.
: ....
I : ". 4
i ......
J .
//0....
//
#.
! \
\
\-
-~
'-
"-
'"'=
.. ....
: ;:
.!!: ~ ~
.5:; Al C-
~ CJ ::;]~
~:2 ]i';
o.!-';ti::~<~
~ .H.[; ......8
ii ~: ~ :; ~-g
E :: ~ ~ tS~
i; ~ ~ t : :E~
: Efg.E~~
O :3 tt.I Ci5 b :l Cl
-.! ... '" 0<'>
--- ..
"E
..
E
Co
ECl
~~ ~
cd- CD ~
OCl E 'i
~ ID:= g- ;;
{: !!i I- iii iii
5 BEe ~ '0 ~
~ E= ~ ~ ~
:: 'ii"E 0 UI
~ >Cl'" ;::; - jjj
< .!'[ = .g Co
]" Wo E ~ ~"ii 0
"'::J ~ g~ ~ 0; ~; -;;;~
l:: ~ _Cl 8 B "'
~ ii: !i~"g <E] ~ ~
co i: ....] III ~-::-
...J'" !'p."CD ... '<t jjj III
'" _ Cl IIIg .... E <:.
.; ; Ii. g---:. ~ "' c. ~
W .. 0 Cl 0;- 0 :; '* 0
= i ~:E ~"i: c. ~ iJi g>
.e ::i Cl'; c~ & ~ 0 t:: :J e
~ ~ : ~ :0 . : ~ .: :;: 'i
0.<0 .<: of' ~~ ;;; "2 0
II ~ ~. · ;;~
: I ~ ~ ~ 01 ill"
~
.. ..
~ ~Q
';:::l e~
~ = ~~
<3 ~ ~ r-8
"'= :f t") ID"CI
s>~gg
E : ~ ~G:
..e :: ~ ~~
~ ~!~;
o ~ ~ ~8
-'"
'"
g..
~
o
15,
"'
ll:
:0-
lD
CD
~
i cj{ .7/
~
...
=>
o
i:i:
.
.
.
7' c-t7 ;2/
.
RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCn.. ADOPT P A 98-029 URBAN
OPPORTUNITY AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
'WHEREAS. the City recognized the need to identify a geographic area of urban
development potential within the Dublin city limits and the adopted sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS. this geographic area of urban development potential is referred as the
"Urban Opportunity Area"; and
WHEREAS. a General Plan Amendment is proposed that would identify an Urban
Opportunity Area; incorporate an Urban Opportunity boundary within the Eastern and Western
Ex.1ended Planning Areas; and include new General Plan policies addressing the Urban
Opportunity Area; and
.
'\VHEREAS. the purpose of the Urban Opportunity Area is to clearly identify areas of
urban development potential where orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts
to the environment, or to public services and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS. the Urban Opportunity Area is a long-term commitment by the City to
manage growth within the current City limits and the Eastern and Western Ex.1ended Planning
Meas. and identifies where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years; and
WHEREAS. the Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment is consistent with
other policies and programs of the Dublin General Plan that recognize the extent of urban
development within areas that would not result in impacts to public services. visually sensitive
ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas; and
'WHEREAS, According to Section 15061 (a)(3) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). the project is exempt from CEQA because the project will not have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment and the project is within the scope of the
following public record documents: Dublin General Plan (incorporating the Eastern Dublin
General Plan l'\mendment and the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment); the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR; the
Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR; and the Schaefer Ranch
General Plan Amendment EIR and
. WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the P A 98-
029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment on April 14. and April 28. 1998 and
considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings.
EXHlBIT 2
IV e-'" J I
I~ J
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
hereby finds that:
1. The P A 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment, as described
in Attachment I-A of this Resolution, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
2. This General Plan Amendment is necessary for identifying a geographic area of
urban development potential within the Dublin city limits and the adopted sphere
of influence. within the Eastern and Western Ex.1ended Planning Areas. where
orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts to the environment,
or to public services and infrastructure.
3. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with other policies and programs of
the Dublin General Plan that recognize the extent of urban development within
areas that would Dot result in impacts to public services. visually sensitive
ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission recommends City Council approval ofP A 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General
Plan Amendment. attached as Attachment I-A and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April. 1998.
AYES:
Cm. Jennings. Johnson, and Hughes
NOES:
Cm. Musser. and Oravetz
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
A'~~f~
v ,.
Community Development Director
g:\urbanoa \peres
.
.
.
II b)f ;Z /
. Jennings asked for any other comments.
.
Cm. H hes would like to keep the fence at three feet. If closing off an egress and ingress to the buildi :::> and
there is an mergency. a five foot fence would make it almost impossible to get in. The hours ofth atio for
Friday and S rday to 11 :00 p.m. made sense but during the week he would like to have the ho s 11 :00 am. to
10:00 p.m..
. Oravetz. and maybe changing the hours if th
Cm. Johnson agreed with
they should see if the hours from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.
Mr. Peabody stated that the cond! . n can always change.
Cm. Hughes asked iftbere were other
ith outdoor seating near a residential area.
.
APPROVING P A 98-0
HOOLIGAN'S CALIFORNIA ALEHOU AND GRllL
COl\TDmONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN 7 SQUARE FOOT
OOR SEATING/ PATIO AREA ADDmON TO AN EXIST RESTAURANT AND BAR,
7294 SAN RAMON ROAD. STROUDS P
,g.,;.
8.2 (Continued Public Hearing) P A 98-029 - Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. The
City of Dublin is proposing a General Plan Amendment to designate Urban Opportunity Area boundaries
within the Eastern and Western Ex.1ended Planning Areas.
Ms. Cirelli presented the staff report She stated that this item was continued from the last Planning Commission
meeting. Since that meeting. staff sent out notices to all affected property owners in the Western Extended
Planning Areas; and staffmet with the DSRSD Water Commission to explain the project. We have recently been
receiving numerouS comments from property owners within the Western Extended Planning Area, and one
comment from a resident adjacent to the project area. This DOA is consistent with the existing General Plan
policies and urban development within the Urban Opportunity Area would not result in impacts to public
services. visually' sensitive ridgelands. biologically sensitive habitat areas, and infrastructure. She stated that
property within the UOA does not guarantee development rights. New development proposed within the UOA
would still need to go through the normal environmental review and entitlement process. The purpose of
proceeding with this General Plan Amendment is to include General Plan maps that graphically depict existing
General Plan policies. She concluded her presentation.
. Mr. Peabody stated that the DOA came directly from the City Council for staff to study. This has been going on
for some months and eventually will have to be resolved by the City Council.
R=gular M=eting
[4--28 pcmi]
33
Apri128, 1998
EXlllBIT 3
/~~.,;Lr
Ms. Cirelli put up some overheads of the area. She stated that the map is the western e>..1ended planning area.
Outside the Urban Opportunity boundary there is development constraints for certain areas because it is above
the 740 foot water elevation. She showed an area on the map that has urban development potential because it is .
under the 740 foot water elevation and without development constraints.
Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any questions. She wanted to clarifY that the project is not about development.
Cm. Johnson asked if the area was accepted as possible development, will there be restraints to it.
Ms. Cirelli stated that there are no development plans for the area.
Someone asked where the water tank is located and others commented that the overhead map does not include
any street names.
Bruce Webb from DSRSD showed on the map where the existing reservoir was located.
em. Jennings explained that the project was proposing a General Pan Amendment to designate a urban
opportunity boundary within the western region. She stated that the project has nothing to do with development.
John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not know there was a public hearing prior
to this. In the staff report there is a statement on page 1 that states the proposed site grading and means of access
will not disfigure the ridge lands; he wanted to know what that meant
Ms. Cirelli stated that there is not a specific map in the existing General Plan that shows where these ridge lands
are located. The definition is also not clearly defined.
Mr. Peabody stated that the statement of site grading would not disfigure the ridge lands, comes from the
existing General Plan.
.
Mr. Anderson, stated that the proposed Urban Opportunity Area policies are highly ambiguous, especially the
statement page 2 of the staff report major impacts to the environment. With most of the developments that he
has been associated with. the EIR's ended with a mitigating statement. He asked if there is a metrics to judge
what the impact will be and whether it is major.
Ms. Cirelli stated that there are State guidelines and requirements. All development projects are required to go
through the California Environmental Quality Act environmental process which entails detailed studies.
Mr. Anderson asked if it was defined as major.
Ms. Cirelli stated it might be major or minor depending on what the project is. The General Plan document is a
general policy document. There are policies that state refinement studies and more detailed studies would need
to be done to determine the levels of environmental impact. Staffhas looked at all the existing General Plan
policies; staffwants to retain the policies and graphically depict them. The environmental analysis would be
conducted for projects proposed in the western and eastern extended planning areas where there is urban
development potential without major impacts to the environment. She stated that the City has a constraints map
depicting the ridge lands and because of those ridge lands staff feels that development in those areas would have
major impacts.
Mr. Anderson asked if staff felt there would be a disfigurement to the ridge lands to the area being studied. .
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
34
April 28, 1998
.
.
.
Ms. Cirelli stated that it may have impacts but staff does not know at this time.
/:3~:;'/
Mr. Anderson stated that there is a statement that development is expected to occur within the next 20 to 25
years. He asked how that is forcasted.
Ms. Cirelli responded that general plans would follow a future forecast; they are usually forcasted through the
next 20 to 25 years.
Mr. Anderson asked if there would be development there in the next 20 to 25 years.
Ms. Cirelli stated that has not been detennined.
Mr. Anderson asked if the area was exempt from CEQA.
Ms. Cirelli responded that this General Plan Amendment project is exempt from CEQA.
He asked why the study was being done.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the existing General Plan does not show any constraints map or any areas within our
sphere of influence where there may be some development constraints.
Mr. Anderson stated that the people adjacent to the area should have been notified. He feels that the notification
process the City uses is lacking something.
Mmjorie Labar. 11707 Juarez Lane. She stated that the concept was excellent and long over due. The public
requested this 10 years ago. Her concern is that this does not go into enough detail. She wants to see the
constraint areas overlaid onto a topo map to see the contour lines for east and west Dublin. She would like these
topo maps to identify 15% slopes or greater. She would also like to see areas of sensitive vegetation. habitats
and Stream corridors with 100' buffer from center of stream outward overlaid onto the maps. The Planning
Deparnnent should check with the surrounding areas. She stated that if the City is going through the trouble to
do this it needs to be done right.
Morgan King. 7567 Amador Valley Boulevard. He stated that he was opposed to the item. He asked what
precisely was City Council's direction to staff.
Mr. Peabody stated that the Council asked staff to look specifically at eastern and western extended planning
areas to detennine a logical area that would represent urban development over the next 20 to 25 years.
Mr. King asked if this request was in writing.
Mr. Peabody stated that the request carne as part of the City Council's goals and objectives fonn which is done
eve!)' March. Staffhas been instructed to prepare a report and start the public hearing process.
Mr. King asked ifthat was available to the public.
Mr. Peabody responded yes.
Mr. King asked if anyone can apply for a study like this.
Mr. Peabody stated that the public has a right to address the Councilor Commission on these types of issues.
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
35
April 28, 199&
If ~ ;7./
Mr. King stated that he did not want to just address his concerns. he wanted to know if you could ask the
Planning Commission to adopt a General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Peabody stated any General Plan Amendment must be initiated from the City Council.
.
Mr. King asked what documents were used in the analysis.
Mr. Peabody stated that there is a whole variety of documents on file.
Ms. Cirelli stated the fonner Western Dublin Specific Plan, and the Environmental Impact Report which includes
a constraints map.
Mr. King asked if the Alameda County General Plan was included.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the Alameda County General Plan was not used in this analysis. StafffeIt it was not
applicable to what the City was doing within the sphere of influence areas.
Mr. King asked what is in the Alameda County General Plan regarding the West Dublin hills.
Mr. Peabody stated that it is shown as agriculture and open space.
Mr. King stated that the County General Plan states that the County shall encourage the City of Dublin to retain
this area as open space.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the City is taking a position because that area is in Dublin's sphere of influence.
Mr. King asked who told staff to disregard the Alameda County General Plan.
.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council is the ultimate determinant of any General Plan Amendment.
Mr. King asked if the City Council instructed staff to disregard the Alameda County General Plan.
Mr. Peabody responded that the City Council did not instruct staff to disregard the County General Plan.
Ms. Cirelli stated that staff is not disregarding it. The City has different policy goals for our sphere of influence.
She stated that cities do not always agree with other jurisdictions.
Mr. King asked if this was a zoning change.
Mr. Peabody stated no.
Mr. King asked if a zoning change or amendment would require approval from the City Council.
Mr. Peabody responded yes.
Mr. King asked why is there a need for more housing in the west Dublin foothills. He stated that the resolution
states that the city recognizes the need to identify a geographical area of urban development potential within the
Dublin City limits.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the resolution does not state the City needs urban development. The City recognizes the .
need to identify areas of urban development potential within the e>..'tended planning areas within the City's sphere
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
36
April 28, 1998
/5 :;./;;/
of influence. Cities do plan future land uses within their spheres of influence. The City is looking at that area to
become aware of some oftbe development constraints and to see where development can occur. if it could occur
at all.
.
Mr. King asked if the City could plan to leave it as open space.
Ms. Cirelli stated yes it could.
Bruce Webb. Engineering Planner for DSRSD. He stated that he is for the project. He stated that he attended the
meeting to clarify water capabilities. They have been researching this and have reservations about some of the
text in the document. He stated that their role is to plan for and design water systems in conformance with the
City's General and Specific Plan. The district has not made any decisions regarding it's capability. He stated
that the senior staff from DSRSD will continue to work with City staff and will recommend some minor te)..1
changes that do not need to be addressed right now.
Mark Saake, 11198 Brittany Lane. He asked the Commission to continue the project for further public
comments. He stated that this does give a blessing for future potential development and that access roads would
be affected by development.
Cm. Musser stated that the bulk of the map is precluded from development in this area The blue area shown on
the map is a small area that will be studied before any future development can occur.
Mr. Saake stated that the residents affected should be notified.
Ms. Cirelli stated that comment will be taken seriously by staff. She stated that if there is ever a project proposed
in the area being studied, all the people in area will be notified.
.
Tina Corso. 11220 Bay Laurel Street. She stated that the roads were her concern. She purchased her home in
July and she would have thought twice if she had known about it. She wanted to know how they would get to the
new development.
David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane. He stated he is speaking in opposition to the project. He stated that he has
a problem with the language and finds it confusing. This appears to be a fonn of prior approval. The water
pressure zones will have too much weight. Why does the water tank have to be 740 feet. He does not believe
that these areas have been given balanced assessment. He felt that the City should not be looking at the west and
east together. These are different areas with different problems. He asked what streets are possible connector
streets to this area. He stated that there is currently a General Plan study being done for the area. He wrote a
letter to the City Council with his concerns of balancing the whole General Plan concept. The entire western area
should be looked at as a whole. and that has not heen done. He stated that Urban Opportunity area looks like
prior approvaL He asked if the area referenced in blue was the area being studied a couple years ago.
Mr. Peabody stated that Mr. Nielsen has received permission from the City Council to do a General Plan study,
but has not filed any documents.
Mr. Bewley stated that there was a time line on doing a study. It appears that this area will result in a pennanent
study. He stated that this project should have more notice to the affected residents and projects should be posted
on the web. The slope definitions should be reduced from 30% to 20%.
.
Bud Nielsen. 11637 Alegre Drive. He stated that he is against the study. He would like to get up to speed on the
project. He understands the Urban Opportunity Area but is confused on the 740 foot and 770 foot water
elevations.
Regular Meeting
[4--28 pcmi]
37
April 28, 1998
Ie ~?;11
Ms. Cirelli stated that the 770 foot water elevation was in the Eastern Dublin area and does not apply to the
Western area. The Western area will use the 740 foot elevation, exclusive of the Schaefer Ranch project.
Mr. Nielsen asked the reason for that.
.
Ms. Cirelli responded that it is the way DSRSD established their water service level for Western Dublin.
Mr. Webb stated that the difference is because the Eastern Dublin 770 foot elevation is the elevation that your
plans show as approved development now. In the master planning process they looked at it carefully and
established a 770 foot top elevation. They would have preferred to stop at 740 feet but there are land uses that
will require water above those elevations.
Mr. Nielsen stated that Schaefer is developing a pressure zone to 1000 feet.
Mr. Peabody stated that when Schaefer was approved, the tanks were sized for Schaefer Ranch only. They do
not have the capacity to service any other areas beyond Schaefer Ranch at that elevation.
Mr. Webb stated that was true for the Schaefer Ranch project. If the City of Dublin approved development else
where at other elevations. DSRSD would have to see that the storage would meet the fire demands.
Mr. Nielsen stated that when approving a project with a pressure zone going to 1000 feet, and the rest of the
people can not develop there does not make any sense. There are places for some beautiful homes in that area;
why set a boundary.
Tom Ford., 7262 Tina Place. stated that he supports the speakers. He stated that this preliminary plan could lead
to a final plan for the area. His objection is that it is not consistent with the western ridge referendum or with the .
promises of the Council candidates in 1994 where they said no more development for this area. The Schaefer
Ranch project was designed to prevent further sprawl into this area. The expressed preference by a nearby home
owners association was for the area being studied to not have any development. It is a very steep area and the
City should think about liability. He began to discuss a presentation done by the Mayor.
Cm. Jennings asked the speaker to please stay with the topic.
Mr. Ford stated that he appreciated Mr. Webb's constraints and wording about DSRSD cooperating with the
City.
Sue Rainey, 11157 Bay Laurel Street stated that she is not against growth in Dublin; she wants planned growth.
She stated that development starts somewhere and this is how it starts. There is a problem with very bad traffic.
going to and from Valley Christian school. She asked where the roads were going into this and why weren't the
residents notified. To her understanding the proposed development in this area has been voted down.
Ms. Cirelli stated that this is not a development project being proposed. Staff is designating an area of urban
development potential that has fewer constraints in the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment area. This area
does not have development rights.
Ms. Rainey asked where the development process starts.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the property owners would need to request from the City Council an initiation of a General .
Plan "Amendment and Jrnnexation.
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pc:mi]
38
April 28, 1998
.
.
1'l~_:21
Ms. Rainey stated that this is the initial step for development.
Ms. Cirelli stated that if there was a General Plan initiation approved and the study begins. the residents within
300 feet would be noticed.
Ms. Rainey stated that the City is affecting more than just the residents within 300 feet.
Ms. Cirelli stated that state law only requires the residents within a 300 foot radius be notified. Staff can make
the decision ifnoticing should extend beyond the 300 foot radius.
Ms. Rainey stated that the residents do not want this and that should be passed on to the City Council.
Maureen Haddad, 11556 Bay Laurel, stated she was not against development in Dublin. She lives on a street that
is unsafe for children to play. She wants to know what major impact on circulation meant, what major impact on
traffic meant, and what major visual affects meant. She feels they should be defined early. She stated that her
street has been deemed by the traffic department as not having any significant or major problems. They have
begged for help but it is not a major significant problem. If this is the definition of.'major" it needs to be
redefined so the people will know before they buy a home. She heard a speech from the Mayor and he stated that
the Urban Opportunity area will have 1800 acres of designated open park play space.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the area was a requirement of the Schaefer Ranch project which is surrounded by the
Urban Opportunity area.
Ms. Haddad stated that the Mayor specifically stated the 1800 acres was going to be saved in the Urban
Oppornmity area.
Ms. CirelIi stated the Mayor may be referring to the East Bay Regional Park District.
Ms. Haddad stated that she would like this project to be continued so more people can become aware and be
heard.
Marie Cronin. 8989 Dolan Canyon Road, stated that she is not as informed as she would like to be. The Urban
Opponunity area as defined, is an area for urban development potential. She feels that the Cronin ranch lands
and the Nielsen Ranch lands should be included. The 740 foot elevation area should be looked at. Their families
have been in Dublin since the 1850's; and have had many families on these lands. If the elevation for Schaefer
Ranch was worked out, there can be room for working out a water service for the other area. There should be a
few guidelines to make it fair.
Cm. Jennings asked if anyone had any other comments.
Ms. Haddad stated that there is still an issue with the landslide areas.
Mr. Bewley stated that Alameda County has encouraged Dublin not to develop. The Alameda County General
Plan has policies that the area be left as open space and is necessary for the quality of life.
Mr. King stated that the California State Open Space Act specifically states that it is of urgent State concern that
cities adopt open space policies. The City of Dublin does not have an open space zoning.
. Ms. Labar would like to see the staffreports on the City's web page.
Regular Meeting
[L28 pcmi]
39
April 28. 1998
/:if cJ/..5-1
Mr. Nielsen, stated that the water elevation zone is 770 feet in Eastern Dublin, and 740 feet in Western Dublin;
he asked if staff has taken into consideration the different terrain for each area.
Mr. Peabody stated that the reason for the difference is the topographic features and where development has .
occurred in the past.
Mr. Nielsen stated that it was unbelievable to him.
Mr. Peabody stated that the elevation was 740 feet in West Dublin with the exception of Schaefer Ranch. When
Schaefer Ranch was approved, they raised the elevation to another pressure zone, but the tanks were sized for
that development only.
Mr. Nielsen stated that the land in Western Dublin is higher than Eastern Dublin.
Cm. Johnson stated the Schaefer Ranch project was approved by a meeting of the developer with a number of
people who were against Western Dublin development. If you develop in Western Dublin and draw water from a
tank 740 feet high, that is as high as you can go. If you built a tank at 1200 feet you could draw from a water
tank J 200 feet.
Mr. Peabody stated that with additional studies this particular boundary can be changed.
Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peabody stated that this project will go to City Council on May 19th.
Cm. Musser stated that he shares a number of the residents concerns. He does not feel comfortable making a .
recommendation to City Council and would like to see more detail. He would like the project to be continued.
Cm. Hughes stated that the project is a topography study. He asked if the City Council gave staff direction on
what criteria to use.
Mr. Peabody stated no. Staff evaluated the General Plan. the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. and the Western
Dublin EIR to try to come up with reasonable criteria for what an Urban Opportunity Area could be.
Cm. Hughes stated that Planning Department took a lot of effort. He was very much against development in the
Western Dublin area and stated that the Planning Commission has the directive to move the process forward. He
does not see a point to a continuance. This study begins the process, and should go forward and the City Council
can make their decisions. The Alameda County General Plan recommends to leave the area opens space. that is
fine but the City incorporated in 1982 and it has a right to govern itself. This study has nothing to do with
development.
Cm. Oravetz agreed with Cm. Musser on the continuance. He was not prepared to vote on this item and
recommended to the City Council. He believed the residents required more notification.
Cm. Jennings stated that the notices were sent to the property owners. She stated that due process was done with
a notice in the kiosk, in the paper and the library. She recommended a motion be made.
On motion by Cm. Hughes. seconded by Cm. Johnson. with a 3-2 Yote. Cm. Musser and Oravetz opposed, the .
Planning Commission approved
Regular Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
40
April 28, 1998
-;7 ~ ;2 /
RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 18
.
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT P A 98-029 URBAN OPPORTUNITY
AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
83 P A 97-046 Wireless Communication Facilities - Zoning Ordinance Amendment The City of D in
is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that involves the regulation of wireless
communication facilities. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to provide a uniform and
mprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communicati facilities
(e. . antennas. personal wireless service facilities. monopoles, lattice towers. etc.) and rela d facilities.
and protect and promote public health. safety. community welfare and aesthetic qualif s for the City
of Duo 'n.
.
Carol Cirelli, Senior P ner presented the staff report Staff is proposing an amend nt to the Zoning Ordinance
that includes zoning pro . ions for the development and installation of wireless c munication facilities. These
provisions cover the siting, esigning and permitting of wireless communicatio acilities. The City's main
purpose for establishing thes oning standards is to protect and promote pub c health, safety. community
welfare and the aesthetic quali ofDubJin as set forth within the goals an bjectives of the City's General Plan.
With the emergence of new wire s communication facilities. such as P S systems and specialized mobile radio
services. and the need for a greater umber oftbese facilities to be 10 ed throughout service areas; and with the
passage of the Telecommunications t of 1996. Staff determined immediate need to establish zoning
regulations for wireless communication acilities. Amendments this ordinance may be necessary to reflect
industry changes. 1996 Act changes and y future court inte tations of the Act. The draft ordinance covers
the planning permit requirements for all wi less communic 'on facilities, basic develop regulations for satellite
dish antennas. design review criteria and C criteria for ireless communication facilities. standards for
monopoles and lattice towers. application requi men maintenance/facility removal agreement, and
registration of wireless communication providers. e draft ordinance is based on staffs extensive research of
other city ordinances and interviews with wireless mmunication services providers. Ms. Cirelli showed
overheads of the different types of antennas an ocat ns. She concluded her presentation and recommended
approval of the project.
Cm. Musser was surprised t no one was here on the project.
Cm. Musser asked if the telecommunica . on providers were
Ms. Cirelli stated that she worked . telecommunication provers and that she has copies of ordinances they
have given her. One carrier did ake comments on a previous d
Ms. Cirelli stated that i a provider currently had a wireless communicatio project within the City, they may
have been here this e ening. Dublin has not been inundated with project ap ications because there is not a lot of
office building de lopments within the City.
ked, if the School District could charge a fee if an antenna is place
Ms. Cire I responded yes; a leasing fee.
.
ohnson asked about how residential areas with antennas in their back yard were treat d.
Regulm Meeting
[4-28 pcmi]
41
Apri128,1998
;l () qf;1/
Gary Balsdon
Project Consultant
1100 Lincoln Ave., #13
Walnut Creek. CA 94596
(510) 280-4561
FAX (510) 943-7699
.
April 27, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: PA 98~029 URBAN OPPORTUNITY AREA ~ GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
Dear Corrur.issioners,
We recently received a copy of a letter, dated April 14, 1998, infonning property owners of
affe.cted properties of a pending Planning Commission Hearing scheduled for April 14 and held
~ver to April 28 for the pmposes of hearing from property owners. I have been doing this type of
planning for over thirty years and have never beard of a process so blatantly biased and with such
total lack of regard for due process.
.
My client has always been willing to meet and discuss the various possibilities with staff or any
commission the city chooses. We fail to see the need to rush this amendment and, frankly, do not
understaI::id hew the CEQA process can be eliminated for such a major change to the City's General
Plan.
Vle hereby, respectfully request a continuance of the planning process so we and all property
owners may have an opportunity to meet with staff and"find out who is behind this initiative and
the corresponding directives and rationale. Planning someonets property in a vacuum hardly
seems fair and is probably contrary to the State Map Act and general fairness doctrine.
S/7IY, /J
~~ //L
1~af'rdOn
;/ ;;
COD\': Mavor Houston
. - City Council
Bob Jih/ Annie Su
Tony Fields/Russ Fields
Manual Machado
John Machad8
Scott Machado
Jeff Wiedemann
Robert Nielson
Perry DavillaITony Davilla
T om Van V oarhis
.
EXlUBIT 4
.
.
\
~~~\~
cP~<::>~
,,":- i (,0
Ob ,,-
Z...,<:>;
~'r- -"
..:..." ,,":"'
(,0' ';-
"'j / _____' '7/
~ .......~
)
co
m
'-
<( ;::
"
E
OJ CI.
.2.. ;:: c
c: '" E .2
,,- "
co.... E ;;;
'2 c.. CI. "
co:E 0 co
co c: ~ ;;;..... a; 0; "
" ..
CD co .., .=- " -0 "
;::0 "
c c .E CI.
.....- :0 .. '"
<(a.. 0 l5 ., .E 0 c
... ~'E .... c ..
., .., ... .E CI.
>0-0 " : E ~ .. i_ 0
.<: mCl. E 0 .. .. ~
0 0; ..",
.....m ~ -.. E ,:I W ~
.- -0 '1:l "" o " 0
t: E 0.. 0 ... '0 D is
:::c ;; -0 " 2"-
CD 0" .., ...
.am Cl n: ......, c <: oE "
.., "':0 "... ... .. "-
'- ..... CD .. coc; ..,... ... ... E ~
-' -g .:c.. ..... 'E " CI.
0 >< - ~ 0-- E .= 0 C
.. ..Il. of!...:- -'0; g
a.w ;( " <; " ,.
w '" J2.~ ..... CI. ,. " c:
a. . ! " c 6~ 0- oC
. ; "'.. 0 -i: 0 ...
"
0 t::' ..= "'- c .,z '"
;;; ~ .. .. "0 '" ".=
'- co co c '" ~ .. - .,
:::m ;:: 0 ~ 0 ~.. 5 .a"i "
<0 <.. w
com I I m ~ ~ 0 ~
..0 CD I ..
:5~ ..
I I
EXHIBIT 5
"
,
"--
-,
\
\ ~
.
IJ
/7
/1
......1
.....,
...
.
! I
! I
.
... ... J
. .
. .....-
~~
~~~+of)
of);%~~
.:;;.c::; ,....' 0'"
~~ 4~"
i of)
\' y:::.~ .
y
""C
o
....
CD
::::l
....
~
:lJ
CD
co
o'
::::l
III
m
III
III
....
. . .
noCl.l CI.l
oc:-~
s~.g t;j
.....~ c.a
<.q~lIIla:
':z:l...., 0 ~
_"'" -<l
g g ~ <:
p.~ t.:lJ:
n-..zO ~ 0
o N S' 0
~ ~ !::::J
....CD 0 01
2.8 t;j =r
~ lD
t:l P. 5'
;.1>> ...
r:j Ul
(;'
..
to
III
'<
:xl
CD
co
o'
::::l
!!.
""C
III
...
""
c
iii'
....
...
ci'
....
-l m
~. ~
to
III
'<
:lJ
CD
co
o'
::::l
!!!.
""C
CI
...
""
a
iii'
....
...
rr
....
o
'1J
CD
::::l
tn
'1J
III
C'l
CD
.....
~2' g:t ~ CI.l ~
5 ;; s .g g s'
ql:i: ~ ~ ~.::::
~<: a; 1'0
':z:l ...o-<lp.
o~ ~ -<l ~ <: 3
Ot;jlll~<:ro CD
p.ro = ~ ~ :::J
<.q U1...... ....
n-..z 0 ~ ~ 0
o CI.l'" ..
t;jeCD ...~;' 0
r:jlll ~ 0''''';
g,S:::: t:l > ....
CD ... () lD"'"
t:l P. -<l ()
;i'CD 1'0 ~ a
r:; ~ c.aUl
;. :
.. lIIl
l:
o
~
~
t':1
t"-'J
-
-
;:;
~
.....
. ..
.. '- : ...
.. . ..
......... -.
..
..
SAN RAMON ROAD
. . .
CI.lCl.lCl.l
o 0 ~
s S t:l CD
1'0 ~ ~. -
CI.l <:!:: 0
_.. -<l
o . ~ 3
'I::l lIIl
~ ; <: CD
c.a _ 1'0 ::l
-O"l ....
o <.q 1'0
-<l CI.l" 0
~roCD 0
., t:l c: :::J
t.:l lIIl 0 Ul
0:::: t:l =r
N :j' !!.
~ :::J
-
Ul
"
cO' V;~
c:
..,
CD ~
...a. --
I
C1I
~
(II
CD
lIIl
~.
:e )>
_. ...
.... CD
::rill
Zlll
o III
ag-
CD <
< CD
~....
o ::r
'1J CD
3 -...l
CD ,f:::l.
3. 0
""C-
o 0
.... 0
CD ....
:J m
....-
_. CD
III <
-Ill
....
cr
::::l
lD>
01...
OCD
_lD
Ul
>0
"QCD
:=:<
....!.
- 0
...."C
co CD
coo.
Q)lD
:::J
0.
o
o
3
2.
....
-
CD
0.
c
...
C"
lD
:::J
o
"C
"C
o
...
-
c:
:::J
;:;
'<
>
...
CD
lD
s:
CD
o
:E
"""
"..
o
-
o
o
-
CD
ai
<
lD
-
o'
:::J
-
I
:- I
I I
~ ~
'< :
r -
3" ~
;:;: ::l
01 m
)C
....
m
:::J
0.
CD
0.
."
i"
:::J
:::J
5'
lIC
>
...
CD
lD
tD
o
c:
:::J
0.
lD
...
'<
r
CD
co
CD
:1
a.
I
-
o
...
0>
0'"
:::J m
at lD
:::01
!!. tD
:::J CD
--
(DO
.,,:E
CD~
OCD
C'''''''
0.".
CDO
C
e>>-
< 0
mO
0;;;
"C _
3 CD
CD <
:::J lD
--
lD O'
(D :::J
0::E
_ ::r
....!!l
:::J"CD
ii' c
-Ie>>
-.<
3 CD
m-
o
"C
3
CD
:::J
-
c
CD
<
CD
2)
"C
3
e>>
:::J
-
. . . .
f:!aCl.lI:;:lCl.l
o 0 ~ CD
"dS~t:l
1'0 ~"d lIIl
I.Il I;:::
<: CI.l ...
o...ro-<l
-<l c.a CD ~ 3
~ ;; :; <: ~
=p.ro _
t.:l <.q O"l
~CI.l~~ ~
g p. c: :::J
c.a III 0 (D
..... == = :r
c: p. lD
-<l ~ -.
1'0 lIIl :::J
-
(D
~
1'0
CD
lIIl
~
~
r-....
~
~c
CD'"
(/JeT
....0)
CD~
30
m'"C
)(-0
....0
CD:::'
~c:
c.~
CD;::;:
0.'<
-0>-
-.,
0)<>>
:10)
:1
-.
::I
CO
>
.,
CD
m
~[>
. . .
n 0 Ul tIJ
oc:-~
c:~.g t;j
t:l ... 1'0 lIIl
~~1Il a:
~N ~ ~ 3
o 0 ~ <: CD
o t:l .... 1'0 :::J
p.ro t.:l1Jq -
n-..zo 1'0 0
o N S' 0
~e C::::J
....CD 0 Ul
2.8 t:l::r
~ lD
t:l P. 5'
;.= ,..,.
r:j 01
...
()
..
n.....
o2'g:t~Ul~
S~8.gg8
..S; CD ro ~'::::
<.qro<:c.aC:CD
':z:l ..,o-<lp.
O"~ ~ -<l (II <:
Ot:lCD~<:ro
P.CD = ~ ~
<.q U1'" ..'
n-..z 0 ~ ~ 0
o Ul'" ..
t:leCD "'~li' 0
r:jCD ~ 0''''';
g,S:::: t:l > ....
('D .... (') lD"'"
t:l P. -<l ()
iii' CD CD ~ a
r:; ~ 1,/)_ 01
;. g
.. lIIl
"
cO'
c:
..,
CD
...a.
I
C1I
"
,
"--
-,
\
\ .
'77
./1
.ll
.-
....,
...
..
.
! I
! I
.... .... .....: J
4~ ~
" ..~~+o')
,>-O~ of)
~"y~ 4"y"
i'd'
\ ''t-'Y+~ .
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""C
o
....
CD
::::l
....
ai'
m
III
III
....
:e )>
-, ...
.... CD
::rill
211I
o CI
ego
CD <
< CD
~....
o ::r
'1J CD
3 -...l
CD ,f:::l.
3. 0
""C-
o 0
.... 0
CD ....
:J m
....-
_, CD
III <
-Ill
....
0'
:J
:;Q
CD
co
0'
:J
!!.
to
CI
'<
:lJ
CD
co
o'
:J
III
""C
III
...
;:0;-
C
iii'
....
...
n'
....
-l m
~ ~
lXl
III
'<
:xl
CD
co
0'
:J
III
""C
III
...
:l'l"
C
iii'
....
...
n'
....
o
'1J
CD
:J
tn
'1J
III
C'l
CD_
r
e
CD
<
CD
o
"0
3
CD
::J
....
l:
o
'"lJ
~
~
t':1
-
-
........
-
.....
'0
.....
. ..
..- '- : ...
.. . .
......... ...
..
-.
.
SAN RAMON ROAD
. . .
Ul Ul tIJ e
o 0 ~ CD
8 S t:l <
~ (II ~. !.
Ul <: c: 0
0" iii';: 3
"d c: -
~ CD <: ....
lIIl _ (II ::::l
-O"l -
o <.q (II
-<l .. 0
CD Ul CD 0
., g c: :::J
U1c.ao Ul
o ... t:l =r
~c: lD
<l -.
~ :::J
-
Ul
~
(II
III
lIIl
~
c
...
C"
lD
:::J
o
"0
"0
o
~
-
c:
2.
-
'<
>
...
CD
lD
lD>
CD~
OCD
-l:
>0
~C2l
:=:<
....!.
- 0
...."0
co CD
G:lo.
Q)
lD
:::J
0.
o
o
3
3
;:;:
-
CD
0.
-
C"
CD
5'
~
"""
"..
o
-
o
o
-
CD
ai
<
lD
-
0'
:::J
-
I
: I
I I
~ ::E
'< CD
"
r ;-
2. :;
-
01 m
)C
-
CD
:::J
0.
CD
0.
."
ii'
:::J
:::J
5'
lIC
>-
...
CD
lD
tD
o
c:
:::J
0.
lD
...
'<
I
-
o
...
0>
o ...
:::J CD
"I>>
~c.o
!!, tD
:::J C2l
--
CDO
.,,:E
... -
CD::r
g,CII
c:...,
g.".
CO
CD-
< 0
CD 0
--
om
"0-
3CD
CD <
:::J lD
--
lD O'
GI ::::2
0:E
- ::r
-1~
:::J"CD
ii' 0
-I CD
-,<
3CD
CD-
o
'C
3
C2l
:::J
-
r
CD
CO
CD
:1
a.
C
CD
<
CD
2)
"0
3
CD
:::J
-
. . . .
f:!aUlt::lUl C
ooro~ CD
'l:l S ~ t:l <
ro~'t:lc.a CD
I,/) I'" 2)
<:tlJc:
o ..' ~ -<l
~~~~ 3
.... I>> ~ <: !
-p.~ -
t.:lq O"l -
~ Ul" ~ ~
~ t:l .. :::J
~ ~ 6' CD
~.=t:I :::
c: Q. lD
<l CD -,
~ lIIl :::J
-
CD
~
~
CD
c.a
Ill:
~
~
~c
CO-,
0--
(/JO)
CD~
30
m'O
)('0
....0
CD~
::1C
o.~
co;:+
0.'<
-0>-
- ..,
0) CD
~D)
~
-.
::I
CO
)>
.,
CD
m
~[>