The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 Dublin Ridgeland (Attach 6) /); i.," '" <~ .' l' , f ~e.".>'''''~-''"' ---- ..> ,/ i ;;1 I I CITY O~ DUBLIN DUBLIN RIDG~lAfJD~ VOT~R~' VOIC~ INITIATIV~ :;".!';I'~;'-:" '",,,':''' OCTOB~R 199<i? - JANUARY 1999 ATTACHMENT 6 . ....:.::::::::::::ttiilt:~) ....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~. .... .. i::"'\ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,.Tau~lara reek.~ d ................................r....ReglonalPalk ,) , 0: .:::.:.:.:.:.: .:. :.:. :.:~::: :.~:: :::::::::=:: :::::::::j < ...Parks Re.erve.:...I.......:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.J a: .:.FolC1!ll nalnlng.i.:t~""""""'i-"';} :!i .:.:.:.:.: Area .:.:.:.:.!+!..:..,..;.;.;+:'=...:.:.J lI( :.;: ::::: ::::::::= ::::::::~:::::::. :.:.:.:. :.:. :::::: j gJ C.......................... .Santa Rna,.., j!i 0:::::::::::::::::::::::: ,~e}1~~I!i,!,~~~ ~~tl'" ~.......................'\,.....................I II:............~ .................. ~~ftlt}~fl ~::::~:............j ~~'f\t - - - .. - - - .. ~ - - - .Dublin General Plan " :'" (1) O' I lmot. I ~s.. Fl,,,,,~ (Schnefer ltnnch Genernll'lnn Amendment) Extended Planning Area Land Use - EEl.... .. ....... ....... ~ Rurnl Residential/Agricultural Public Lands Schaefer Ranch (See Figure 1-3 Schaefer ltanch G.I'.A.) BI~vnoy.Oyell. Urban and Regional Planners As Amended l\'Ia)', 1998 FI1B,IO,I"l'3' ... - - .. - Eastern Extended l'lanning Area '\ See 1'lgnre 21) Enstern IJnblin Genernll'lnn Amellllment ---- >>"<lO"?',,,, El",,""" C'F "O'.:T~ A, l'he City shall utilize the 770 foot elevation as a planning tool to provide a transition/buffer area between urban development and 3griculluraVopcn space land uses cast of the sphere ofinlluence line which do not require an urban level of public service and infrashucture, IJ. Urban lan~ uses may be approve~ for areas beyon~ the Development Elevation Cap only when land use information is available covering the potential impacls associale~ with natural resources, puhlic health an~ safely. visually sensitive resources, biologically sensitive habitat areas. infrastructure. future land uses and olher issues, as reviewed through a General Plan ^l1Ien~ltIenl. C. ^ new specific plan or amen~menlto the exisling Easlern Duhlin Specific l'lan will he re(luirc~ hefore any urhan development is applove~ fur those areas oulsi~e the Development mevation Call not covere~ by the preselll Specific l'lall. The Specific I'lall(s) shall illclu~e lIew policies and actioll programs which further the goals an~ policies oflhe Gellerall'lan an~ are ~esiglle~ specifically for lhe Easter Exlellde~ I'lannillg Area. D. Developmenl of properly with an approve~ urball lall~ use designation umler the Eastern Dublin Spccinc Plan that is localed both below and above Ihe Developmcllt Elevation Cap may be considered consistent with the Development Elevation Cap so long as all other applicable Gellerall'lall, Specific I'lall ami ollter development policies arc complied willI. - .. --":1 , , , I I I t..J \ \ \ I I , , ,_.J ,~ l Figure 1-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MEETING DATES FOR THE DUBLIN RlDGELANDS VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE Scheduled Dates and Locations October 12,1998 1:30-3:30 Regional Meeting Room October 13,1998 1 :30 - 3:30 Regional Meeting Room October 21,1998 7:00- 9:00 Senior Center October 23,1998 1:30-3:30 Regional Meeting Room October 29, 1998 1:30-3:30 Regional Meeting Room November 4, 1998 1:30-3:30 Regional Meeting Room November 9,1998 7:00 - 9:00 Council Chambers January 4,1999 7:00 - 9:00 Regional Meeting Room January 26,1999 7:00 - 9:00 Council Chambers ,I I (Includes all Proponents to October 13, 1998) I I ORDINANCE NO, THE DUBLIN RIDGELADS VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE 'I I I I I I I AN INITIATIVE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINACE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE WEST DUBLIN FOOTIllLLS THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DO ORDAIN AS FpLLOWS: SECTION I, Purpose and Obiectives A. Affected Area This initiative affects only that portion of the West Dublin foothills identified on city map 1-2 (attached), as revised February 1992, and other general plan maps, as the Western Extended Planning Area, and that is, as of the date 90 days prior to the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the petition for this initiative, all of that area which is outside the existing city limits and within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence. B. Summary This initiative: I I I 1. Provides that for a period 30 years from the adoption of this ordinance no proposal to zone or rezone the affected area for other than agricultural or open space uses, or to amend the general plan to permit other than agricultural or open space development therein, or to permanently extend utilities or services to such area, shall be adopted unless first approved by a vote of the voters of the City of Dublin. 2. Readopts and emphasizes the policies already set forth in the Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985, as revised September 14, 1992, providing, among other things, that it shall be the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the affected area and such natural habitat, oak woodlands, natural creeks and open space features as may be found therein. C. Purposes I I I I I The purposes of this ordinance are to help provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Dublin, and to help protect and enhance the quality oflife in the City of Dublin, by- 1. Encouraging the preservation of open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources in the area within the sphere of influence of the City of Dublin identified as the Western Extended Planning Area; 2. Enlarging the right of voters residing in the City of Dublin to participate more democratically in important decisions which tend to have irreversible effects on the I I I quality of life in Dublin, by providing that such voters shall have the right to vote on proposals for zoning or development in the affected area; I 3. Preventing transitory short-term political decisions that disregard or do not give property consideration to existing city policies encouraging the preservation of the affected area in its present state, by creating a safeguard comprising of a public debate and a vote of the people in connection with any proposal to convert lands in the Western Extended Planning area to non-agricultural or non-open space uses; I 4. Preventing the County of Alameda from encroaching on or usurping the City of Dublin's right to control development in the affected area. I I D. Definitions For purposes of this ordinance the following definitions shall apply: I 1. Western Extended Planning Area. All ofthat area that is identified on city map 1-2, as revised February 1992, as the Western Extended Planning Area, comprising all of that area which is, as of the date of the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the petition for this initiative, outside the existing city limits and within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence. Such area is sometimes referred to herein as the West Dublin Foothills or the Dublin Ridgelands. I I I 2. Open space or open space land. For purposes ofthis ordinance the terms "open space" or "open space land" shall refer to any essentially unimproved land which is suitable for those uses an activities as are described in the California Open Space Act, Government Code S 65560 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4). 3. Maps. For purposes of this ordinance "maps" refers to those official maps of the City of Dublin depicting the affected area as of the date 90 days prior to the date of filing the notice of intent to circulate the petition for this initiative. I I 4. General Plan. For purposes of his ordinance the term "General Plan" or "Dublin General Plan" a shall refer to the Dublin General Plan, including amendments and maps, as existed as of the date 90 days prior to the date of the filing of the notice of intent to commence this initiative. SECTION II, FINDINGS I The people of the City of Dublin find as follows: I A. that the legislative body of the City of Dublin, (namely the Dublin City Council), from time to time makes decisions in favor of, or encourages proposals for, or is friendly to proposals for commercial or residential development in the west Dublin foothills which are, or may be, contrary to the sense of the residents and voters ofthe City of Dublin and contrary to the policies already existing in the Dublin General Plan; I I B. that since the General Plan was adopted it has become apparent that significant changes and additional development have occurred, or will probably occur in the near future that have increased traffic congestion, traffic safety hazards, air pollution, noise pollution, crime, and demands on services and utilities, and have a negative impact on scenic, open space natural I 2 I I I habitat, agricultural and recreational resources; I C. that further development for other than agricultural or open spaces uses in the West Dublin foothills will tend to aggravate those problems identified above; I D. that this initiative does not constitute a taking of private lands within the meaning of the law because it allows continued agricultural, open space and recreational uses of the property and permits zoning for commercial, industrial or residential development upon approval of the voters of Dublin; I I E. that there is sufficient development capacity in the remaining undeveloped areas of the City of Dublin, outside the affected area, to meet the objectives of the Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan, and such goals and requirements as may be prescribed by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development; I F. that the Alameda County General Plan, East County Area Plan, adopted May 5, 1994, provides, among other things: I I [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the Alameda County General Plan, Vol. 1, "Goals, Policies and Programs," East County Area Plan]: 1. That areas in the West Dublin Foothills should not be annexedfor purposes of urban development. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy #69]; I I 2. The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublinfor agricultural and 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. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy # 70]; I 3. 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 the consistent with the County's designation of this area as "Large Parcel Agricultural." [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy # 71]; I 4. That in the affected area allowable uses may include agriculture, recreational, and open space uses. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy # 72]; I I 5. That it is County policy, with regard to the West Dublin foothills, to encourage activities that will not promote sprawl or leap-frog development, or induce further adjustment of the West Dublin city boundary, and would not unacceptably affect visual and open space resources. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Program 1] I G. That, the authorizing statute of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Cal. Government Code S 56000 et seq., for Alameda county, provides, among other things: [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the respective sections of the California Code] I 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that each commission establish policies and exercise its powers pursuant to this part in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of I 3 I I I I I preserving open-space lands within those patterns. [Gov. Code S 56300]; and 2. that one of the policies ofLAFCO is the discouragement of urban sprawl [Gov. Code ~ 56301]. I I I H. That the Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Sec. 3, states, inter alia, "The people have the right to instruct their representatives...," and that the use of the initiative process in connection with land use planning is a frequently used and legitimate means of instructing such representatives, and is among the fundamental rights and powers of the voters. See DiVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cat. 4th 763 (1995). SECTION ill, Policies Readopted and Emphasized The City of Dublin hereby readopts and emphasizes certain policies found throughout the Dublin General Plan and its relevant elements, and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as follows: [text appearing in italic is verbatim from the General Plan or related documents; the citations reference the corresponding sections of the Dublin General plan or its elements] I I A. The City shall encourage only such development proposals for the West Dublin foothills as will not disfigure the ridgelands, and will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations [s 2.1.4 (C)]; I I I I I I B. The guiding policies of the City of Dublin are, among other things, to preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value, and maintain steep slopes as permanent open space for public health and safety [ S 3.1 (A), (B)]; C. The guiding policy of the City of Dublin is to maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as rangeland [ S 3.2 (A)]; D. It is an implementing policy of the City of Dublin to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within open space areas, including the Western Extended Planning Area [ S 3.3 (D) ], and it is a guiding policy to restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelands, because the present undisturbed natural ridgelands as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills [ S 3.3 (G) ], and to implement such goals in a way that will preserve or enhance the ridgelands that form the skyline as viewed from freeways and local roads [ S 3.3 (H) ]; E. Most importantly, the City the City recognizes that the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread [ S 7]; I F. It is the guiding policy ofthe City of Dublin to protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource, and promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use [ S 7.1 (A), (B), (D), (F)]; G. It is a guiding policy of the City of Dublin to protect oak woodlands, and develop a heritage tree ordinance [ S 7.3 (A), (B), (C)]; I H. It is the policy ofthe City of Dublin to prohibit development within open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. [s 7.7 (F)]; I I 4 I I I I. It is the policy ofthe City of Dublin to prevent abuse of residential streets by through traffic. [Additional Design Criteria, Implementing Policies, S 5.1 (K)]. I SECTION IV, Amendments to the General Plan A. Text Amendments I I The General Plan is amended in the following respects: Added or amended text is in bold 1. The General Plan: I a. Section 1.3, Nature of the General Plan, is amended to add the following introductory paragraph: I I Because there are a limited number of developable parcels in Dublin, care must be taken to create a balanced community which reasonable accommodates the competing needs of housing and commercial development with open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational uses, and provides reasonable protection from air and noise pollution, traffic congestion and safety hazards, and crime, and from over-extending senices and utilities, In summary, the General Plan strives to protect and continue the rural, uncongested, unstressful, safe and attractive quality of life that Dublin citizens have come to expect and enjoy while improving the economic vitality of Dublin, I I 2. Land Use Element: I a. Section 2.104, Extended Planning Area, Guiding Policy, paragraph "A" is amended as follows: I I The first paragraph of that section is amended to add the following to the beginning of the sentence: In the Eastern Extended Planning Area, consider '" A second sentence is added to this paragraph, as follows: I In the Western Extended Planning Area proposals for residential development shall be discouraged, I b. Section 2.104, Extended Planning Area, Implementing Policies, paragraph "B" is amended as follows: The words In the Eastern Extended Planning Area, , , are added to the beginning of the sentence. I and the following additional sentences are added: I 5 I I I I The area described in city maps as the Western Extended Planning Area shall not be zoned for other than agricultural or open space uses for a period of 30 years, unless such proposed zoning or rezoning of the affected area is first approved by a vote of the voters ofthe City of Dublin, I During such time any proposal to amend the general plan to permit other than agricultural or open space use or development, or any use substantially inconsistent with the goals, policies and provisions ofthe Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be adopted only upon the approval ofthe voters ofthe City of Dublin, I I B. Conforming Amendments 1. The Land Use Element: I a. Section 2.1.4 of the Land Use Element, Extended Planning Area, Implementing Policies, is amended to add another paragraph, which states as follows: I D, Any proposed amendment to the General Plan Zoning Ordinance having the effect of permitting other than agricultural or open space uses or development in the Western Extended Planning Area may be adopted by the City only upon a determination; I 1. that such proposed development meets the standards prescribed at ~ 2,1.4 (C); and I I 2, that such proposed development does not add, except to a nominal extent, to traffic flow upon any public street that is contiguous with, or provides access to existing residential neighborhoods, or public or private schools, or residential neighborhoods west of San Ramon Road in the City of Dublin, For purposes of this section, any proposed addition to the traffic level shall be approved only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private lands; and I I 3, that such proposal has been approved by the voters ofthe City of Dublin, 2. Parks and Open Space Element: I a. Open space defined. The parks and Open Space element of the general plan is amended to add the following text between the final paragraph of the introductory language of that section, and before the beginning of section 3.1 : I I For purposes of this ordinance the terms "open space" or "open space land" shall refer to any essentially unimproved land which is suitable for those uses and activities as are described in the California Open Space Act, Government Code ~ 65560 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4), I b. Section 3.1, Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources and for Public Health and Safety, first paragraph, is amended to read as follows: Subsequent to adoption of this general plan, the voters of the City of Dublin I 6 I I I I adopted by initiative (the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative) an ordinance encouraging the preservation of the open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources of the West Dublin foothills, I c. Section 3.1, following paragraph "COO under Implementing Policy, added is the following paragraph: I I D, Discourage proposals for uses or development that may be inconsistent with the goals, policies or provisions of this ordinance, or of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, in connection with the Western Extended Planning Area; such proposals shall not be effective unless first approved by a vote of the voters ofthe City of Dublin, I. d. Section 3.2, Agricultural Open Space, paragraph entitled Implementing Policy, "Boo is amended to add the following: I I Approval of development of agricultural land in the Western Extended Planning Area, in addition to those findings stated above, shall require approval of the voters ofthe City of Dublin pursuant to the terms ofthe Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, e. Section 3.3, Open Space for Outdoor Recreation, paragraph entitled Guiding Policies, is amended to add the following: I C, Encourage the preservation of the Western Extended Planning Area as an open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resource, I D, It is the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the establishment of, and copperate in good faith with, a private open-space land trust for the purpose of raising private funds to purchase lands in the Western Extended Planning Area to be dedicated for permanent agricultural, open space and recreational uses, I I f. Section 3.3, following the section entitled Implementing Policy, the paragraph entitled Guiding Policy, "Goo is amended to read as follows: I G, Encourage the preservation ofthe Western Extended Planning Area as an open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resource, and restrict structures on the hillsides that visually impact the affected area, I g. The last paragraph entitled Implementing Policy [on page 3 - 3] is amended to add the following paragraphs: I I I, In connection with any application for zoning for other than agricultural or open space uses in the Western Extended Planning Area, submit such proposals to, and obtain the approval of, the voters ofthe City of Dublin, J, The City, its departments, boards, appointees to agencies [e,g" Local Agency formation Commission, (LAFCO)], commissions, officers, staff and I 7 I I I I employees shall not approve or adopt, do or fail to do any act that result of which permits or authorizes a permanent extension of services or utilities, in connection with other than agricultural or open space use in the Western Extended Planning Area, except upon the prior approval of the Dublin voters, I I I K, To avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property in connection with any proposed use or development within the Western Extended Planning Area, the City Council may approve a general plan or zoning amendment to permit other than agricultural or open space development or uses, and an extension of utilities and services to that area, by the affirmative vote of the City Council and based on substal!tial evidence in the record that: I 1. The application of the provisions of this initiative to the proposed development would constitute an unconstitutional taking of a landowner's property; and I I 2, The proposed amendment, development project and associated land use designation will allow land uses and associated environmental effects only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid the unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; and I 3. The proposal complies with the 670 ft, elevation cap on development as found in the Alameda County General Plan, Policy 108, section 1-5; and I 4, The proposed general plan or zoning amendment, or development, has failed to be approved by the voters of the City of Dublin in an election, I Substantial evidence shall include, but not limited to, a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that the referenced policies as applied to the particular development constitute an unconstitutional taking, I I L. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council may, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council, amend the general plan or Zoning Ordinance, or zone or rezone or approve a development in the Western Extended Planning Area, if it finds; I I 1. (a) that such amendment is necessary for the development of a public park, public open space recreational facility, or other compatible public open space use, and such amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and provisions prescribed by this ordinance and the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, and that such development does not disfigure the affected area; or I (b) the amendment is the only feasible method of addressing a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; and such permanent fixtures, development, uses or other changes as may be I 8 I I I I proposed shall be the minimum amount of change required to provide for the public health, safety and welfare, and will be designed to provide maximum protection for open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational values, I 2, the amendment complies with the 670 ft, elevation cap on development as found in the Alameda County General plan, Policy 108 section 1-5, I I 3. The Housing Element: The City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, adopted FebruaIY. 11, 1985, as amended June 11, 1990, is amended in the following respects: I a. Section 6.1.5, Nongovernmental Constraints, subsection entitled Community Opposition to Medium and High Density Housing, shall include a third paragraph which states as follows: I I In addition, the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative provides that it is City policy to maintain the present unzoned status of the Western Extended Planning Area, or if zoned it should be zoned agricultural or open space use, unless any proposed zoning or rezoning of such area for other than agricultural or open space use or development is first approved by a vote of the voters of Dublin, I b. Section 6.3, subsection entitled III. Strategies Requiring Ongoing City Effort Using Existing Programs, paragraph A, is amended to state as follows: I Annex and zone additional land for residential use, The inventory of land suitable for residential development (Section 6,1,3) includes one area within the extended planning area (Eastern Dublin) which the City is annexing or considering annexing for rezoning for residential development, I I The subparagraph following the above, entitled Actions Needed, is amended to state as follows: I Annexation of areas into City and adoption of General Plan Amendments, rezoning, specific plans and site development reviews, with the exception of the Western Extended Planning Area, I I 4. The Conservation Element: The Conservation element of the General Plan is amended in the following respects: a. An additional section is added which shall state: I 7,8 It is the policy ofthe City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the existing essentially unimproved character ofthe Western Extended Planning area for a 30 year period during which any proposed zoning or rezoning of such area for other than I 9 I I I I agricultural or open space uses or development shall first be approved by a vote of the voters of the City of Dublin, I Each policy described in the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative (e,g" protection of oak woodlands, promotion of access to natural streams, etc,) shall apply to the Western Extended Planning Area to help promote the purposes of the other sections of the Conservation Element upon and within such area, I I 5. The Zoning Ordinance: The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dublin is amended to conform ~o the provisions of this initiative, as follows: I a. Section 8.120.070, "City Council Action," is amended to delete the language appearing therein and the following language shall appear: I City Council Action, Upon receipt ofthe Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and may, subject to the exception stated herein, approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Planning Commission's recommendation, I Exception: In the event the proposal or recommendation affects the Western Extended Planning Area in connection with zoning such area for, changing the General Plan to allow for, or approving a proposal for other than agricultural or open space uses or development in the affect area, such proposal or recommendation may be adopted only upon the approval of the voters of the City of Dublin, I I I b. The definition of "Zoning Ordinance" as found in the Zoning Ordinance, Definitions, is amended as follows: the period at the end of the existing definition is changed to a comma, followed by the following language: I or such zoning ordinance as may be adopted by the voters of the City of Dublin through the initiative process, I c. The definition of Recreational Facility (Outdoor) is amended to add the following additional sentence: I Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term "recreational" for purposes of the Western Extended Planning Area, shall include only those recreational activities as shall not disfigure or impair the natural scenic qualities of the west Dublin foothills, or reduce, destroy or harm the natural habitat, including oak woodlands, creeks, fields and wildlife, and shall allow only such activities as are described for open space uses in California Government code S 65560 et seq. I I C. Map Amendments: I 10 I I I I 1. The Development Potential Map. (figure 2-2) is amended to designate the area within the Extended Western Planning Area as "Agricultural and Open Space - suitable for open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational uses," I 2. All other maps which are not described here but were developed or adopted by, or are used by the City of Dublin for land use and development purposes, are hereby amended to conform to the amendments and objectives of this ordinance. I I SECTION V, Implementation I A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the initiative shall be deemed to have amended the General Plan and other documents described hereinabove, in accordance ~ith its terms except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the General Plan permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in the year of this initiative's effective date and prior to such effective date, then the General Plan amendment specified herein shall be deemed effective on January I, of the following year. I B. If another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this initiative, and if such other ballot measure governs growth boundaries or growth policies for the City of Dublin or otherwise purports to deal with the same subject matter or geographical area as this initiative, and ifboth measures should pass, the voters expressly declare their intent that this measure conflicts with such other measure, and that the measure which obtains the most votes shall control. I I C. The General Plan may be reorganized, individual provisions of the General Plan may be renumbered or reordered, and provisions of the General Plan other than the provisions added by this initiative may be amended, by the City Council in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of state law. Notwithstanding any such reorganization, renumbering, reordering or amendment of the General Plan, the provisions added to the Plan by this initiative shall continue to be included in the General Plan until the thirtieth anniversary of the effective date of this initiative, except to the extent that this initiative has been earlier repealed or amended consistent with its provisions. I I I D. No provision of this initiative shall be deemed to limit or restrict the power of the City of Dublin to annex all or a part of the affected area, or zone or rezone such area, except that any proposed non-agricultural or non-open space zoning, use or development as may be proposed shall not be effective unless first approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. I I I E. To the extent that any provision of any amendment to the General Plan, General Plan maps or Zoning Ordinance as may be adopted by the Dublin City Council between the date 90 days prior to the date of the filing of the notice of intent to circulate this petition, and the effective date of this initiative, is inconsistent with or likely to have the effect of defeating any of the principal goals, policies or provisions of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters ' Voice Initiative as they pertain to the Western Extended Planning Area, such provision of such amendment is hereby rescinded. An elevation cap, by itself, shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with or contrary to the principal goals, policies or provisions of this initiative. I F. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, I the voters voting on this initiative adopt it by a simple majority vote, or by a vote greater than any competing ordinance on the same ballot, it shall become a valid and blinding ordinance ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the City Council. I 11 I I I I G. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the day after the election adopting this ordinance. I H. For the 30-year period from the effective date of this ordinance, the provisions thereof shall not be amended except by the approval of the voters of the City of Dublin by means of an election. I I I. No earlier than two years prior to, nor later than the expiration date of this ordinance, the City shall place on the ballot of any general or special election of proposal to reenact and continue this ordinance in effect for an additional30-year period. I J. Should any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance for,any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, and adopted by the people, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. I I K. This initiative shall be entitled "The Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative and, upon the adoption of this initiative by the voters of the City of Dublin, the entire text of the initiative shall be appended to the Dublin General Plan. I I I I I I I I I 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I January 4, 1999 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO, THE DUBLIN RIDGELANDS VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE AN INITIATIVE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINACE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE WEST DUBLIN FOOTIDLLS THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I, PURPOSES & OBECTIVES A. Affected Area This initiative affects only that portion of the West Dublin foothills specifically identified in the map attached. It is described as the Western Extended Planning Area which is all of that area outside of the existing Western City limits which the City of Dublin has included in the General Plan. This map contains all properties subject to the initiative as of 90 days prior to the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the petition for the initiative. The property contained within this Western Extended Planning Area is generally described as bounded on the west by the existing City limits, north to the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, eastward to Eden Canyon Road extended and southward to Interstate 580. B. Summary This initiative: 1. Provides that for a period of30 years from the adoption of this initiative no General Plan Amendment approved by the City Council of the City of Dublin to change the General Plan land use designation of any property within the affected area to any urban designation (commercial, industrial, residential public or any other urban use), i.e., other than agricultural or open space purposes that would permit development, roads, utilities or improvements shall be effective unless first approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. 2. Readopts and emphasizes the policies already set forth in the Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985, as revise~ September 14, 1992, providing, among other things, that it shall be the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the affected area and such natural habitat, oak woodlands, natural creeks and open space features as may be found therein. C. Purposes The purposes of this ordinance are to help provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Dublin, and to help protect and enhance the quality of life in the City of Dublin, by- 1. Encouraging the preservation of open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources in the area within the affected area identified as the Western Extended Planning Area; 2. Enlarging the right of voters residing in the City of Dublin to participate more democratically in I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I important decisions which tend to have irreversible effects on the quality of life in Dublin, by providing that such voters shall have the right to vote on proposals for General Plan Amendments to change from agriculture to urban use development in the affected area; 3. Preventing transitory short-term political decisions that disregard or do not give proper consideration to existing city policies encouraging the preservation of the affected area in its present state, by creating a safeguard comprising of a public debate and a vote of the people in connection with any proposal to convert lands in the Western Extended Planning area to non-agricultural or non-open space uses; 4. Discouraging the County of Alameda from encroaching on or usurping the City of Dublin's privilege to influence, guide or control development within the City's sphere of influence in conjunction with the affected area. 5. Encouraging the City Council to consider a general or special election to reenact this initiative for an additional 30 years within two years prior to the expiration date of this initiative. D. Definitions For purposes of this initiative the following definitions shall apply: 1. Western Extended Planning Area. All of that area outside of the existing Western City limits of Dublin containing all of that area which the City of Dublin has included in its General Plan. This area includes all properties not annexed to the City as of November 1, 1998 date and is generally described as bounded on the east by the existing City limits, north to the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, eastward to Eden Canyon Road extended and southward to Interstate 580. 2. Open space or agricultural land. For purposes of this ordinance the terms "open space" or "open space land" shall refer to any essentially unimproved land which is suitable for those uses an activities as are described in the California Open Space Act, Government Code ~ 65560 (b) (1), (2), (3) and (4). . 3. Maps. For purposes of this initiative "maps" refers to those official maps of the City of Dublin's depicting the affected area as of the date 90 days prior to the date of filing the notice of intent to circulate the petition for this initiative. 4. General Plan. For purposes of his ordinance the term "General Plan" or "Dublin General Plan" shall refer to the Dublin General Plan, including amendments and maps, as existed as of the date 90 days prior to the date of the filing of the notice of intent to commence this initiative. SECTION n, FINDINGS The people of the City of Dublin fmd as follows: A. That the legislative body of the City of Dublin, (namely the Dublin City Council), from time to time makes decisions in favor of, or encourages proposals for, or is friendly to proposals for commercial or residential development in the west Dublin area which are, or may be, contrary to the sense of the residents and voters of the City of Dublin and contrary to the policies already existing in the Dublin General Plan; B. that since the General Plan was adopted it has become apparent that significant changes and additional development have occurred, or will probably occur in the near future that have increased traffic congestion, traffic safety hazards, air pollution, noise pollution, crime, and demands on services and utilities, and have a 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I negative impact on scenic, open space natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources; C. that further development for other than agricultural or open spaces uses in the Western Extended Planning Area will tend to aggravate those problems identified above; D. that this initiative does not constitute a taking of private lands within the meaning ofthe law because it allows continued agricultural, and open space uses of the property and permits General Plan Amendments for commercial, industrial or residential development upon approval of the voters of Dublin; E. that there is sufficient development capacity in the remaining undeveloped areas of the City of Dublin, outside the affected area, to meet the objectives of the Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan, and such goals and requirements as may be prescribed by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development; F. that the Alameda County General Plan, East County Area Plan, adopted May 5, 1994, provides, among other things: [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the Alameda County General Plan, Vol. 1, "Goals, Policies and Programs," East County Area Plan]: 1. That areas in the West Dublin Foothills should not be annexedfor purposes of urban development. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy #69]; 2. The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublin for agricultural and 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. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy # 70]; 3. 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 the consistent with the County's designation of this area as "Large Parcel Agricultural." [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy # 71]; 4. That it is County policy, with regard to the West Dublin foothills, to encourage activities that will not promote sprawl or leap-frog development, or induce further adjustment of the West Dublin city boundary, and would not unacceptably affect visual and open space resources. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Program 1] G. That, the authorizing statute of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Cal. Government Code ~ 56000 et seq., for Alameda County, provides, among other things: [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the respective sections of the California Governmental Code] 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that each commission establish policies and exercise its powers pursuant to this part in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space lands within those patterns. [Gov. Code ~ 56300]; and 2. that one of the policies ofLAFCO is the discouragement of urban sprawl [Gov. Code 9 56301]. That the Constitution ofthe State of California, Article 1, Sec. 3, states, inter alia, "The people have the right to instruct their representatives,..," and that the use of the initiative process in connection with land use planning is a frequently used and legitimate means of instructing such representatives, and is among the fundamental rights and powers of the voters. See DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763 (1995). 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION ill. AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN The General Plan of the City of Dublin is amended as follows: * SECTION 1,4: PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA, Western Extended Plannin2 Area This area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin. The Western Extended Planning Area is strategically located in the Bay Area, and includes part of the open space corridor, which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, this area has important open space values for Dublin and the region. . At the same time, the Western Extended Planning Area, encompassing all of that area outside of the Western City limits of Dublin containing all of the area which the City of Dublin has included in its General Plan provides a unique opportunity for carefully planned development. Most of the Planning Area has convenient access to Interstate 580. In addition, major ridgelines screen most of the site from key offsite viewpoints. There is thus the potential to add open space and recreational facilities in this area, without major disruption of existing neighborhoods or damage to scenic values in the surrounding area. The General Plan includes policies which are specifically geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of this section of the City. It is the intent of the City of Dublin to balance open space goals with recreational needs in the Western Extended Planning Area for a period 000 years from the adoption of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters Voice Initiative. Any General Plan Amendment within the Western Extended Planning Area approved for urban use by the City Council, other than agricultural or open space purposes shall not become effective unless first approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. An open space corridor on the main ridgeline will be preserved, with a regional trail extending across the site. Key ridge lines, most woodland areas, and other important features will be protected. Development will be clustered for increased land use efficiency. Within these sectors of clustered development, intensive grading and selective tree removal will be permitted, although proposed development shall respect natural features whenever possible. SECTION 1.8 GENERAL PLAN MAP 1,8,1 Land Use Classification - Western Extended Planning Area Map Amendments 1. Figure 1-2, Land Use Map for the Western Extended Planning Area is amended to designate the area within the affected area as Open Space - suitable for open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational uses. 2. All other maps which are not described here but were developed or adopted by, or are used by the City of Dublin for land use and development purposes, are hereby amended to conform to the amendments and objectives of this ordinance. SECTION 2.0: LAND USE ELEMENT 'Following references to sections in the General Plan are from the adopted Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment which inserted policy and text amendments to the General Plan in 1996. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Western Extended Planninl! Area - Schaefer Ranch Figure 1-3 illustrates generalized land use and circulation for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area. This sector ofthe City includes about 500 acres. This part of the Western Extended Planning Area will add a maximum of 474 housing units. Development at this maximum level could result in a population of about 1,517. Table 2-2 summarized land use and housing characteristics for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area. The predominant land uses would be open space and residential uses. Retail/office uses would also be included. Table 2-2 Schaefer Ranch Project Land Use and Housing Characteristics Acres Dwelling units Land Use Designation (maximum) Residential: Estate 99.8 11 Residential: Single Family 108.0 463 Retail Office 10.7 --- Public/Semi-Public 33.9 --- Open Space 251.6 --- TOTAL 504.0 474 SECTION 2,1.4 WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA (EXCLUSIVE OF SCHAEFER RANCH) For a period of30 years from the adoption of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters Voice Initiative, noGeneral Plan Amendment approved by the City Council of the City of Dublin to change the General Plan designation of any property within the affected area to any urban designation (commercial, industrial, residential public or any other urban use), Le., other than agricultural or open space purposes that would permit development, roads, utilities or improvements shall be effective unless first approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. The City Council and City staff, for those services under its control, shall not permit a permanent extension of such roads or other services in the Western Extended Planning Area in conjunction with other than agricultural or open space use of this area, without the approval of the Dublin voters. It is recognized that some services such as telecommunications, regional water services or other regional uses may be necessary to be installed within the Western Extended Planning area, that do not affect or change agriculture and or open space uses now present. The City shall encourage only such development proposals for the West Dublin foothills as will not disfigure the ridgelands, and will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations. If a General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council and subsequently denied by the Voters of the City of Dublin, to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property in connection with any proposed use or development within the Western Extended Planning Area, the City Council may approve a general plan or zoning amendment to permit roads, utilities, development or improvements for other than agricultural for open space uses by the affirmative vote of the City Council, and based on substantial evidence in the record, that: 1. The application of the provisions of this initiative to the proposed road, utility, development or 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I improvement would constitute an unconstitutional taking of a landowner's property, and 2. The proposed amendment, development project and associated land use designation will allow land uses and associated environmental effects only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid the unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property. Substantial evidence in the record shall include, but not limited to, a fmal judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that the referenced policies as applied to the particular development constitute an unconstitutional taking. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council may, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council, amend the General Plan in the Western Extended Planning Area, if it fmds; 1. That such amendment is necessary for the development of a public park, public open space recreational facility, or other compatible public open space use, and such amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and provisions of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, and that such development does not disfigure the affected area; or 2. The amendment is the only feasible method of addressing a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; and such permanent fixtures, development, uses or other changes as may be proposed shall be the minimum amount of change required to provide for the public health, safety and welfare, and will be designed to provide maximum protection for open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational values. SECTION 3,1: OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, Western Extended Plannini! Area Guidini! Policies - Western Extended Plannini! Area E.. The guiding policies of the City of Dublin are, among other things, to preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value, and maintain steep slopes as permanent open space for public health and safety. F. Development generally shall be considered only in those areas where slopes are under thirty percent, as part of an 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 thirty percent may be considered where the following conditions are present: 1. Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level. 2. Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities. 3, Long term visual qualities can be maintained for residents of.Dublin and nearby communities. G. The guiding policy of the City of Dublin is to maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as rangeland. H. Most importantly, the City recognizes that the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. It is the guiding policy of the City of Dublin to protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource, and promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use, J. It is the policy of the City of Dublin to prohibit development within open space areas except that designated to enhance public safety and the environmental setting, K. It is the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the existing essentially unimproved character of the Western Extended Planning area as an open space scenic natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resource for a 30 year period from the effective date of the adoption of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative; L. It is the policy ofthe City of Dublin to encourage the establishment of, and cooperate in good faith with, a private open-space land trust for the purpose of raising private funds to purchase lands in the Western Extended Planning Area to be dedicated for permanent agricultural, open space and recreational uses. M. Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be protected wherever possible. Grassland sites shall be considered for development in preference to native shrub and woodland areas. ImplementinlZ Policv - Western Extended PlanninlZ Area N. As conditions of development project approval, require detailed tree surveys, protection measures for existing trees to remain, and replanting of native vegetation. O. It is an implementing policy of the City of Dublin to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within open space areas, including the Western Extended Planning Area and it is a guiding policy to restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelands, because the present undisturbed natural ridge lands as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills and to implement such goals in a way that will preserve or enhance the ridgelands that form the skyline as viewed from freeways and local roads. It is a guiding policy of the City of Dublin to protect oak woodlands, and develop a heritage tree ordinance. SECTION IV, IMPLEMENTATION A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the initiative shall be deemed to have amended the General Plan of the City of Dublin and other documents described hereinabove in accordance with provisions of state law. Within 180 days of the effective date, the City of Dublin shall complete such revisions of its General Plan, including but not limited to the General Plan Land Use Map as amended through November 1, 1998, and accompanying text, as are necessary to achieve consistency with all provisions of this initiative. Also within 180 days of the insertion date, the City of Dublin shall complete such revisions of its zoning ordinance and other land use regulations as are necessary to conform to all provisions of the initiative. B. If another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this initiative, and if such other ballot measure governs growth boundaries or growth policies for the City of Dublin or otherwise purports to deal with the same subject matter or geographical area as this initiative, and if both measures should pass, the voters expressly declare their intent that this measure conflicts with such other measure, and that the measure which obtains the most votes shall control. C. The General Plan may be reorganized, individual provisions of the General Plan may be renumbered or reordered, and provisions of the General Plan other than the provisions added by this initiative may be 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I amended, by the City Council in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of state law. Notwithstanding any such reorganization, renumbering, reordering or amendment of the General Plan, the provisions added to the Plan by this initiative shall continue to be included in the General Plan until the thirtieth anniversary of the effective date of this initiative, except to the extent that this initiative has been earlier repealed or amended consistent with its provisions. D. No provision of this initiative shall be deemed to limit or restrict the power of the City of Dublin to annex all or a part of the affected area, or approve General Plan Designations for area, except that any proposed non- agricultural or non-open space General Plan Designation may be proposed shall not be effective unless fIrst approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. E. To the extent that any provision of any amendment to the General Plan, as may be adopted by the Dublin City Council between the date 90 days prior to the date of the fIling of the notice of intent to circulate this petition, and the effective date of this initiative, is inconsistent with or likely to have the effect of defeating any ofthe principal goals, policies or provisions of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative as they pertain to the Western Extended Planning Area, such provision of such amendment is hereby rescinded. F. Exemptions. This initiative shall not apply to or affect any property owner whose property has acquired any of the following prior to the effective date of this initiative; 1. A vested right pursuant to state law; 2. A validly approved and fully executed development agreement with the City; or 3. Approval of a vesting tentative map. G. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, if the voters voting on this initiative adopt it by a simple majority vote, or by a vote greater than any competing ordinance on the same ballot, it shall become valid and binding upon the date the vote is declared by the City Council, and shall go into effect 10 days after that vote or such other time as may be required by the election code. H. For the 30-year period from the effective date of this initiative, the provisions thereof shall not be amended or repealed except by the approval of the voters of the City of Dublin by means of an election. I. Should any section, subsection, clause or provision of this initiative for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this initiative, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, and adopted by the people, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. J. This initiative shall be entitled "The Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative and, upon the adoption of this initiative by the voters of the City of Dublin, the entire text of the initiative shall be appended to the Dublin General Plan. 8 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RESOLUTION NO. ALTERNATIVE I ",/ ~h():~~:~ . /1;;'" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI COUNCIL OF THE CITI OF DUBEI, 'it~ CALLING FORA GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS, AND ADOPTING BALLOT LANGUAGE RELATING TO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 2, 1999, is an established election day in and for the City of Dublin; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters a measure to designate lands in the Western Extended Planning Area located west of the current city limits as Rural Residential/Agriculture for a period of 20 years. WHEREAS, cenain actions are required in connection with said election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin that a General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Dublin on November 2, 1999 is hereby called. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: I. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the "[oIl owing question: Shall a Resolution be adopted to amend the City of Dublin General Plan by designating all lands in the Western Extended Planning Area located west of the City of Dublin as Rural Residential/Agriculture for a period of 20 years? YES NO 2. The Resolution to be enacted by the voters pursuant to Paragraph I above shall be in the form set fonh in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 3. This measure is submitted to the voters pursuant to Elections Code s9222. 4. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is requested to consolidate the City of Dublin General Municipal Election with [check with registrar]. 1 I-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. The Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perform services in!, connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. , / ,.~. l " 6. The City of Dublin shall pay to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda Co/ti~~€'its pro-rata share of the expenses for said election as jointly determined by the City o.i,..'Dublin and the Bo"ard of Supervisors of Alameda County in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election materials pursuant to the requirements of the Government Code and Elections Code of the State of California. 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies and services as required. 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to provide such other services and supplies in connection with said election as may be required by the statutes of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this by the following vote: day of ,1999, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk [follow-up: County registrar re 11/99 election, consolidation; amend title, recitals as appropriate] J :\WPD\MNRSW\114\O I \RESO\BALMEAS I.AL T 2 1_- --- -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALTER1\iATIVE 1 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI OF DUBLIN AMENDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA The People of the City of Dublin do hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Statement of Purpose and Effect. A. Purpose. This General Plan Amendment is intended to encourage a cohesive pattern of urbanization in the City of Dublin by identifying boundaries of urban development in the western hills. B. Effect. This General Plan amendment will: 1. Foster and protect the rural character of the western hills where steep slopes and prominent ridgelands make urban development difficult. 2. Promote uses that foster public health and safety and productive investment for grazing and other agricultural enterprise on lands outside the western City limits. 3. Allow the City to continue to meet the housing needs for all economic segments of the population, especially lower and moderate income households, by directing the development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure can be provided more cost effectively. SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment. A. Land Use Map Amendment. Amend the Extended Planning Area Land Use Map, Figure 1-2 of the City of Dublin General Plan, as follows: 1. Amend the legend of Figure 1-2 to add the land use designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture, and to delete "Residential/Open Space (see note)". 2. Amend Figure 1-2 to designate all Western Extended Planning Area lands located west of the City limits as of , 1998 as Rural Residential/Agriculture. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I AL TERNA TIVE 1 -' :,;." 3. Amend Figure 1-2 to delete the Western Extended Planning Area Guiding and Implementing policies shown thereon. B. Text Amendment. Amend Section 2, Western Extended Planning Area by adding the following at the end of the section, after Table 2.2: "All lands in the Western Extended Planning Area located west of the city limits as of shall be designated Rural Residential/Agriculture for a period of 20 years from the effective date of Resolution , adopted by initiative in 1999. This designation may be changed only by a vote of the people of Dublin, following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council." SECTION 3. Implementation. A. Effective Date. Upon the effective date of th:s resolution, the provisions of Section 2 of the resolution are hereby insened into the City of Dublin General Plan as an amendment thereof. B. City Ordinances and Policies. All City plans, policies, ordinances, rules and regulations constituting legislative acts shall be amended as necessary as soon as possible and in the time and manner required by State law to ensure consistency between those policies and the provisions adopted by Section 2 of this resolution. C. Project Approvals. Upon the effective date of this resolution, the City, and its depanments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General Plan Amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit, building permit or any other ministerial or discretionary en~itlement, which is inconsistent with this resolution. SECTION 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects. This resolution shall not apply to any development project that, as of the effective date of this resolution, has obtained a vested right pursuant to State law. SECTION 5. Severability. If any ponion of this resolution is declared invalid by a coun, the remaining ponions are to be considered valid. SECTION 6. Amendment or Repeal. Except as specifically provided herein, this resolution may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Dublin at a City election. 2 1-- ." I I I I I I I I ,I I 'I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE 1 Exhibit List: A - General Plan Figure 1-2 reflecting changes proposed herein. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON ,1999. YES NO Adopted by declaration of the vote of the City Council of the City of Dublin on . Effective Mayor Attest: City Clerk J:\ WPD\MNRSW\114\O I \RESO\RURALRESWP A 3 1 I I I I I I I I I I il I I I I I I I RESOLUTION NO. ALTERNATIVE 2: ULL,'" t"~ " j,;,,~ .,!:,," A1t. .,- I ,-'\hv (I'- .. i , ~"..- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI COUNCIL OF THE CITI OF DUB~ CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS, AND ADOPTING BALLOT LANGUAGE ESTABLISHING AN URBAN LIMIT LINE IN THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA WHEREAS, Tuesday, November 2, 1999, is an established election day in and for the City of Dublin; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters at the General Municipal Election a measure to establish an Urban Limit Line for the Western Extended Planning Area, with such line located along the current city limit lines; and WHEREAS, 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 20 years, unless changed by the voters of Dublin. WHEREAS, cenain actions are required in connection with said election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin that a General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Dublin on November 2, 1999 is hereby called. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows: I. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and a,uthority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following question: Shall a Resolution be adopted to amend the City of Dublin General Plan by establishing an Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area for a period of 20 years? YES NO 2. The Resolution to be enacted by the voters pursuant to Paragraph I above shall be in the form set fonh in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 3. This measure is submitted to the voters pursuant to Elections Code s9222. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is requested to consolidate the City of Dublin General Municipal Election with [check with registrar]. 5. The Registrar of Voters of Alameda County is requested to perfoffil seIV:ices in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. ... - 6. The City of Dublin shall pay to the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County its pro-rata share of the expenses for said election as jointly determined by the City of Dublin and the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election materials pursuant to the requirements of the Government Code and Elections Code of the State of California. 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies and services as required. 9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to provide such other services and supplies in connection with said election as may be required by the statutes of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1998, by the following vote: day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk [follow-up: County registrar re 11/99 election, consolidation; amend title, recitals as appropriate] J:\WPD\MNRSW\114\Ol\RESO\BALMEAS2.ALT 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE 2 : ULL Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH AN URBAN LIMIT LINE FOR WESTERN DUBLIN The People of the City of Dublin do hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Statement of Purpose and Effect. A. Purpose. This General Plan Amendment is intended to encourage a cohesive pattern of urbanization in the City of Dublin by specifying a boundary beyond which urban development shall not encroach into the western hills unless approved by the voters of Dublin. B. Effect. This General Plan amendment will: 1. Foster and protect the rural character of the western hills where steep slopes and prominent ridgelands make urban development difficult. 2. Promote uses that foster public health and safety and productive investment for grazing and other agricultural enterprise on lands outside the western City limits. 3. Allow the City to continue to meet the housing needs for all economic segments of the population, especially lower and moderate income households, by directing the development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure can be provided more cost effectively. SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment. A. Land Use Map Amendment. Amend the Extended Planning Area Land Use Map, Figure 1-2 of the City of Dublin General Plan, as follows: 1. Amend the legend of Figure 1-2 to add "Urban Limit Line", to add the land use designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture, and to delete "Residential/Open Space (see note)". 1 Ii- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Amend Figure 1-2 to locate the Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area along the City limit boundary as of , 1998. 3. Amend Figure 1-2 to show a land use designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture for all Western Extended Planning Area lands located west of the Urban Limit Line. 4. Amend Figure ~-2 to delete the Western Extended Planning Area Guiding and Implementing policies shown thereon. B. Text Amendment. 1. Amend Section 1.8.1, Western Extended Planning Area, to add the following after "Other land use categories" and before Table 1.1: "Urban Limit Line. An Urban Limit Line was adopted by initiative in 1999 for the Western Extended Planning Area. The Urban Limit Line is located along the city limits line as of the effective date of the initiative. Pursuant to the initiative, lands west of the line are designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture. The initiative is effective for 20 years from its effective date; the location of the Urban Limit Line may be changed only by a vote of the people of Dublin during the effective period, and only following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council. " 2. Amend Section 2, Western Extended Planning Area, to add the following at the end of the section, after Table 2.2: "All lands in the Western Extended Planning Area located west of the Urban Limit Line shall be designated Rural Residential/Agriculture for a period of 20 years from the effective date of Resolution , adopted by initiative in 1999. This designation may be changed only by a vote of the people of Dublin, following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council." SECTION 3. Implementation. A. Effective Date. Upon the effective date of this resolution, the provisions of Section 2 of the resolution are hereby insened into the City of Dublin General Plan as an amendment thereof. B. City Ordinances and Policies. All City plans, policies, ordinances, rules and regulations constituting legislative acts shall be amended as necessary as soon as possible and in the time and manner required by State law to ensure 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I consistency between those policies and the provisions adopted by Section 2 of this resolution. C. Project Approvals. Upon the effective date of this resolution, the City, and its depanments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General Plan Amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit, building permit or any other ministerial or discretionary entitlement, which is inconsistent with this resolution. SECTION 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects. This resolution shall not apply to any development project that, as of the effective date of this resolution, has obtained a vested right pursuant to State law. SECTION 5. Severabilitv. If any ponion of this resolution is declared invalid by a coun, the remaining ponions are to be considered valid. SECTION 6. Amendment or Repeal. Except as specifically provided herein, this resolution may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Dublin at a City election. Exhibit List: A - General Plan Figure 1-2 reflecting changes proposed herein. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON ,1999. YES NO Adopted by declaration of the vote of the City Council of the City of Dublin on . Effective Mayor Attest: City Clerk J:\ WPDIMNRSW\114\OI \RESOIURBANLlM.WPA 3 - - - - - - - .. - - - - Dublin General Plan - - - - - - .. -'\ IIDir[AJ ~ V , (Allevh.1f\V-v'2.: LJ L..L) ~~1 //{ L_, , , , , I I 't..J \ \ \ I I I , ff C>ltt.t111 F:lfb...cu".'lnllnl.." .w_ ~ Ste [,Iftll'e 111 [nlltrll Ullhllll Gellernll'lnll ^IlItllllllltlll ~f"::"~~::~~ ~~ . .....f~.~.~~':':':I:I!t:- I.~':;::::::::::::::::::::~!f:::::::::::::::::~ .:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~ lWIllllI Cllek) . :':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':""'.n.qtOt1ft1 ".,,.: . C . . ..'..,....'.',..'.',',..,.11,.'.. . . , , .. , , . a: .;.:...,.....;,.'.........'..;4..,...,.,......:.:.:.:.:. < 1:.pa'~J J11.fWY.~.:...::':.::::::::::::f:':.:':. ex: .:. FQlcl!lI tralnl"?: '. !-~.........'..,;.l'W ~ .:.:.:.:.: ~", ::::::':'. ,'~=,:~:;:J:!~:.:.:.: :";':.:.:':..:':.'.~.:'::. ':~.:.....,'.........:.:.:. 0:.:.:.:.:'.:,.:..'....: ...:'~Btntl nn.a .'.'. . 0:.:.:.:,:.:...:.:.:.:.:, ".habln\l1on Con1!' ~~Q ~:::~:~::::~::::::::::~:r.::::::~:::::::::::::~:~::L :::::~::::::::::::::::: ':':':':':':':',,':':':' ~::::~:::::::::::~:::::: ....."."."........ o ~%~:. ____ "':::':':':': .......', \)~e1-c-'i2 B I rn<, I Exlenclecl PlannIng Area Land Use v v '" Cv'I L: \ ''''\ t- L IVH~; ~lZvvM AqVlC.U\f-t;V& ~;..ResldenI1BI/Q~1I--Spne1th91rt1O-lllt Publ10 Lands ~ Schadel' Hanth (Ste f'gllle J.J Se"nefer IInlleh G.I',A., BI~Yl1oy.Oygll, V,ban snd Ileqlollal 1"al1l\eI5 As '\lIIell!le" /1111)",1998 ^. 'Ihe Clly sholl lIiIIlte Ihe 710 foot .levollol1 OJ n rlnlllllllg tool 10 I',ovhle 0 hnI511101","rf" lien h,tIVeto IlIhOIl dtvtlormelll nlld o~dcllhIO"OI"" '\'nee 'mill me' tn,\ or Ihe 5rhere or 1IIIIIIellee IIl1t which do 1I011tqllh, nil 1I00,nlll.,..1 "I rllhllc ,ervllt Ind 1lIllnllrllclllle. V,holl Inlld Ill" .i.nv be ol'r,ov,,1 lor o,enl heyol1ll ,he 1J",1"1'11I'''' EI"'nliou Cnr Qllly when '.lId IIle 1lll0'ftInllon Is nv.ll.hle coverll'K Ih, flol,"1101 hUl,neh nllocloled, wllh n.llltollUoltlctt. rllhllc he_IIh 0,"1 5nlelY, v"u.lly ,....lIlvt 'eI0Illce5, blologlcolly Itlls'"ve '.nhllnl s"os, ,"n..lrllchue, 111111" 1011,1 "'" 0.111 olhe, IlIlIes, 81 ttvl'l\'tll Ih,ollgh . Oellt..1 \'1.11 ^"ttldl1l,"I, ^ IIeIV sfleclne rlnn", ol1lel1lllllellllo Ihe uhllllg r:_Ilelllll;,hllu ~r,dllc l'lnll will he "'1\1lud belo,e OilY IlIh," develol'llItnt h orr,ovt.1 IN Iho.. .,,". 011111.1. Ihe IJevelofllntnl I;I..ollon COflllol covtml hy the PIU,'" ~rccllk l'ln", I h. Sfltctne flloll('I.hslllndllde lIew pnllcltt n",l ~c1\oll PIO&IOIII\ IIhltlt hllll"lllt. gnn', ftll" rnllclt! 01 Ihe Oel/ernll'lnll .1Il1.,e deslgn,oJ ""ellk.i1y rill 'ht . I!nslern I!Xltnd,d rlnllol\'1 ^ltn, Ilt\'elol'll1'nl 01 r,oflt.ly wllh nil nflPlnvtd IIIhnllln",' \lit "c.lf"nll,," 11.111.. Ih, l;n.letll Ill/blln ~rec,"e rlnn Iholls locoltd hnlh helow 0,"1 nhn", II" I)tvelnpmelll mevnUnll C1'i11111fty be cOlnhl~'td cOI1'\hlrnl with Ihe I )c\ rlllpllltnt " 1!Icvn1\,," Cnr 10 lnllg os ~II olher oppllcoble Otlle.oll'lnll, SI',clflc 1'1011 .,"1 olh.r t1cvtll'r'"tlll pllllcltl n.t cn'"pll,d \\'lIh, II, c. lJ, FI~1I1 r 1-2 I I Western Dublin I Location Prooertv Owners Acres la: APN 85A:.2000-1-1 597.5 I Anthony DavillaIRussel Fields 1331 B Street Hayward, CA 94541 I Ib: APN 85A-1900-3 10.75 Anthony DavillaIRussel Fields I 1331 B Street Hayward, CA 94541 I 2a: 85A-2201-8 30 2b: 85A-2300-2 160 2c: 85A-2300-3 247.17 I 2d: 85A-llOO-2-7 147.04 2e: 85AII01-3-2 46.38 I Davilla Eden Canyon Family Partnership 22084 Eden Canyon Rd. Castro Valley, CA 94552 I 3: 85A-2201-17 153.55 Bartling & J. Eastwood III I 101 California St., 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 I 6a: 85A-2300-4 72.83 6b: 85A-2400-1-3 160 Manuel Machado I 1337 D. Street Hayward, CA 95032 I 7a: 85A-1900~1-1 134.25 7b: 85A-1900-1-2 10 Jeffrey & Nancy Wiedemann I 2303 Norris Canyon Rd. San Ramon, CA 94583 I 8a: 85A-2400-1-4 65 8b: 85A-2400-1-6 14 8c: 941-10-3-2 13 I 8d: 941-10-3-1 67 Scott Machado 1077 Arlington Rd. I Livermore, CA 94550 I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I 9a: 9b: 9c: 9d: ge: 10: 85A-2400-1-7 85A-2400-1-5 941-10-4-2 941-10-4-1 941-10-5 John Machado 27771 S. Fagin Dr. Tracy, CA 95376 85A-2201-12 Thomas Vanvoorhis P.O. Box 2299 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 15 66 4 36 26 82.11 lla: 941-10-1-1, & 85A-1900-2-2 49 & 25 acres llc - are three parcels 941-100-7-39, 941-100-7-54, (941-100-7-55 DSRSD) total acres 204.68 125 13 36 lld: llf: llh: 12. 17: 33: 941-10-2 941-10-1-2 85A-1900-2-1 Nielsen Partnership 11637 Alewe Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 941-10-6 . Cronin Heights Milestone Partnership Milestone Corporation 106 Madera Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 85A-II01-2 Cordelia Morris 7497 Hollis Canyon Rd. Castro Valley, A 94552 941-100-7-59 Harold Nielsen 11637 Alegre Dr. Dublin, CA 94568. 175.81 22.95 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : '. I : #_.._.., ; I __.---"f:," I . _.._" ,..-..-.'...,-'- ", I. ., :). " " , I ,,/ j 140. ~ . I /' : ____Jt~~..... :" I ....~- .:Ttr,rr.;_",,:"~'.\~---:...__ 1/, r"...... :'l"'''''~''::l'*'''''l'''':'':ii~ ;I~:";'''''' 17tlf1:;"'~:~~~1~' ' I l!t;;!~.~t~'i'~\1.1:~~ . . .,.. ..;6i:.:fJ~~.:~~:. ::~:;,t:;:;.. ~~'f " I ril"~h ~~.:,:.:t,~ti.' ii,' ~': i. "'1\~ lti-.\Q. ! :,<;;,.1)0... : JC;'1.f:.?.hi"~ ..t"I''::~ ., ~~"I.~.r ,.,!. ~-~.\-?;V": "P....:;~~~# . ltlb. 'f\.. "'l1a:'j, ..".... ,', ,,'~ ''Il...,.,.,,;-..,~..""'\}'T'i!') ..! -"';1'~,,",\. " . :. ;;.:7.... .... ':!:.:-=: . :....~{4 ~~l;:;...&':.i ;:~::;" .....:~:.~r..'t. ~~~,...~: .~...!1a.J'~ . /' ':"..,.: ... '-'l6!,,:,"',b. ....,.....r{,t/r...~...:t., ,..!.I"..~... : 'J I 'f,..~~~-.-;.r~.-....i ,I..\.-.t;.i{.~'-:- .:~..i."'J~~:~'.~~ ~~:rrll\."f;;..:.:n.~ r '--. 1"'------1 ~..: ~', ~~t"'.:.-::~':'.....R.'~ ;~l":;<~"'4,.-,,;,~,,.1' ;'-1#1' 1..a:mf;"'J'~Y'~~l:-:':"ii'~-~,~ ~. --r~ .: ..::.tof~''':'''~I~:'~~I~:.:f~"'':f'~'' ....~:.~...~;(~~ID;;1~U-~:J;.:lli~ I I .. 1Be. I I ~ . .~~~t::{~~~}'.:. j) prV)".:~~ :- :.~~ ;t~1~ "~t.~r:;H~/:.'~:.~F'i!-~ :.r... , I l' ' . J'.':" !~i.':!;''''''''' .' l,o I,.:. "l~""" ,',', ".......,'.'" "d,' ::~.. '" .'.!i..f"...... ':':'~ / 30 i r-f{~~21-\~.~ }--~ ;j} l.p~~~~,t50~.:~>ttl~~.:~~::*~::~:;::~g~rj.~'~.~,.~~!~;;1;~;g.~~)i'~.fi~V '~.;!, . ...."........... " . : :21.. :~. #7 _ .~.....J:";..~I':./~ .....l~'I-.f.~.~,.~(i..-::;r:F:p:~Jrljt.; ;d;~JI..?".~;.;<f.{:~.{~. :.'.~.-/#. ...~ \ . 'If 27.1:--- '.~'" lIO~.".d,. ..'\!". >-=...:....l;.l.!l:'....~...~,'.:.t~~.., <J., ~.,.,..:'.7-.'?I....- ..Io.......-..',.~m~ J. 1\ ~_... . .......~"'... ...~."'..I.ll"'...h-.1-..!f..... ,..~..~~'v,..-... ,.'lI,",~....-""'!lit ", · , '.2) ..26. ... t .i: ~(.1.L;..; ;r..t;:l"" ~~~~I' a.... . .J>.~\~:~~~\.('lt.;tll;..."'a~ .:~ h~~;"':l '.~' .~.~r:,r 'j;~:::-*~.l. ~t .~\1"~.. ~ \ t-f2~\' ~~..~..J...~~~.,.. :j.:r.:~ ~:1.~~(.;~^..~~..."t ~.:~.;.f::r :\.:fi..:.'.,,_.;....(J_.l..:r...'!-).~..._ ...r.:~....::;:...A,,:.....~f...._;.. '. '.;'V:~~'Jtr:1('~J l(..!:~.l :'.. b.."...I!;.J,!"'~:""'\~_~~i".~b/:.}.!.....~ ';'~:" Iii,: rh".~;..~ -.A,:........,.-:.: .<'~..... t{ ".:"'.._I..~)t.-"I. . 'y" i : 21i,' ",~, ~..,; . :<v,~~. .:_~~~~ i?'(- ~;.:r.:::: ,.~ /~ki ;;*;'ji:~!.~~~..:~:f.~~ia';[ ;:~.:~~~~~~~:$!:): :1;t~t.{~~::!...~~>~;, . 3t. I 1. 29. f,'-:':, .\"i.~':':':'..I':.' ......:~-.~.e..':'~'{.:l~::..."..~...l;-f..:1;;.~~.!.::fi'l'l:.. . .... ...!.:tf~':""':."'~~;',~<~'~i;' ' '. ,~'n. I .~..~..!.;;~.~'ti{'i!.;1\.;".~;i.";'~ ''-.'('.r:';:~:Y::';;;.,:~,,:.r'';.'JM.fii.: ~~~;r~t~.~~:-;:;B.f4',,,,~,,,,~ \:.;!k:::.:hi~"i. , --... .,.tl.::...".,:~},;':~\.., ..l.,:.;'\f::r~:;-60ii.:i::--I'':'~:~'--:''..'i:.''.'~'r;:;:I4.~~f' :::;J:.';',j-:f:'k':'12:?~;;;.:~ ..,~IV.);~~:~'" . ..~ "'.i-~-:.:.,t: ::";.!\::.~ '~\~.\..": ~,"i7!i:-::~.-:::,~';;~!':,!l'::.~!ic ~4.~ ~~:!/~l<~'~f~.;'~ ..:~.ll&.:'",;,; \~.. i!.'<'1.,~\..{.1:'::;(;f,ff..\"'.i~. '~J 'l'~' !.':;t.'tit .-/ ..,. '.~. ri;'~.;:;'~"~~~;~~I,~~~~,'~"':~.?!ri::i'.~;;~1.~r;l.:l.I4"~+'':~~'f:t:.:~:""l\~'~:;:;,~;::~~:'~:;:"r'~;, f:..:~~t~~r;;,. ~':' ",___.h... .......:~:.~ !~.:::. 1~..:\;..,~:i:.~~\\::7.~ r' r ..-. ',.. ~::::"" ;{ :..:.#:~Y.,;.;t-...!'! ~:- '':(.~.i:li':i'.:;'~'~;~' .!~ ~:'\~'~.:: 'f,,\~.;.~t~"i1-~^1tf . , {",~.;;;,. :,.~ '. . ~~""J.::r.': I,.. *-':~' ':i;)'./:.;p . -;.., i .';"'r.~f;;'~..~:I~:{;?:.'.~~0\1j~\:;::-:',.~:;j~jit~.~2~:~~t:{.:\~~.W~<t~/:~;).~:J: 'it~i.fr~: :,}i:?5gij: ffl:~\~~~ . ) . .: ~: -; '.:i .;5 :.::~:~:-.: ".~" \.~~.I.~t'..: :~"-.'" ;j.~it~; -:'~\:::-'~~i"-;i~f; I:-:~~-~:i:.\~~:( ~~1~iJ.~.1~~ ~ ~c.~f:.;'}~~lT. ':- :~~'F; ,:l~: ~':cl81;.:;r~~~!-_ ..'1 .~......:~ ..:':...d't';:.~.."'.... ... "9t"'~ 't.~.,J..)."~ .......~# ......... . I... ..; "i~...:'}.'~:tl ..t.....")..;:-"J... '. . ., ,',; :,:...~'.. :::r;"i~~~.:r~l}!t.~..jl.f'..r,,,j/:: :J ':t.... " .......~:....:;:l\....~.. ..r~'~~':.~i .~~ . ~.: ~1:." .~..~:.~".5:~~.:C 1::''':.!4'i~~ .......f:\~..a'k ;,~.f1.li,,' :e-.~Iti.,;.~ 1. at :,.....f<,~,...\"J'..::..-t:'.1S~.. 'i...-.....t'.~l.:L:~t. ~f' .~...\:'.j:'lth.J'I'-....tt..:. !tI;.i.iit"iJ :~'Z:~;"i ~1' .' .. 1'.1...:I'~I:~~~U~"":nt ...,,~~1-...\~ .n"'; .' ': :."~'::r.~::S~2cJ.~'~'I;:-~~,;!"I~ -:Y'~"'1'.!'.Fr-:'::J>'~"'f:~ -'~"::~~"r ~t}..~.~:1 . .1-,i.=:,..." ~!' !i..~~i'>::!~. :.rl:~. .. . <2i'!?:f!. :",t'/ ~-;.~...~: ~"i:l:.';1:t..F"';:~ ~"tT:':Izt;:f!-:.':":'~ ~~j!-\. ~~l!"'~~~~ '.~ ~ < --~_.~.. ,:-:-:t~..,i 4~.':'~.c,:'.J"F" I>"""::>;:f.l',:{ ~..;:f.:..~:.~iil::.,~... <li M';~'''~ r:';.:;.v.." ,."..---- Y3.,~~----' -... _~~":'1:'.:'!.I:. ::{.?:'~::~,~il:.<<:~'l..::;..t;~.' .,.. :-:;.::;:.,:.~.:t1 IS. -..-...... ...\ol..\T,:::-....fA.. :-. .r:.........\:;..~..1..;-:~ ""i\~~';'~.'" I ~- ! -J,<.€ ~_~ ,t~'< .).-:.I-1'.j'~ ...:...~(.';......I J~ ~~-:,,'i.'- '/ ~ -,," ~"...,.,.-.:~...!:t~I";''''''Y':''~~,,,:: · . ;;'~.9\ \ I)' .. .."T.'.. '.,.' ....11 .....'C..5.:........ >il'\" ':'>~' .........------..... ......... f: :: ::.:.:.'i~. -r;'.. '~:r.... ..~~ .. C .'r!i'l.7j~"'l I ; l:"G7.;"~~.:r:,:~;;"" t:l~%;';j:,~~",,~;'~1 .....t ............ ~:.,..;.:...:;,.\~.t.:f. I~:\. ....l!'1;.\::.lo;..~-:.. ., ...."';--.t...l.""'. , .......... 'i"i.' .' .... . --. . 'Pt - .:. .. ,..... ... , ",' . L ---__:"!."" :;t":;'ir'~tSf-':'{: 'l~t;'.",;;'~::..\a/jit;"!: .~..""'-- -'6 ~.~.;~' f:J: ~t-:'.S:," .~.,'," 30 ...-.,..." --':::::'-"==::r=:-"~ '1 , ,,:'. 1. ~ . . . 38 ------ -"""'.17 . - '-- ..,--"",,- "'-j IS. : I - FIgure 3.2 - - - OWNERSHIP PATTERNS tEGEt-lI> ...... ..........1 ....".,.#.. ---It EDE'N DMlOPMENT MORRIS PROPERlY CRONIN SCHAEFER HEIGHTS INC. ~ WEsrcRN O!JDUN ~ PlANNINGAAEA BOUI\I/')AQV ........ SOu1la: Ab'Il& CalIrQCOIl'OCl WEs1 .G~~ WPM PE b~IJI ... u..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY CLERK File # DODD-DO AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5,1999 SUBJECT: Confirmation of Council Direction regarding further work by the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Initiative Committee (Report Prepared by Councilmember Lockhart) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of City Council meeting ofDecembe~ 1, 1998 2. Financial and Program Impacts of Proposed Circulation Element Study RECOMMENDATION: 1. Give the Committee specific direction to evaluate one or more of the following: a. Definement of original initiative documents without modifications to the Circulation Element of the General Plan or: b. Growth limit line Initiative approach FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Instruct staff to prepare a report to the City Council outlining an initiation of a possible General Plan Amendment Study for the Circulation element regarding residential street traffic standards and the consequences of such a study (costs, staff time, etc.) being completed in the near future. BACKGROUND: At its December 151 meeting, the City Council reviewed the Committee report on the status of discussion regarding a proposed Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative. The City Council discussed in general several possible approaches for future study by the Committee; to wit, 1. Complete refinement of the original document; with or without a possible change to adopted Dublin General Plan Circulation Element residential standards. 2. A possible initiative covering a growth limit line in the Western Extended Planning Area. 3. Impacts on staff time, costs and other staff responsibilities to prepare possible Circulation element Changes as recommended by the Initiative proponents. Much discussion on these items occurred, but no clear direction was given by the City Council. COPIES TO: ITEM NO. H1cc-forms/agdastmt.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I ~ CITY CLERK File # D~~[Q..[l][Q AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 1,1998 SUBJECT: Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative Committee Status Report (Report Prepared by: Councilmember Lockhart) ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from Initiative proponents to the City Manager dated November 18, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: 1. 1\ \I.> 2. ," 3. 4. Review Committee Report Discuss request of proponents for possible General Plan Amendment Take public comments Give direction to the Committee as to future activity FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None, unless the City Council desires to initiate a General Plan Amendment as recommended by the proponents. BACKGROUND: At its October 6, 1998 meeting, the City Council appointed a Conunittee comprised of Councilmembers Lockhart and Howard, proponents, Morgan King, David Bewley and John Anderson, a representative of the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office to discuss a proposed Initiative regarding development in the unincorporated Western Extended Planning Area. The Committee has held several public meetings to review various aspects of the proposed initiative. The purpose, language and specific implications ofthe proposed initiative were thorougWy discussed. As a result of those discussions, the Initiative proponents have agreed to revisions to the Initiative language which more clearly represents their objective to require voter approval of any General Plan Amendment regarding urban uses in the Western Extended Planning area. In addition to the above stated objective, the Initiative proponents are requesting the City Council to initiate amendments to the City's General Plan which would accomplish the following: 1. Modify residential street traffic standards in the Circulation Element. 2. Establish a Development Elevation Cap for the Western Extended Planning area. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Initiative Proponents ITEM NO. 7:1 1. Too much traffic could be allowed on residential streets in new projects because of standards now present in the City's Circulation Element (present standard"'" up to 1500 average daily traffic per day). New potential projects in the Western Extended Planning Area, if approved by the voters, could conceivably overload existing residential streets (i.e. Brittany Lane, etc.) if residential street standards for development, as identified in the present Circulation Element are used. I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I ,I I As indicated in the attached letter, the proponents are requesting that the City Council initiate General Plan Studies to address concerns as related below: 2. An Elevation Cap for development at 670 feet in the Western Extended Planning Area would protect potential visual, environmental, slope and elevation considerations (The City Council earlier reviewed this type of proposal in July, 1998). If the City Council wants to authorize staff to initiate Amendments to the General Plan to address the Initiative proponents, specific costs and implications to other priority goals and objectives will be submitted with a Resolution at a future meeting. At this time, the evaluation suggested by the proponent's letter will probably require 3-4 months to complete and the City Council, if so inclined, will need to reprioritize other staff projects to complete the work. SUMMARY The proponents should be conunended for their willingness to discuss and resolve many aspects of the proposed initiative with the Councilmembers on the Committee. The entire City Council should give specific direction to the Committee on the proponent's request and any future activity of the Committee. g>initiative/12-1cc initiative IPS~~~ CLERK I' ' ,::::~::,~;.~:~.; ": ~,'.:".:' -'"'. ~., Fil~:~ti Df31IzJ[Q]-[2]fZ2] I, I~ " I' I! I I I I: I I I: I I I I I '~ SUBJECT: Draft Dublin.Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative (Report Prep~ed by: Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Kathleen :Faubion, City Attorney's Office) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Morgan King's Letter dated September 17, 1998 Draft Initiative A. 'B.. - ',' '..- .~ . '. .....: '"r.. _,"._:". RECOMMENDATION: ~ 1) Discuss Mr. Morgan King's requests; 2) Review staffs analysis of the draft Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative; 3) give staff direction regarding Mr. King's requests; and/or 4) .provide staff other direction, if appropriate. FL~_4....,,"CIAL STATEMENT: " If the City Council were to proceed with Mr. Morgan King's two requests, approximately 40 hours ofstafftirne would be involved which may delay the completion of some of the City's high priority projects. " . BACKGJ;{OU1'\"1>: '. '. .' c- . . . .. : '. . Morgan King sent staff a letter (see Exhibit A.) requ~sting that 1) the City Council authorize City staff to e~gage.indir~c~ corni?Unication with the'auth~rs of the initiative for'pUrposes ofidentifying and resolving '~tend~~ prob1emswith'the initiative;'and 2) the City Council appoint a conimittee comprised of . '. Co~CiI members :and. City'stB.ff to meetWlth irliiiative propo~enis to e>..'plcire whether the City should ',' . adopt tpe ~tiative--~tC;.!aw rnthe~ than:'catling an: election (seediscUssion below). The, "committee " - " prop'osed by Mr: KIDg'yio11ldbe" subjecftq 'the :BroWri Act': At the COUncil,meeting of September 15, 1998,Councihriem~c::r ,lane! Lockhart'. 'requested '$at City staff prepare an analysis of Dublin resident '.Morgan Kirig's d!af(Dublin ~dge'land'Voteis'~,v6iCe Initiative.>":' " " " " .. " , . : .' ",_ .;.~ . ~ W". .. . P" , . _ :: _ __ .' ,". .. ~ ',-,. -.'. ."' ." ,""": C". ':' .:'" " . ' . - ..." ""..; ~ &" "~.' ~"." ":".. -; ,',' ",.. ,;: :'-' ." ." The proponents of the draft ~tiative have not yet be~ th~ formal process of circulating the initiative. This process req~es the proponentS to file a notice of intent to circulate the initiative with the City Clerk. The City Attorney must then prepare a title and summary. . The proponents will then publish the notice, title and s1.UI1Iriary,' aDd may then obtain signatures. If sufficient "prima facie" signatures are obtained (v.ithin a 6-rilOnth pedod), the Clerk will verify the signatures. Ifthere are sufficient valid signatures, the .. "" '~ Council must then either adopt the proposed ordinance (exactly as written) or call an election and submit ------------------------------- . COPIES TO: In-House Distribution 8.1 ITEM NO. -- ..~- , '"' .,,:::,:'::-:,:,':; ;' "~ ,:;.; .:;':7<"':"::-" ,'~::.~: ~".~:~";S:;:,::: ;"~::n'l~~?\~:~_;::~?'Y<;:>:;s~~~;~~::t.~,.::~ ,:,',;: 'r('/:}~>~;~;'-'::' ' ',n. . . '. , the proposed ordinance ,to the electorate.' A 'special election may'be required if sUfficient signatures (15%) are obtained. It ,will become effective if a majority of voters approve it. - - Below is a brief summary of the initiative. In response to Councilmember Lockhart's request, folIovvin1. this summary is an analysis covering certain aspects of the initiative which would present some policy issues for the City. Finally, the rest of the analysis covers some technical inaccuracies of the initiative that staff suggests should be corrected in order to make the initiative more agreeable to the City., INITL4. TIVE SU1\1l\1ARY: The initiative, if adopted, would require that for the nexi 30 years all future proposals for constructing new development, or to permanently extend utilities or services in the Western publin Extended Planning Area would need to be approved by a vote of the Dublin registered voters. 'fhe initiative makes an exception to allow agricultural or open space recreational uses in order to encourage the preservation of natural habitat, oak woodlands, creeks and so forth, and uses that are necessary for public health and safety. In addition, an elevation cap is established limiting any development that needs to be approved to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property to no higher than 670 feet. Other sections of the initiative cover purposes, objectives and goals of the initiative and conforming general plan and zoning ordinance amendments. The initiative would apply to the Western Exiended Planning Area beyond the City limits, but 'within the Sphere ofInfluence. If that area is annexed to the City, the initiative would govern land uses in that area. TEC~lCAL CO:MMENTS The following are technical comments regarding the initiative. Section I. Pumose and obiectives ' B. Summary (p. 1) " " . Ibis section states that for a period of30 years from the adoption of the ordinance, no proposal to zone or rezone,the, affect.ed area for uses otherthari agricultural or open spaces uses, and so forth, shall be adopted unless first approved ~y it vote of the voters of the City. As noted, the initiative would govern land uses if the City annexes the are~ in the future:' .- ': .....: ,..- .". ,:-- . Similarly, !~gaidmg the statem~nC'o~t~ permanently e~end~tilities or sercices to s~ch area," the City could notextend utilities to :this area unless it is annexed. Note that certain services, such as water and sewer services, are proVided by DSRSD, not the CitY. Currently, Alameda County, DSRSD, and Zone 7 have the authority for extending services within the Western Dublin e>..iended planning area. The initiative would adopt and/or amend General Plan policies and zoning ordinance provisions, and would readopt existing General Plan policies. Any future amendments to the new, amended or readopted policies and ordinance provisions would require voter approval. As a procedural note, General Plans are adopted and amended by way of resolutions, while zoning ordinances are adopted and amended by way of ordinance. The initiative proposes to adopt all the provisions by ordinance, however, this can be resolved by redrafting the measure to take the General Plan actions by resolution and the remaining actions by ordinance. 2 I I II 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~:.,: ... ~. I I I I I I I, I I- I I I I I I -I I I '. .. ~ _ _' _, .. . J '. ~. '., .~~ ~~.-~.;j;~~~:_~~-;::'- ~.:. ':;:'H::;~~~~f;~~';~~~\~:F~iit1~~t}1~~~{:;::}"~~-i: ,.~~~t;{~::;~;X;?~.':,' ~~C . -,,-. '. - . .~ - . ,; ~ - - ~ c. '_ Purposes (p. 2) \ I Paragraph CA indicates that one purpose of the initiative is to prevent Alameda County from encroaching on the City's right to control development. The City controls development only v.ithin the City limits. Alameda County would continue to have land use jurisdiction over the affected area unless the area was annexed in the future. - D. Definitions (p. 2) There is a typo in the first paragraph, last sentence. The word should be "West" instead of "est." Section II. Findin2"s (p.3) E. This finding assumes there is sufficient development potential in the City's remaining planning areas to rrieet the City's housing objectives in the Housing Element. If this assumption is incorrect, the initiative would be inconsistent with the Housing Element, and if approved, would make the General Plan internally inconsistent. Either the initiative or the Housing Element would need revision to avoid the inconsistency. FA. This paragraph in the Alameda County General Plan - East County Area Plan (ECAP) refers to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area, and without more explanation, appears to be inapplicable to the Western Extended Planning .t\rea. F.5. This paragraph of the ECAP refers to the general concept of the Urban Grov.'th Bounda.-ies, not the West DubliIi foothills, and as stated in the initiative, may not accurately reflect the County's policy. S~ction IIV Policies readopted and emphasized (p. 5) . . _ The folloWing comments address the section of the initiative which proposes to readopt and emphasize. . certain existing General Plan policies. Certain General Plan language is included verbatim, but is 'excerpted from. th~Hcurrent p~licy,and is sometimes combined with language from a different policy . andfor:'With different text. Inthese cases, the policy is not simply a readoption, but would be a te:\1 :' '~endirIei1~more, appr?priate in S,ection IV.A~; Text Amendments totbe General Plan. . .... .'",; ,".;" . ':.". . .... " A~: )he appro~riate' qerierai Pl~ reference t'o th~~e'poii~y objecti~es is S~~tion' 2.1A.F(2), (3). The " initiative's cUrrent citatioridoes'not reflect the Schaefer Ranch GP A: ,',: . '- ... . . .. ~,". .... ,.~; M '._' " ~.. ~... . .'. .. .' ,." ~ '.. ~ .~ . -, '. '. . .,. . . ':.....', :. .' '. B. T?e 'appr~:priate General Pl~ reference tothese policy objectives appears to be Section 3.1.E-G. . '. ":,' .,'. D.. The Gene~al Plan refers to "ridgelines" instead of "ridgelands." Citationswithin the proposed policy should be edited to acc01mt for the Scbaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment (GP A). F. Section 7.1 (D) and (F) are not referenced. H.The word "designated" should be included after "development within." I. The word "abuse" should read "misuse." The appropriate General Plan reference to this policy is Section 5.1.1. in Guiding Policy B regarding design of collector streets. .... :J 1. '\ -. '-~,,;~o~~ ~:~,':~:,'- ',:: ::.~:??~.~_:- :,:'.":'~;~"'!';.<.~~: :_"~"~-~-~i{~2;]~-f,;~~~'~:,~i ),~ ;:':':<.:\':~:5;il;,::.;~::'~ <', . ~ .:"' . -- 'S~~tion IV~'" A"rn'end'in'~nts to the 'G~rie'ia-i PI~n . - - . . .' " .... - "-' ..... ~ .. - .;. ~ " -' A.Text Amendments (p. 6) A.!. This proposed General Plan te>.1 if;lcIudes general policy and "vision" statements. They are not required by the General Plan statute for the City's general plan. A.2.a.,b. The proposed amendments to Section 2.1A.a,b. were previously adopted by the City through the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (1993). The proposed additional sentences may appear inconsistent with existing Western Dublin Policies D-F; additional conforming amendments may be D:ecessary for the initiative and/or existing policies., B. Conforming Amendments (p. 7) ." , f- B.l.a. The text citations should be edited to reflect the Schaefer Ranch GPA, and existing Western Dublin policies. Also, paragraph no. 2 requires further clarification. For example, "nominal extent" and "minimum extent necessary" should be defined. ' B.2.c. The appropriate location for the proposed policy is Section 3. I .H, after the current Western Dublin policies. B.2.e. The appropriate location for the proposed guiding policies is 3.3.Q., R., respectively, with the " existing implementing policy re-Iettered to "S". B.2.f. As a result of previous GP As, the Guiding Policy referred to in this paragraph currently appears at Section J.3.D, and restricts hillside structures that would silhouette above the ridge1ines. The policy c14-rently applies citywide, through the Primary, and both E>.'1ended Planning Areas. The proposed amendment would apply the policy expressly to the Western Extended Planning Area, but would delete it for the other planning areas. To the e>.'1ent this effect is unintentional, the initiative may not reflect the Schaefer Ranch GP A w~ch provides policies for the Western Extended Planning Area , , : .:.. ;......: "" " B.2.g. Paragraph'] sh~uId 'also refer to DSRSD. Regarding'paragraphs K.3. ~d L.2., the Alameda County Genera;l :?lari (ECAP) does not reference 670' for the City ofDub1.i1i This elevation cap is for the " ci#es ot"Plea.santon, HayWard and Castro Valley, and may not provide a rationale for applying it to " Dublin. . : :' . i' r .' - . . . . . :. .' .' r',. ",. " " . . '~- '.'~ " _ .'. .. ".. ". -:. -, ~ B.3.'a-.- .The- e:~ecf of the initiative on the Housing Elem~nt'depends on how much residential development " potential is c~ently in ~l? initiative's affected area, and how much of that potential would be required for i?e Citytci meet its Housing Elem~nt objectives. - As noted earlier, if the initiative conflicts with the " Housing Element, either the initiative or the element must be amended to resolve the conflict As a procedural note, the ne>.1 periodic review ofthb City's Housing Element by HCD is June 3, 2000. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(2))~ In addition, Housing Element amendments must be sent to HCD for review.' " " " B.3.b. These policy statements could make the Housing Element and General Plan internally inconsistent because one oftbe City's housing goals is to provide housing in both of the extended planning areas for meeting the housing needs ofvelY low, low, moderate and above moderate income households. See previous comments. . B.5.a. This language is surplusage. 4 I I ....1 I I I I ,I I I I I I I i I I I I If:~ . -~~ .-. I I I, , ,. I I[ I I I. I I I I I I I I I ::;::~"...\:'...... - ~. ~-':~'.";':'...' . ". . . '-':', -. B.5.b. This language is surplusage. ~ ) C. ,Map Amendments (p. 14) 1. The unincorporated Western Dublin Extended Planning Area already has an agricultural land use designation under the Alameda County General Plan. The map reference should be changed to Figure 1- 4. 2. It is inappropriate for the initiative to amend unspecified maps; this paragraph should be revised to direct the City to make such other map changes as necessary to be consistent with the initiative. Section V. Implementation (p. 14) E. The people, through the initiative process, can repeal a legislative act (such as a general plan or zoning action) ~ut the repeal will be effective prospectively, not retroactively. The word "rescinded~' in the first sentence should more appropriately be "repealed". 1. The people, through the initiative process, can do what the City Council can do. This pro'vision 'would bind a future Council's discretion with respect to a legislative act and, thus, appears to be invalid. CONCLUSION Sta.J.~ recommends that the City Council discuss Mr. King's two requests; review staffs analysis of the " drfu"1 Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative; give staff direction regarding :Mr. King's requests; . and/or provide other direction to staff. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I 82/25/1954 17:28 MORGAI-I D KING ?AG~ Ell 516829J262 MoRG.....N O. ~. J.D_ -~', ilCHAEL J. PRlMUii. J.e. LAW OFFICES OF ~fORG~'\.N' D. KIN'G FACS/M/l...-E (510) 529-720Z TRAC..... (209} 832-8328 75*J7 AMADOR VALLEY eL.Yo. SUm: t to DueUN. CA 04558 (lS to) S2g..s363 Sepe<<mber 17, 1998 _~""" ....1.i... tt:l TO I R:lcha.rd .Ambroe e C.ity.:Manage.r, city of Dublin RE: Aqenda matter - Meeting of Oct. 6, 1998 Oublin Ridgeland Voter~1 Voice Initiative D~u Kr. Ambrose: This i. to confirm that we have asked that certain matters in connection with thQ Dub~in R~dgeland Voters' Voice Initiative be 6;h~u2cd on the agenda for the next City Council Meeting on Oct. 6, 199B. Th~Ka matter~ are as follows: 1. We reque,t that the City Council authorize the city staff to cngago in direct co~unication with members of our gro~p res&rding the lanquage of the draft of the proposed ordinance, for the purpose of identifying and if possible mitigating any unintended prob+ems that the language of the draft may potentia2- ly po.a fer the C~ty; 2. We request that the city authorize the immediate appoint- ment of a committee of Counci~ members, city st~ff, ~nd initia- tive proponents to cxp20re whether the city should adopt the ordinAnce into law upon validation of the required petition . .ignatures pursuant to the California Elections Code, without need of 'etting the matter for a special ele?tion. I~ 6bou14 b. ..4. clear ~ha~ w. hav~ not askQd that the council d~.~. the ..rit. of the propo.ed initiativQ at th- meetittg of ~ber 6; this would be premature, a8 it is the pnrpoge ot the proposed committee to perfor.m that tunction prior to official city coneideration. If you have any question5 in this regard, please contact either myself or Dave Bewley. You have our respective phone numbers. avY c~t Cit~ Council 'C.i..ty staff :,D. Bew~ey EXHIBIT A MORGAN O. KING, J.D. .JAN C. NIELSEN, J.D. LAW OFFICES OF 1\fORG_-\.N D. ICL"N"G FACSIW ( 5 1 0) 6Z~ TRACY (Z09) S32-E 7557 AMADOR VALLEY SLVD. SUITE 110 DUSLIN, CA 94558 (510) 8Z9-5363 The Dublin Ridgelands Voters' voice Initiative SUMMARY This initiative looks complicated, but it is actually very sim- ple. It really makes only one significant change in existing city 'Of Dublin law. This initiative, if adopted, would require that for the next 30 years all future proposals for building development in the West Dublin Foothills be approved by a vote or the Dublin registered voters. It does this by adding a paragraph to the Land Use Ele- ment or the General Plan; this language may be round on page 7, subsection "b," Extended Planning Area. Exceptions are allowed for necessary construction for public. health and safety, and for open space recreational uses, but an elevation caD is established limiting such development to no higher than 670 ft. All the other language contained in this ordinance is either "context" language about purposes and policies, or is "conform- ing" language to make other parts of the General Plan consistent with the proposed initiative. REe~(V51.) S;:( i 1393 DUStiN F....AtJli;N.3 ,........,.'IIr-tI"T" D I @I '::€Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.' I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I Dublin Ridgelands Voters' voice Initiative OUTLINE I. purpose and objectives A. Affected area 3. Summary C. purposes D. Definitions 1 1 2 2 II. Findings 3 A. Council ignores the sense' of the voters 3 . .:? .,:' Significant changes in the - area. -..' , . ,: ': - . 3 C.~: Further development in hills ....ill be. harmful 3 .D. Ordinance does-not constitute taking 3 E. Ordinance does not impair the Housing Element 3 F. The Alameda County GP favors o?en space 4 G. That hn~cO statute favors ODen space 4 3. Cal. Constitution allows instructing Council 5 III. policies readopted & emphasized 5 city of Dublin GP text favors open space 5 IV. General Plan amendments 6 A. Text amendments 5 1. The General Plan 2. The land use element 6 6 3. Conforming amendments 7 1. Land use element 2. Parks & Open space element 3. Housing element 4. Conservation element 5. Zoning ordinance 7 8 11 12 13 c. Map amendments 13 V. Implementation 14 A. Amendments already made in calendar year 14 3. Competing ballot proposal 14 c. Reorganization of GP permitted 14 D. ~~nexation Dowers not restricted 15 E. Rescinds prior amendments affecting same area 15 F. Vote required to adopt ordinance 15 G. Effective date - 15 3. Ordinance amendments require vote 15 I. Provides for vote to renew ordinance J. Each section separate and severable. K. Ordinance to be-appended to General Plan 15 15 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I ;1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ver 8/30/98 dublin3 ORDINANCE NO. TEE DU3LIN RIDGE4~~DS.VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE AN INITIATIVE OF TEE CITY OF DU3LIN ~~NDING TEE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN TEE WEST DUBLIN FOOTHILLS- . TliE;?EOPLE OF TEE. CITY. OF.', DUBLIN DO ,ORDAIN. AS FOLLOWS:' : -fi SECTION I. PUrPose and ob;ectives A. Affected area , This ~nitiative affects only that:porti6rt of. the-West Dublin foothills identified on city map 1~2 (attached), as revised ?ebruary, 1992, and other general plan maps, as the Western 2xtended Planning ~xea, and that is,.as:of the date 90 days prior to the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the-petition for this initiative, all of that area which is outside the existing city limits and within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence. 3. Summary This initiative: 1. Provides that for a period 30 years fro~ the adoption of this ordinance no proposal to zone or rezone the affected area for other tha~ agricultural or open space uses, or to amend the general plan to permit other than agricultural or open space development therein, or to. permanently extend utilities or services to such area, shall be adopted unless f~rst approved by a vote of the voters of the city of Dublin. 2. Readopts and emphasizes the policies already set forth in the Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985, as revised September 14, 1992, providing, among other things, that it shall be the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the affected area and such natural habitat, oak woodlands, natural creeks and open space features as may be found therein. ;.J! 0lU);:K;.)::': i'.!;Qtl1:P.ING !'P.IOR v= J.PPRO,7.I. OF .,=PY.l:.>,.-= PROPOs:.:.s IN ~ ...~= DU~:rn F~2"'" '" 1 " C. Purposes ~ne purposes of this ordinance are to help provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Dublin, and to help protect and enhance the quality of life in the City of Dublin, by - 1. Encouraging the preservation of open space, scenic, ~atural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources in the. .area within the sphere of influence qf the City. of Dublin identified as the Western Extended. Planning ~xea; 2. Enlarging the right of voters residing in the City of Dublin to participate more democratically in important decisions which tend to have irreversible effects on the quality of life in Dublin, by providing that such voters shall have the right to vote on proposals for zoning or development in the affected area; 3. Preventing transitory short-term political. decisions that disregard or do not give proper consideration to existing city policies encouraging the preservation of the affected area in its present state, by creating a safeguard comprising of a public debate and a vote of the people in connection with any proposal to convert lands in the Western Extended Planning area to ~on-agricultural or non-open space uses; 4. Preventing the County of Alameda from encroaching on or usurping the City of Dublin's right to control development in the affected area. D. Definitions For purposes of this ordinance the following definitions shall apply: 1. Western Extended Planning Area. All of that area that is identified on city map 1-2, as revised February 1992, as the Western Extended Planning ~xea, comprising all of that area which is, as of the date of the filing of the notice of intent to circulate the Detition for this initiative, outside the existing city limits and within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence. Such area is sometimes referred to herein as the West Dublin Foothills or the est Dublin Ridgelands. 2. Open space or open space land. For purposes of this ordinance the terms "ODen space" or "open space land" shall refer to any essentialiy unimproved land which is suitable for those uses and activities as are described in the A...'l' ORD~C!: ?~01;f:UUN= PlUOK v~ ;.:pPRJJV1J.. OF ~:::\'~::.o?Y.!:..'\7 :;OKO?OSUS 1:N =s!: i.'!:SX tltr!l:.:l:N Foo=E-T'" 2 I I I I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I California Open Space Act, Goverr~ent Code ~ 65560(b) (1), ( 2 ), ( 3) and (4). 3. Maps. For purposes of this ordinance "maps" refers to those official maps of the City of Dublin depicting the affected area as of the date 90 days prior to the date of filing the notice of intent to circulate the petition for this initiative. - 4. General plan. For purposes of his ordinance the term "General Pl~n" or "Dublin General Plan" shall refer to the Dublin General Plan, including amendments. and maps, as existed as-of the date 90 days prior to the date of the filing of the notice of intent to commence this initiative. SECTION II. Findinas The people of the City of Dublin- find as follows: A. that the legislative body of the city of Dublin, (namely the Dublin city Council), from time to time makes decisions in favor of, or encourages proposals for, or is friendly to proposals for commercial or residential development in the west Dublin foothills which are, or may be, ;ontrary to the sense of the residents and voters of the City of Dublin and contrary to the policies already existing in the Du~lin General Plan; 3. that since the General Plan was adopted it has become apparent that significant changes and additionai development have occurred, or will probably occur in the near future that have increased traffic congestion, traffic safety hazards, air pollution, noise pollution, crime, and demands on services and utilities, and have a negative impact on scenic, open space, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resources; c. that further development for other than agricultural or open space uses in the West Dublin foothills will tend to aggravate those problems identified above; D. that this initiative does not constitute a taking of private lands within the meaning of the law because it allows continued agricultural, open space and recreational uses of the property and permits zoning for commercial, industrial or residential development upon approval or the voters of Dublin; E. that there is sufficient development capacity in the remaining undeveloped areas of the city of Dublin, outside the affected area, to meet the objectives of the Housing Element of-the Dublin General Plan, and such goals and requirements as may be prescribed by the California State Department of Housing and ;,)1 Ol:,!l:::!:;"'~C!: REQtrIRIn:: PIUOR v= APPROV'1.L OP :l~P:-Zh-r PROPOs;.u: IN ~~ ,,= DO'sr=N :roe:::::::-....I.S 3 , Community Developmenti F. that the Alameda County General Plan, East County ~Jea plan, adopted May 5, 1994, provides, among other things: [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the Alameda CouI).ty General Plan, Vol. 1, "Goals, policies and Programs," East County Area Plan]: 1. That. areas in -the West Dublin Foothil.ls should' not be'" n~':: annexed for purposes of.' urban development. [ACGP;' Vol. 1, Policy :if69Ji 2. The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublin for agricultural and 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. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy :if 70]i 3. The County shall recognize West Dublin as a valuable open space buffer separating the community or 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 Agricultural." [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy :#71]; 4. That in the affected area allowable uses may include agriculture, recreational, and open space uses. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Policy tf72]; 5. That it is County policy, with regard to the West Dublin foothills, to encourage activities that will not promote sprawl or leap-frog development, or induce further -adjustment of the West Dublin city boundary, and would not unacceptably affect visual and open space resources. [ACGP, Vol. 1, Program 1] G. That the-authorizing statute of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Cal. Government Code S 56000 et seq., for Alameda County, provides, among other things: [text appearing in italic is taken verbatim from the text of the respective sections of the California Government Code] 1. It is the intent or the Legislature that each commission establish policies and exercise its powers pursuant to this part in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well- ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of pr~serving open-space lands within those patterns. [Gov. Code S 56300]i and 2~ that one AN OI'.D~~ I'~OtmUNG PRIO:R. V~ APP:R.OVAL OP P!:\~PY-!:::-.~ PIl.OPOSAIS Dl = ,,~ P'3I.nl roc==::--r!; 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of the policies of ~~CO is the discouragement of urban sprawl [Gov. Code 556301J. 3. That the Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Sec. 3, states, inter alia, "The people have the right to instruct their representatives...," and that the use of the initiative process in connection with land use planning is a frequently used and legitimate means of instructing such representatives, and is among the fundamental rights and powers. of the voters. See DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal~ 4th 763 (1995) . SECTION III. policies readopted and emohasi:ed The City of Dublin hereby readopts and emphasizes certain policies'found throughout the Dublin General plan and its relevant elements, and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as follows: (text appearing in italic is verbatLm from the General Plan or related documents; the citations reference the corresponding sections of the Dublin General Plan or its elements] A. The city shall encourage only such development proposals for the West Dublin foothills as will not disfigure the ridgelands, and will not result in' premature termination of viable agricultural operations [S 2.1.4(C)]; 3. The guiding policies of the City of Dublin are, among other things, to preserve oak, woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value, and maintain steep slopes as permanent open space for public health and safety [~ 3~I(A), (3) ]; c. The guiding policy of the city of Dublin is to maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as rangeland [5 3.2(A)]; D. It, is an implementing policy of the city of. Dublin to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within open space areas, including the Western Extended Planning Area [S 3.3(D)], and it is a guiding policy to restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelands, because the present undisturbed natural ridgelands as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills [S 3.3(G)], and to implement such goals in a way that will preserve or enhance the ridgelands that for.m the skyline as viewed from freeways and local roads (S 3.3(3)];' :Jl ORD;:Kh..~:::!: P~Qm:iU!;:; PlUOR V~ APPROVJ.L O~ ;)::;v.E:!.O?~-Z: :!'ROPOS1.!.S III ::.= n~T Dtf;.:.I1l Po-..--=""'~' ~ 5 I I I - I F. It is the guiding policy of the City of Dublin to protect ., t t' . b~.& - t .~ ,',:..r~par~an _ yege a ~on. as_ .:,,!.:_p.z;otect~ ve... uI.J...er. Ior,.s reE.JIl...".--:;..,_ '",;-:~'r-' ':"' "I :.: i'qualitY:'and' for' it!?, value:'i.i,i! a'habitathmd aesthetic :1'.;. '.;,. :11 ~:;. resource, and promote access to stream 'corridors for passi't~e recreational use [S 7.1 (A), (;8), (D), ('F)]; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , . E. Most importantly, the City recognizes that the western hills form part or a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread (S 7J; " t ;.,--; "." .' . G. It is a guiding policy of the city of Dublin to protect oak woodlands, and develop a heritage tree ordinance [S 7.3(A), (B), (C)]; B. It is the policy or the' city or Dublin to prohibit development within open space areas except that designed enhance public safety and the environmental setting. [S 7.7(F)]; to I. It is the policy of'the City of Dublin to prevent abuse or residential streets by through traffic. [Additional Design Criteria, Implementing policies, S 5.1(K).J. SECTION IV. Amendments to the General Plan A. Text Amendments The General Plan is amended in the following respects: Added or amended text is in bold 1. The General Plan: a. Section 1.3, Nature of The General Plan, is amended to add the following introductory paragraph: Because there are a limited number of developable parcels in Dublin, care must be taken to create a balanced community which reasonably accommodates the competing needs of housing and commercial development with open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational uses, and provides reasonable protection from air and noise pollution, traffic congestion and safety hazards, and crime, and from over-extending services and utilities. In summary, the General Plan strives to protect and continue the rural, uncongested, unstressful, safe and attractive quality of life that Dublin citizens have come to expect and enjoy while improving the economic vitality of Dublin. 2. Land Use Element: 1Ji ORD::K1....'l:!: lU:Q~NG PR,.IOR. VO':'l::Il. APPR.O\'1.I. o!' :>~l'!O.:h"'r l"ROl'O$J..U; ZN = l.."!:S'% l)U5L~1l' YOO'::E::I.LS 6 I I I'" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a. section 2.1.4, Extended Planning Pxea, Guiding Policy, paragraph "A" is amended as follows: The first paragraph of that section is amended to add the following to the beginning of the sentence: In the Eastern Extended Planning Area, consider A second sentence ~s added to this paragraph, as follows: In the Western Extended Planning Area proposals for residential development shall be discouraged. b. section 2.1.4, Extended planning Area, Implementing policies, paragraph "3" is amended as follows: The words In the Eastern Extended planning ~~ea ... are added to the beginning of the sentence. and the following additional sentences are added: _ The area described in city maps as the Western Extended Planning Area shall Dot be zoned for other than agricultural or open space uses for a period of 30 years, unless such proposed zoning or rezoning of the affected area is first approved by a vote or the voters of the city of Dublin. _ During such time any proposal to amend the general plan to permit other than agricultural or open space use or development, or any use substantially inconsistent with the goalS, policies and provisions OI the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative, in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be adopted only upon the approval of the voters of the City or Dublin. 3. Conforming amendments 1. The Land Use Element: a. Section 2.1.4 of the Land Use Element, Extended Planning ~xea, Implementing policies, is amended to add another paragraph, which states as follows: D. Any proposed amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance having the efrect or permitting other than agricultural or open space uses or development in the Western Extended Planning A=ea ;...>; ORD!I~~:2 JU:Q:n:r.IN~ P!UOR Vw":ER J.P?p.o't'J.L or 7 ;:'Z\'!:LOPH:::h.~ PROPOSes IN ~E!: 'k~S: D~s:.::rN !"~-... c: may be adopted by the city only upon a determination; 1. that such nroposed develonment meets the standards pre;crlbed at 5 2.i.4(C); and 2. that such proposed development -does not add, except to a n~minal extent, to traffic flow upon any public street that is contiguous with, or provides access to existing residential neighbor- hoods, or public or private schools, or residential neighborhoods west of San Ramon Road in the City of Dublin. For purposes of this section, any proposed addition to the traffic level shall he approved only to the min~um extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private lands; and 3. that such proposal has been approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. 2. ?arks and Open Space Element: a. Open space defined. The Parks and Open Space element of the general plan is amended to add the following text between the final paragraph of the introductory language of that section, and before the beginning of section 3.1: For purposes of this ordinance the terms "open space" or "open space land" shall refer t.o any essentially unimproved land which is suitable for those uses and activities as are described in the California Open Space Act, Gov~rnment Code S 65560 (b) (1), (2), (3) and ( 4) . b. Section 3.1, Open Space For Preservation of Natural Resources and For-Public Health 1L~d Safety, first paragraph, is amended to read as follows: Subsequent to adoption of this general plan, the voters of the City of Dublin adopted by initiative (the "Dublin Ridgelands Vot.ers' Voice Initiative) an ordinance encouraging the preservat.ion of the open space, scenic, nat.ural habit.at., agricultural and recreational resources of the West. Dublin foot.hills. c. Section 3.1, following paragraph "e" under Implementing Policy, is added the following paragraph: 1.H ORD!KAN~ P..!:OU!IU:I\'G PlUOk v= 1.PPkOVAI, OP DZ'n1DP~\'= PROPOSALS IN =E:!:: \,.~ DUELIN Poo=E:~~ 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I D. Discourage proposals for uses or development that may be inconsistent with the goals, policies or provisions of this ordinance, or of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' voice Initiative, in connection with the Western Extended planning Area; such proposals shall not be effective unless first approved by a vote of the voters of the City o~ Dublin. d. Section 3~2, Agricultural Open Space,paragrapn entitled Implementing Policy, -;-'3" is amended to add the following: Approval of development of agricultural land in the Western Extended Planning Area, in addition to those findings stated above, shall require approval of the voters of the City of Dublin pursuant to the termS of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative. e. Section.3.3, Ooen Soace For outdoor Recreation, paragraph entitled Guiding policies, is amended to add the folloy,Ting: c. Encourage the preservation of the Western Extended Planning Area as an open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resource. D. It is the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the establishment of, and cooperate in good faith with, a private open-space land trust for the purpose of raising private funds to purchase lands in the Western Extended Planning Area to be dedicated for permanent agricultural, open space and recreational uses. f. Section 3.3, following the section entitled Implementing Policy, the paragraph entitled Guiding. Policy, "G" is amended to read as follows: G. Encourage the preservation or the Western Extended Planning Area as an open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational resource, and restrict structures on the hillsides that visually impact the affected area. g. The last paragraph entitled Implementing Policy [o~ page 3 - 3] is amended to add the following pa~agraphs: I. In connection with any application for zoni~g ;.N ORPn=~ I'.l:O~NG 1'R.!0?- v= A!'l'RO\-;.r. 0::- p~P~'-.r ?il.OPOSAlS IN ~ ;.~T PUS:'IN ::OO::::I:.r.s 9 for other than agricultural or open space use in the Western Extended Planning Area, submit such proposals to, and obtain the approval of, the voters of the City of Dublin. J. The city, its departments, boards, appo~n~ees to agencies [e.g., Local Agency Formation Commission, (LAFCO)], commissions, officers, staff and employees shall not approve or adopt, or do or fail to do any act the result of which permits.or authorizes a permanent extension of services or utilities, in-connection with other than agricultural or open soace use in the Western Extended planning-Area: except upon the prior approval of the Dublin voters. K. To avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property in connection with any proposed use or development within the Western Extended Planning ~~ea, the City Council may approve a general plan or zoning amendment to permit other than agricultural or open soice develooment or uses, and an extension of utIlities and-services to that area, by the affirmative vote of the city Council, and based on substantial evidence in the record, that: 1. The application of the provisions of this initiative to the proposed development would constitute an unconstitutional taking of a landowner's property; and 2. The proposed amendment, development project and associated land use designation will allow land uses and associated environmental effects only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid the unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; and 3. The proposal complies with the 670 ft. elevation cap on development as found in the Alameda County General Plan, Policy IDS, section 1-5; and 4. The proposed general plan or zoning amendment, or development, has failed to be approved by the voters of the City of Dublin in an election. Substantial evidence shall include, but not ].X O~!RANCE P.EQU'IR!NQ PRIOR VO~il ~?Il.OVl.I. OF D~PY.::l1"l' l'?O?CSA!.S !Ii' ::E!: ,,~:r tlUB:.!N YClO:r:s:=:.:.s 1 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be limited to, a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that the referenced policies as applied to the particular development constitute an unconstitutional taking. L~ To promote the public health, safety, and welfare, the City' Council may, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council, amend the general plan or zoning Ordinance, or zone or rezone or approve a development in the Western Extended Planning Area, if it finds: 1. (a) that such amendment is necessary for the development of a public park, public open space recreational facility, or other compatible public open space use, and such amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and provisions prescribed by this ordinance and the Dublin Ridgelands voters' voice Initiative, and that such development does not disfigure the affected area; or (b) theamenament is the only feasible method of addressing a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; and s~ch permanent ~ixtures, development, uses or other changes as may be proposed shall be the minimum amount of change required to provide for the public health, safety and welfare, and will be designed to provide maximum protection for open space, scenic, natural habitat, agricultural and recreational values. 2. the amendment complies with the 670 ft. elevation cap on dev~lopment as found in the Alameda County General Plan, Policy 108, section 1-5. 3. The Housing Element: The City of Dublin General Plan 30using Element, adopted February 11, 1985, as amended June 11, 1990, is amended in the following respects: a. Section 6.1.5, Nongovernmental Constraints, ;.]I ORD:!KA.>:a: p-zotrnUNG PRIOll. VO';"!:R. 1.!'PRO\'1..L OF P~?~7 PR.O?OSJ.:-S IN TS!: ~'!:S'I' DU5l.IN FOO'::;:-O.'S 11 subsection entitled Community Opposition To Medium and Bigh Density Bousing, shall include a third paragraph which states as follows: In addition, the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' voice Initiative provides that it is City policy to maintain the present unzoned status of the Western Extended Planning Area, or if zoned it should be . zoned agricultural or open space use, unless any .p~oposed zoning or rezoning of such area for other than agricultural or open space~use or development is first approved by a vote of the voters of Dublin. b. Section 6.3, subsection entitled III. Strategies Requiring Ongoing City Effort Using Existing Programs, paragraph A, is amended to state as follows: Annex and zone additional land for residential use. The inventory of land suitable for residential development (Section 6.1.3) includes one area within the extended planning area (East Dublin) which the City is annexing or considering annexing for rezoning for residential development. The subparagraph following the above, entitled Actions Needed, is amended to state as follows: Annexation of areas. into City and adoption of General Plan Amendments, rezonings, specific plans and site development reviews, with the except~on of the Western Extended Planning Area. 4. The Conservation Element: The Conservation element of the General Plan is amended in the following respects: a. An additional section is added which shall state:. 7.8 It is the policy of the City of Dublin to encourage the preservation of the existing essentially unimproved character of the Western Extended Planning area for a 30 year period during which any proposed zoning or rezoning of such area for other than agricultural or open. space uses or development shall first be approved by a vote of the voters of the City of Dublin. Each policy described in the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative (e.g., protection of Oak ].$ ORDINANa; P.sQU:;;F.Il'G PRIOR Vo=E:Il. APPRO\7.L O!' :>no=PH!!:!.--r PROPOSA:.S III ~ \,<:s:r DUSLIN :-OO::l:::u.s 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I woodlands, promotion of access to natural streams, etc.) shall apply to the Western Extended Planning Area to help promote the purposes of the other sections of the Conservation Element upon and within such area. 5. The Zoning Ordinance: The zonipg.Ordinance of the city of Dublin is amended to conform to the provisions of this initiative, as follows: a. Section 8. 120. 070, "City Council Action, ,; is' amended to delete the language appearing therein and. t~e following'language shall appear: City .Council Act'ion. Upon receipt of the ?lannJ..ng.. commission's recommendation, the c~ty Council shall hold a public hearing and may, subject to . the exception stated herein, approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the planning Commission's recommendation. Exception: In the event the proposal or recommendation affects the W~st~rn Extended planning Area in connection with zoning such area for, changing the General Plan to allow for, or approving a proposal for other than agricultural or oDen space uses or development in the affected area: such proposal or reco~endation may be adopted only upon the approval of the voters of the City of Dublin. b. The 'definition or' "Zoning ordinance" as found in the Zoning Ordina~ce, Definitions, is. amended as follows: the period at the end of the existing definition is changed to a comma, followed by the following language: or such zoning ordinance as may be adopted by the voters of the City. of Dublin through the initiative process. c. The definition of Recreational Facility (Outdoor) is amended to add the following additional sentence: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term "recreational" for purposes of the Western Extended Planning Area, shall include only those recreational activities as shall not disfigure or ~pair the natural scenic qualities of the west Dublin foothills, or reduce, destroy or harm the natural habitat, including oak woodlands, creeks, }..'I OiWrn;.....,~ P.!:QUZP..!NG ?IUOR Vo=Dt ll'rROVAL 0::- :>~?l-Zh-:r ?RO!'Os;.:.s Dl TSE ..~S'X OU!lr.IN !'=.,..,~<: 13 fields and wildlife, and shall allow only such activities as are described for open space uses in California Government Code S 65560 et seg. c. Map Amendments: 1. The Development Potential' Map_ (figure 2-2) is amended to designate the area within the Extended Western planning Area as "Agricultural and Open Space - suitable .for open space, scenic, natural habitat~ agricultural and recreational uses." 2. All other maps which are not described here but were developed or adopted by, or are used by the city of Dublin for land use and development purposes, are hereby amended to conform to the amendments and objectives of this ordinance. SECTION V. Implementation A. Upon the effective date of this initiative, the initiative shall be deemed to have amended the General Plan and other documents described hereinabove, in accordance with its terms, except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the General Plan permitted by state law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in the year of this initiative'S effective date and prior to such effective date, then the General Plan amendment specified herein shall be deemed effective on January 1 of the following year. B. If another ballot measure is olaced on the same ballot as this initiative, and if such other ballot measure governs g~owth boundaries or growth policies for the city of Dublin or otherwise purports to deal with the same subject matter or geographical area as this ini~iative, and if both m~asures should pass, the voters expressly declare their intent that this measure conflicts with such other measure, and that the measure which obtains the most votes shall control. c. The .General Plan may be-reorganized, individual provisions of the General Plan may be renumbered or reordered, and provisions of the General Plan other than the provisions added by this initiative may be amended, by the City Council in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of state law~ Notwithstanding any such reorganization, renumbering, reordering qr amendment of the General Plan, the provisions added to the Plan by this initiative shall continue to be included in the General Plan until the thirtieth anniversary of the effective date of this initiative, except to the extent that this initiative has been earlier repealed or amended consistent with its provisions. .AN OltD~:!: i'~Q1l"IIUNG PUOlt vo=. 1.Pi'ltOVAL O!" ~:!:t""..I.O?~'T l'ltOi'OS~ IN ~ ;.':;:ST PlmUN 1"00'::t=-..:.s 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I~" I D. No provision of this initiative shall be deemed to limit or restrict the power of the city of Dublin to annex all or a part of the affected area, or zone or rezone such area, except that any proposed non-agricultural or non-open space zoning, use or development as may be proposed shall not be effective unless ;. ...... d b h ..... .:> ~ h C . t ~ D bl' .,'" .l.l.rsJ- approye Y t e_YOl._rs or.. t e. ~ y OI. U .LIl~_....-. ..-.- --. .,""'" .,_. -,.., , ,'1 . :; : : .' . E. To the extent that any pro;ision of any amendment to the . general plan, general plan maps or z.oning.Ordinance as may be adopted by the Dublin city council between the date 90 days prior to the date of the filing of the notice of intent to cir~ulate this petition, and the effective date of this ipitiative, is inconsistent with or likely to have the effect of defeating any of the principal goals, policies or provisions of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative as they pertain to the Western Extended Planning Area, such provision of such amendment is hereby rescinded. An elevation cap, by itself, shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with or contrary to the principal goals, policies or provisions of this initiative. F. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217, if the voters voting on this initiative adopt it by a simple majority vote, or by a vote greater than any competing ordinance on the same ballot, it shall become a valid and binding ordinance ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the city Council. G. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the day after the election adopting this ordinance. H. For the 3D-year period from the effective date of this ordinance, the provisions thereof shall not be amended except by the approval of the voters of the City of Dublin by means of an electl~n. I. No earlier than two years prior to, nor later than the expiration date of this ordinance, the city shall place on the ballot of any general or special election a proposal to reenact and continue this ordinance in effect for an additional 30 year period. J. Should any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinancei it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, and adopted by the people, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. :.N ORD::KANCE p':::Oll'J:RJ:NQ l';tJ:OR V~ APPROV:.L OF 1 ::. O~PY.U:T PROPOSAlS IN ~ 'h-.:s<r Oll'51.J:ll Foo-=E:!:I.:.S ..J K. This initiative shall be entitled "The Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative and, upon the adoption of this initiative by the voters of the City of Dublin, the entire text of the initiative shall be appended to the Dublin General Plan. :....-..: OPJ):A.\N~ REOtlnING PIUOR VO':::!:R ;"pPROV1.I,. o!' 16 :";"'I:I..o?~\"X PROPOSA1.S IN :r5!: i.~ IlIJSL!H !'oo=::-r-r ~ <: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute and directed Staff to prepare a revision to the existing Freeway Interchange Fee Resolution No. 11-96. ... DRAFT DUBLIN RIDGELANDS VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE 8:10 p. m. 8.1 (420-10) City Attorney Silver advised that Morgan King has sent Staff a letter requesting that the City Council authorize Staff to engage in direct communication with the authors of the draft Dublin Ridgelands Voters ' Voice Initiative for purposes of identifying and resolving unintended problems with the initiative and that the City Council appoint a committee comprised of Councilmembers and City Staff to meet with initiative proponents to explore whether the City should adopt the initiative into law rather than calling an election. The proposed committee would be subject to the Brown Act. City Attorney Silver advised that Councilmember Lockhart requested at the Council's September 15th meeting that Staff prepare an analysis of the draft initiative. " The proponents have not yet begun the formal process of circulating the initiative. The process requires the proponents to file with the City Clerk a notice of intent to circulate the initiative. The City Attorney must then prepare a title and summary. The proponents then publish the notice, title and summary, and may then begin to collect signatures. If sufficient "prima facie' signatures are obtained (within a 6-month period), the City Clerk will verify the signatures. If there are sufficient valid signatures, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance (exactly as written), or call an election and submit the proposed ordinance to the electorate. The initiative, if adopted, would require that for the next 30 years, all future proposals for constructing new development, or to permanently extend utilities or services in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area would need to be approved by Dublin voters. The initiative makes an exception to allow agricultural or open space recreational uses in order to encourage the preservation of natural habitat, oak woodlands, creeks, etc., and uses that are necessary for public health and safety. In addition, an elevation cap is established limiting any development that needs to be approved to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING October 6, 1998 PAGE 455 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I property to no higher than 670'. The initiative would apply to the Western Extended Planning Area beyond the City limits, but within the Sphere ofInfIuence. If that area is annexed to the City, the initiative would govern land uses in that area. Ms. Silver indicated that the City Manager had received another letter from Morgan King with some changes to the initiative, but Staff has not had an opportunity to review the " changes. Mayor Houston indicated he was in favor of appointing a subcommittee with Cm. Howard and Cm. Lockhart representing the Council. He would like the subcommittee to bring a schedule back to the next Council meeting. Cm. Lockhart felt the sooner the subcommittee got started the sooner communication could be developed to see where everyone stood. Morgan King stated he wanted the Council to authorize Staff to talk to them on the phone to answer their questions. Mayor Houston felt the first step was to get all the parties together in person rather than being on the phone. It is going to require consensus of the citizens, Staff and the Council to get it going in the right'direction. He was not in favor of haphazard communication, but wanted it proper and formalized. Ms. Silver indicated the Brown Act would apply to this committee. If members met by themselves not as a committee, it would not be under the Brown Act Mayor Houston stated the Brown Act for elected officials required that three people can't talk and agree before hand about an issue. When there is an ad hoc committee, how does that work? Ms. Silver said the meetings would have to be noticed. They should only talk about the subject at hand at the meeting. Two members of a committee can talk to each other, but they can't talk to a third member of the committee. They may also talk to other people not on the committee. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR HEETING October 6, 1998 PAGE 456 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. King felt this would take a cumbersome amount of time and wanted the Council to authorize Staff to discuss informally with them as they worked on the language for the initiative. He wanted to thank Staff for their help. The initiative was ready to go but they were willing to hold off. He was concerned that the committee will take too much time, possibly weeks. His goal was to have a process to polish up and get the :finallangu~ge and create something which is mutually acceptable. Mayor Houston stated it has to be done in a public forum. It may take longer. If their group has to file its initiative, then so be it. Do what you have to do. But let's meet and be serious. As far as the City Council was concerned, it must be done in a public way, not in a haphazard way with phone calls. Cm. Lockhart felt it was important for everyone to hear what the initiative involves. She wanted to get it going and get it done fast. They did not want to interrupt the proponents' time line for the initiative. She encouraged getting a timeline and expediting as soon as possible. Mr. King stated his group wanted to file on October 12th. Tom Benigno, 6546 Cottonwood Circle, Dublin, stated he was here as a citizen's advocate. , He didn't understand why they were trying to stop development for 30 years. Houses up there would be in the $700,000 range, which would help the value of their houses. He had talked to Mr. Nielsen and other people in the area and he felt this was premature. He wanted Staff to look at it and reappraise it every year. He didn't feel it was right to say you can't build for thirty years. He felt the City has done a great job. They have come a 19n9 way. Don't shut it down. Mayor Houston explained this is why there should be a subcommittee. People have different perspectives and different views. He wanted people to come together and create something everyone can be proud of Cm. BUI10n stated this will be public meetings people can attend and express their thoughts. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, Dublin, felt this was a democratic, fair initiative. He indicated that he was a member ofP ARC, Preserve Our Ridgelands Committee, a California non- profit organization dedicated to preserving space for parks and open space. He is familiar CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING October 6, 1998 PAGE 457 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I with the contents of the initiative and P ARC supports it. He believes it is the right control for this situation. He urged the Council to fully cooperate in this effort. Dave Bewley, co-author of initiative, stated what they have done tonight is unusual. We all live here. There will be diverse opinions, but we want to do what is best for Dublin. They' wanted to give the voters the right to vote on prezone, not to stop development. An Urban Growth Boundary would be a legal way to stop development. This is about a voters initiative. He felt the public forum is a great idea. It would be beneficial to all so they can communicate. There needs to be dialogue about what is going on in the hills. It needs to be done in a timely fashion. He wanted to move forward. Marjorie Labar, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, indicated that she has stood in this same place and talked over a 100 times since 1985 to the Council. She disliked the 1:00 a.m. Planning Commission meetings. We have gone over the same territory over and over again. She urged spending more time developing the flat lands around BART and leaving the hills alone. Set the subcommittee as soon as possible and publish a schedule. It was unique to see the Council willing to work together with them. She wanted to go forward with all due speed. Roxanne Nielsen said she was curious to know how these people who have spoken would feel if they owned the l~d. Would they have the same attitude? Flat lands can be used for agriculture, but the ridgelands cannot be used for agricultural. John Anderson stated the purpose of their requests was to form a committee. The initiative was not designed to take land from anybody. It is designed to open up to a vote. People can vote however they wanted to. He wanted a fast track and asked what the forrmlt of operations would be. Mayor Houston assigned Cm. Howard and Cm. Lockhart to the subcommittee with Cm. Lockhart to be the Chair. The citizens can decide whether they want two or three members on the subcommittee. The City Attorney or her designee and one member of the Planning Staff will represent City Staff. The second item would be to get who is on the subcommittee by tomorrow & schedule the first meeting so this can be done in a quick fashion. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING October 61 1998 PAGE 458 I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Silver stated the Council needed to designate by name the members of the subcommittee. Mr. King indicated David Bewley, Jolm Anderson, and he would represent the citizens. Mayor Houston indicated these are public meetings and anyone can attend. Iris to be a group that will discuss ideas and fashion something that is. very good, but it has to be a public setting. Ms. Silver asked to clarify the purpose of the committee. Mayor Houston stated it would be an analysis of the Dublin Ridgelands Voters Initiative in regard to technical and substantive issues. Mr. King indicated that if the Council simply adopts an agreed ordinance, the Council could amend or rescind the ordinance at any time. One of the fimdamental purposes of the initiative is to prevent that from happening. So the process they have to go through is to have to get the required number of signatures under the Election Code. If they get the required number of signatures and they present them to the City, then the City has a choice to either force it to an election and if it is adopted by the voters, it cannot be amended or rescinded without a vote: However, if the Council takes the other option to simply adopt it into law, it would save the City money and them a lot of effort. At that point, it cannot be amended or rescinded without putting it to a vote so for us to accomplish our purpose, we have to get the signatures. But, hopefully, once we do that, we will have an ordinance that the City will agree to adopt which saves the City a lot of money and saves us a lot of effort. . - Mayor Houston responded that will be the decision of the Council at that time. If we can come up with some consensus, your outcome is probably what will happen. Cm. Lockhart felt the subcommittee is a good vehicle, a good place to start and it did not need to be dragged out. She understood their need to get signatures. Ms. Nielsen stated she was concerned that they were talking about something that possibly could become a law without having another person's opinion like hers which is contrary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING October 6, 1998 PAGE 459 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mayor Houston assured her that all these meetings would be open to the public and all could speak. Ms. Nielsen thought only the committee members could speak. Cm. Lockhart explained that it would not become law from the committee. It would be looked at for language. They would still need to collect signatures and show the Council that this is what the community wants. The Council would then accept the initiative with the signatures or put it on the ballot. Ms. Nielsen felt a ballot would represent more of the City than what she sees here. Maureen Gatterman, 11556 Bay Laurel, stated this is not about development. It is not about stopping the sale. It was about the people of Dublin getting to vote. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council established a subcommittee consisting of Cm. Lockhart, Cm. Howard, John Anderson, David Bewley, Morgan King, City Attorney Elizabeth Silver, and a member of the Community Development Department with Cm. Lockhart being the Chair to work on getting set up a proper forum for noticing this week, and establishing a schedule. .... REVIEW OF QUARRY LANE SCHOOL DRAFT ENFIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 8 -? :)_p.m. 8.2 (420-50) Community Development Director Eddie Peabody advised that Alameda County has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report for a private school (Quarry Lane School) which is located within the unincorporated area, but within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The DEIR analyzed environmental impacts that would result from the rezoning of 6363 Tassajara Road, located north of the City limits to allow the constmction of a private school for 1,200 students. lv1r. Peabody stated it is proposed that the school would be constmcted during three phases over a nine-year period. In January, City Staff reviewed the Quarry Lane School Initial CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING October 67 1998 PAGE 460 1':-- i I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " - - -.. Mr. Parker indicated they have shown them to be a minimum of 3 feet and there will be different types of elevations and shrubs. They will work on perfecting the balance as they submit their plans for Staff review. Marjorie Labar reiterated Cm. Zika's concem to include facilities for daycare for all future developments. Ifnecessmy, mandate on-site childcare facilities. This is a fact of life we need to address. This is much to the good of our economic balance as well. Also minimize landscaping that has to use potable water. Be careful with how we site bus stops. Many do not take into consideration the prevailing wind. Lighting is problematic for a woman alone -after dark. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance and scheduled the second public hearing for the December 15t...'-l meeting. +- DUBLIN RIDGELANDS VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT 8:50p.m. 7.1 (660-10) Cm. Lockhart presented her report and stated the subcommittee has been working on this for a couple of months. She explained the makeup of the group, being herself and Cm. Howard, proponents, Morgan King, David Bewley and John Anderson, a representative of the Community Development Department and a representative of the City Attomey's Office. The purpose, language and specific implications of.the proposed initiative were thoroughly discussed. As a result of those discussions, the Initiative proponents have agreed to revisions to the Initiative language which more clearly represents their objective to require voter approval of any General Plan Amendment regarding urban uses in the Westem Extended Planning Area. Cm. Lockhart stated in addition to the above stated objective, the Initiative proponents are requesting the City Council to initiate amendments to the City's GP which would accomplish the following: 1) Modify residential street traffic CITY COUNCIL M!NUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1 J' 1998 PAGE 542 I ,~-- I, I I i- i I j, I I I I I I ~ ~ r . .-. "__r.~__ _~,... ------,._'_.~.M~~_.______._ .~___ -~ - .'~.~ -_........_"..r__ .~.. . .. ,... '.. -:- -~._.. . .-.._. '~'------~~__:'__~7_M~__.. _~_,." ~'L._ ~ .._ ,- .'- -___. .. _ ..n.__ ~__'.__' _~_~~__.. .." .___,~,__, - ... . 'r'.~ ..r.__............'. _~..~......._~. 0_ .. ~_~ __n ._"..~ . .-~ .:_'-_'. .. . -.' . - -.. standards in the Circulation Element; and 2) Establish a Development Elevation Cap for the Western Extended Planning Area. Cm. Lockhart stated the proponents should be commended for their willingness to discuss and resolve many aspects of the proposed initiative with the Councilmembers on the Committee. She stated at this point, she felt the entire City Council should give specific direction to the Committee on the proponent's request and any future activity of the Committee. The proponents request that the City Council initiate a GPA'study regarding traffic and elevation cap. If the City Council authorizes amendments, specific costs and other goals must be considered with a plan to be submitted at a future meeting. The request will probably require 3 or 4 months to complete and the Council will probably need to reprioritize other projects. Cm. Zika stated he was confused. Number one is study of average daily traffic on residential streets and secondly is elevation cap. Cm. Lockhart stated in going through the initiative language they wanted a vote of the public that would affect the GP, but what has come to light in trying to find the wording is that these two issues have jumped to the forefront. The proponents want to study them before going fonvard with the initiative. This will require quite a bit of time and reprioritization on the part of Staff. Cm. Zika asked if we suspend all development during the period while we study this. Cm. Lockhart stated one commitment was by springtime, the language for the initiative would be together. Do we want to look at the GP and open it up and do these studies that will take 3 or 4 months? The City Council should discuss it and decide. Cm. Zika felt if things are going to have to be suspended, winter would be the proper time. If we go fonvard with the study, we should suspend all future permits. Cm. Lockhart felt it is important that this not just be projects that may come up in the Westem Dublin Extended Plarming Area. CITY cau ]\lCI L t"fIN UTES VOL U i'-1 E 1 7 REGULAR MEETING December 1 J 1998 tlAG- 1:4"7 .. t -.1 ... - .... - - .. - ,:,-:~_":",,,':':":;-~~":""'.__.,,::""';'., -.- . _............_,-~..._~~....., -~ ~_.' ."... - . .----:.-:--:-.._~..-~_._.,-.:-:::: - - - I I I 1 i i I ,i I I I I I I I I 1 t ) Mayor Houston stated there are no pending projects. There are a lot of other fun projects coming up, and this will impact the processing and planning of some 15 capital projects in the City that Staff is working on. It would be realistic to say nothing in the western hills, and to say accepting no future projects there would be realistic. Mr. Ambrose stated StafIinvolved in this would be working on other projects.. Contrary to popular belief, we are busier in the winter time so developers can get their projects going in the spring. Planners are as busy as ever. Staff would propose to come back with a list of what projects would be impacted. Mayor Houston felt the original idea was let's vote on everything in the western hills. By bringing in all these other issues, it will lengthen it out and take a lot of time. Let's just put it on the ballot and vote and get it over with. GP changes need to go back to the committee and be analyzed. The numbers need to be explored so we are talking apples to apples. em. Zika felt this was two separate things. Do we want to put an elevation cap on the western hills and have vote on any development for the next 30 years. The traffic item is a different issue. He stated he saw no need to hold up elevation for a traffic study. Cm. McCormick stated she agreed with Cm. Zika. She felt it would be good to revisit the traffic issues, but this is two separate issues. She endorsed the initiative in the beginning and now throwing these things in is confusing. As far as elevation cap, she felt it is an entirely separate issue from this. _ She asked if the committee had looked at the possibility of establishing an urban limit line and this would make the elevation cap moot. Cm. Lockhart stated the committee has not discussed this. They fine tuned the initiative regarding voting on anything affected by the GP and then these other two issues came up. They felt they needed the full City Council's direction. They felt this was something they should at least discuss. This seemed to be taking on a life of its own and this is why it is back at the Council. Cm. Zika stated he had no problem with 670', but sees this as two different items. Pleasanton's traffic counts may be figured differently than ours. Their ...: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 544 - 1"'-' - I, I I I I I II I I I ,I I I I I I I I sewer usage is different. For example, ours is 190 gallons per day and theirs is 390 gallons per day. Cm. Lockhart again stated the subcommittee just needs direction. Cm. Zika stated he felt we should just get on with the initiative process. A traffic study is a separate issue. Mayor Houston felt we need to make sure definitions and te~s are all understood. It would be better if the City Council gets a report on the impacts of scheduling. They could then decide if new projects should be delayed. Staff could provide a realistic assessment. Let's separate these things. If we are to have a vote, go forward and we can study the other two issues. With the idea of an urban growth boundary, we must look at the impacts timewise and financially to the City. We have to look at the property owners and density transfers and easements we can use to work with the properties. Until the property is bought, there is no closure. There are lots of ways such as conservatory easements so everyone can have a 'Win/win situation. There's plenty for the committee to talk about. Cm. Lockhart clarified they should look at original initiative and anything west of San Ramon Road would go to the people for a vote and should separate the issue of traffic from that and make it something of its own. Secondly look at urban limit line and what impacts this will have and look at alternatives in land planning for that area as to ways to purchase the land. The Council felt this was a separate issue. The first two seem straightforward and put us back on the track. An urban limit line brings up lots of other issues. With the initiative process, you don't have to have an EIR. They get signatures and then the City Council decides what they want to do. Cm. McCormick stated she sees the urban limit line as part of the initiative. She felt they should consider looking at it with the initiative. Mayor Houston felt the brainstorming of ideas gives the committee something worthwhile to discuss. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR Tv1EETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 545 --- - .. ~~- -.., ..- - - - ".~- . &.....-.. --- ~ - ~ Morgan King, 8348 Creekside Drive stated on behalf of the supporters of the initiative they thanked Staff for their participation in the committee process for the last 3 or 4 months. Eddie Peabody, Carol Cirelli, and Kit Faubion were commended for their professionalism and expertise. He also thanked Cm. Lockhart and Cm. Howard for the great deal of time spent on the committee. He thanked Dick Armstrong who comes in and observes, and Maria Carrasco who does the transcription for this. The Voters Initiative has two issues that were not prominently noticed; one was traffic and another was an elevation cap- primarily for aesthetic reasons. They will begin the initiative process early in the spring and it will include traffic issues and an elevation cap'. Whatever direction they go, they need to get the consensus of the developers in the westem foothills. It is possible that they could do a voters voice initiative in the spring without traffic issues or elevation cap, but the current plan is to include these issues. If the people they represent support an urban growth boundary which would stop growth, this would certainly stop the traffic problem. They do not need to buy the property up there, in their opinion. They want to continue to include the City's participation and don't wish to create unnecessmy problems for the City. They have repeatedly stated that they would be happy to talk to the property owners of the undeveloped property outside Dublin. So far they have not received any indication from them to discuss it. They would prefer to hear their concems at a public meeting. David Bewley, one of the authors of the initiative, stated they feel they are making great headway. They are not making any statement about urban growth boundary lines. They want to follow what they call the Napa Model. It could be done many different ways. What put them here is to think out the ramifications. This is what percolated out of the process. Traffic is one of the things that came out. It has been a contentious issue over the last 10 years or so. They all deal with traffic and circulation issues. When you start talking about this and say you want minimal impact, what does this really mean and how do you enforce it? They looked at different cities model levels and also slope consideration. If the language is vague, this isn't the way to do it. He felt 1,500 cars on a residential street is too high. You generally use 10 trips per household, so 74 homes would generate 740 trips. Roxanne Nielsen stated she spoke for 11 families who own land within the sphere of influence, now zoned for agricultural use. To develop would require a GPA after study and research and involvement. In the last 10 years, only 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1T 1998 PAGE 546 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I. I I I 1 I I I I'~~o_'-"'__ I I I' I I. I , I I I I .1 I I I I I I '__~n.~_ .___,__.... ___ _n_ .-_. -----.-~ ~.. . . . ----~ - -~-- .~. , ~. .~..- . ~- - - . _H. _ .. developments have been approved after going through this process. They support this process. A one size fits all regime penalizes the landowners. They are sensitive people and are willing to work within the process. Traffic and other site specific concerns would be addressed just as any project is scrutinized. The elevation cap would limit any potential of growth. Open space doesn't generate revenue in order for them to pay their taxes. Rather than a GPA or initiative- landowners have no vote in the City of Dublin. Bill Schaab, Brittany Lane questioned ridgeline building. Do we have this in Dublin? The school and church put a gym right on top of the hill. Also at the top of Hansen Hill, it appears there are homes right on top of the ridge. Hopefully, we will look at the merits of the plan rather than the height and consider what is the visual impact of some of these projects. Dublin Boulevard will be a mess. A lot of traffic will just get worse. Rory McClain, 8341 Creekside Drive referenced the point about landowners being concerned about a vote of the people. If it makes sense to the people, it will be approved. What's the problem? What would they have to fear if the people of the City feel the project is good? Development on the ridgelands would affect not only neighbors, but the impact goes far beyond that little spot of land and impacts the entire population of Dublin and others. A vote of the people seems reasonable. Marjorie Labar stated she supports pulling out the traffic element with proviso that we look at traffic for the entire City. There are anumber of areas in eastern Dublin that have the same potential for creating another Bay Laurel Drive and a mishmash mess. It would behoove us to be extremely careful to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. If we are serious at looking at traffic loading throughout the City, she would accept cutting out the traffic standard provided we look seriously at amending the GP to avoid past mistakes. The State has developed a way for large landowners to avoid paying taxes by Williamson Act. We need to stop approving residential developments until we have more realistic traffic studies done. Sue Rainey stated she sympathized with the landowners. Unfortunately, they gave up some rights when they started selling it. People living there want to have some say in what it does to the environment. She did not agree that the traffic issue should be taken out of the initiative. If some new development CliY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULA.R MEETING Dec~rnb.ej 1,1998 PAGE 547 should be voted in and the traffic issue is not a part of it, we will have the same problems we have now. When she moved in, she was told one thing and then gets in and it's something different and now she is stuck. She is unhappy with everyone who did not make this clear to them. We need to be more concerned with the quality of life for our citizens. Unfortunately, traffic seems to be the biggest problem. When you move into a new development, what you see and hear is sometimes different than what actually happens. Some type of a traffic thing should be included or consideration taken into account for added traffic. They have way more than what should be there. She is for.the initiative and for the people and for improving the quality of life. John Anderson, one of the proponents stated this is an unusual circumstance. D sually an initiative is taken directly to the people. They are breaking ground here. This initiative is nothing more than a democratic solution to some of the issues they face. The majority will get to rule on whether the development goes forward or not. There is no real doubt that we need to look at traffic issues. How long this takes will obviously impact the initiative. We need to have some idea of when these issues will come to the surface and be resolved and then they can decided when to move fOIWard with the initiative. This is not a taking of any land but simply an extension of the democratic right to vote. George Williams 11757 Casa Linda Court was concemed that the initiative process is being abused. We have a planning staff and a City Council that receives and processes information from the developer and these are democratic processes. If some of the standards used in this process need to be reviewed, those need to be addressed outside an initiative process because we have a GP that is accepted throughout Dublin. We should not extract out some areas and include others. If it's Dublin and it's in the GP, let's abide by that. The City Council sets the policy and it's the GP. Negotiations are worked out all the time, but for someone to stop growth, this is a taking of property. What has to happen there is a process that's established and we've accepted this in the City and there's a process for a developer to pay for studies, engineering, etc. The process that is established is the democratic process. The City Council is elected to see to it that policies are enforced. Next time, maybe we will have an initiative because we want a stop sign somewhere. This is the way a General Law City operates. Stopping growth is not the right way to increase values. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 548 -:.,,"-1 I I I I .1 I , I I I I I, I I I I I I I ~.~-~: '.~~~-_~':'7~:_~~C-:- I I I I I I I, I I I ,I I I i I I I I .__~_____." -_.._----'.._':.~.'::_..=.- _..=-,.r._=-r~y~....~_ ,. ~~ - ..- -- --- ------ -- -... .----- -.. .. --- - - . .. Richard Guarantion, Rhoda Avenue, spoke about prospective on what he would like to see in the next century and that is to protect open space. As we develop this valley, we will treasure the hills. In Europe, you hike through a landowner's property. Think about the vision of how we can have a win/win situation for the landowners and the future. What are we going to do 20,30 or 50 years from now? He has been up.to Schaefer Ranch and they've done a great job on fitting it in, even though he would prefer that it not be developed. What will our kids and grandkids have for open space?' He worked with developing the City Park. He hopes we will have a regional park that he can walk to. Mark Ferguson, Eden Canyon Road stated his mother is a property owner there. They don't like the initiative because they can't vote for any Councilmember. There is a lot of country that is buildable and not a car would come into the City of Dublin. This is all about an open space initiative. To say this is democratic is not true. They don't want to take their property; they just want to be big brother and say what they can and can't do. It is a lot of effort to own and maintain property, but it should be up to them to decide. Some of the property may fit in with Castro Valley. He likes the idea of compensation. Maybe long term leases could be considered. This will be litigated and it will not be a win/win situation. Some developers are winning litigation from cities because they are not able to develop.' Traffic is a problem not only in Dublin, but the entire Bay Area. The whole thing needs to be looked at a little more openly. Emmett King, 11460 Rothschild Place stated they've gone over this thing before. He only learned about this meeting tonight at 7 p.m. He asked if a person can get on a list of when they're having special meetings. Mayor Houston explained the number of ways they can be informed. Agendas are posted 72 hours before a meeting. Mr. Ambrose stated he could be put on the agenda mailing list. He should contact the City Clerk's Office. Mr. King stated every time he comes into Dublin, he must go down Rolling Hills and it is steep and winding and you have to ride your brakes all the way down. This is something to be considered. Speaking about 700' levels, this is just a smokescreen. The hills can be cut down to whatever size you want it in a very short time. This is a farce. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 549 Leonard Valvo, Creekside Drive expressed concern about the sulfur deposit up in the hills. When it rains in the winter time, the smell is more pronounced. If there is further development in the hills and the sulfur deposit is stirred up, it might be a lot worse than just a few houses. Do we have any recourse? Who do we complain to? Mr. Fields, one of the landowners questioned why we are restricting them down to 30 years. He told Cm. Lockhart what they have in mind. People like open space and he likes open space himself. He does want to be ~ompensated for the view. His family would use their land that way and keep it open. Someday you may need to develop. They are in a bowl and you can't see it from anywhere in Dublin. He would like to take the City Council for a ride over there. They did not get a chance to talk to the 3 fellows who put the initiative together. They should not be treated the way they are. The west side is being shut off. Leave them alone. He distributed a paper to the Council. No copy was provided to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record. Gus Wojke, 11470 Silvergate Drive, Dublin, submitted a written comment, aOPOSE {sic} ANY WESTERN DUBUN GROWTH" Mayor Houston stated the meetings are open and anyone can attend and comment. Mayor Houston summarized that the committee will continue working. Cm. Lockhart reiterated the fact that the meetings are open to the public and advertised. They do want input from the landowners and the 3 proponents are willing to sit down and talk with everyone. The initiative process is allowed in the State of CA and everyone may not have the same ideas. They are under no obligation to come to the City and look at the impacts. A lot of people feel very protective about the ridgeline. They have chosen to go through this process and give people a chance to consider their point of view. Their openness is appreciated. We have come a long way in understanding everyone's rights. Sometimes the issues collide. We're working toward some type of compromise that works for everybody. She invited everyone to please come to the meetings. .... CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 550 I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I ~-I I I I I I I I I I I OTHER BUSINESS 10:05 Upcoming Meetings (610-05) Mr. Ambrose advised of a tentative School District liaison meeting to be held on' December 12th at 5 p.m., at the district office. Mr. Ambrose reminded everyone of the tree lighting event on Thursday evening at 6:30 p.m. Unfortunately, all the holiday lights will not be- on the Civic Center due to the roof replacement project which is not yet completed. Mr. Ambrose reminded everyone of the employee recognition dinner at the Sharmon Community Center on December 4th. .. CTV 30 Live Call-In Show (1050-50) Mr. Ambrose advised the Council that CTV 30 would like to schedule a live call- in show and tentative dates are December 14th, January 12th or January 26th. The Council determined that the December date would definitely be out. By consensus, the Council agreed to a date of January 26th for the live call-in show. ~ New Councilmember Comments (610-05) Cm. McCormick stated she was glad to be here and looks forward to working with everyone. She thanked all her family and friends. Cm. Howard welcomed Cm. Zika and Cm. McCormick. Cm. Zika thanked those that voted for him and those that didn't, he stated he hopes to earn their confidence during the next 4 years. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 551 Cm. Lockhart welcomed Cm. Zika and Cm. McCormick to the Council and stated she looks forward to working with them in the future. ... 2000 Census (420-60) Cm. Lockhart stated she had received all, information packet from the Census Monitoring Board. They are offering an opportunity to learn how the census is coming along and how it is being handled. There seems to be controversy already. We can give feedback on how the census is taken. We should send the form in and request the information they are offering. Cm. Zika stated he wasn't sure who these people area. Mayor Houston stated last year the Mayors' Conference had a presentation. They really want to work with the cities and try to be more proactive. This is coming down the pike and they are making more of an outreach than occurred in 1990. Mr. Ambrose stated Carol Cirelli is attending all the workshops and will be the City Staff person handling the census. +- LOCC Mayors & Councilmember Institute (140-20) Cm. Lockhart stated the Mayors and Councilmember Institute is coming up in Sacramento in January. She stated she always learns a lot and encouraged other Councilmembers to attend this conference. Everyone should contact the City Clerk to make their reservations. ... Street Naming Procedures (820-60) Mayor Houston mentioned the non Miller Court street out in the east. He stated Cm. McCormick had a good idea with regard to naming the street. He asked when we will come to some closure on this. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 552 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-~ , '.- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -. ---~.~ -.... ~ ---. .. -- . --- -.~~. -~~.~~~-.............~~~_.~~-~~,~- -, ..........-. ~-- ~ ._..~_. , - - , Mr. Peabody stated now is the time to get recommendations in. Get suggestions to Staff and they will check to see if there are any conflicts, and then agendize the item for a decision on the name. Mayor Houston requested that the City Council get names to Staff so they can talk about it at the next meeting. Mr. Peabody stated the old AutoNation Parkway has a Dublin Boulevard address. This is basically a long driveway and it is not a public street, so this issue may be resolved. Mayor Houston stated they have an excess parcel. Maybe in this list of names we could talk to them and see if this is something they like. If they get another use on the excess parcel they may need to look at this. Mr. Peabody stated normally the developer proposes names and we have a process whereby we check to make sure there are no problems. Mayor Houston felt the main areas warrant the City Council's attention. +- Sister City Relationships (140-50) Mayor Houston stated if there is an opportunity to twin or have a sister city in Taiwan, he would like to know how we go about this? He brought this up to the Alameda County Mayors' Conference to get some ideas on how to go about this. Some cities have multiple sister cities. We need to get input from the Dublin Sister City Association. He had information on one particular city and would like to get this out. Cm. Lockhart requested that this be agendized and ask the board of DSCA to come to a meeting to talk about it; perhaps the second meeting in January. .... CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1, 1998 PAGE 553 -... .. -~ ,... -.-- - - -~ -. - - - .':"::.....;:.::;..;. -- . -- . -~. ---.--.-.. ~- I I I I I I I I t I I I I I' ,I I I I I Tree Lighting Ceremony (950-40) Mayor Houston reminded everyone of the tree lighting ceremony at the Civic Center on Thursday at 6:30 p.m. Residents should bring canned food for the needy in the community. ..... CLOSED SESSION 10:20 p.m. 10.1 (600-30) The Council recessed to a closed session for Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Title: City Manager. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Houston announced that no reportable action was taken. -+ ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjoumed at 10:50 p.m. AITES . J/o4~ I~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING December 1 J' 1998 PAGE 554 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ C/-;I..c.u.-/." r;L ~t-- January 25, 1999 To: The Dublin Ridgelands Voters Voice Initiative Committee Members The Citizens for Property Rights was organized in November of 1998 as a non - profit group to represent the interests of landowners affected by the Dublin Rigdelands Voters Voice Initiative (DRWI). We have provided several statements for the record as this issue has progressed. We have asked for the creation of an Advisory Committee to assist Dublin planners, elected officials, and others in understanding where our concerns lie. We have tried to attend each and every meeting of the Initiative Committee and interacted when allo-wed at the conclusion of each session. As requested of us at the January 4, 1999 sub-committee meeting, I present documentation to support the devaluation of our land. We, too, 'M:>uld really like to have a win - win situation, but we have been unsuccessful in reaching any sort of meaningful compromise that would remove the need for the initiative. The following landowners, Bartling, Fields, Davilla, Ferguson, Manuel Machado, Nielsen Partnership, and Weideman formally request that the City of Dublin's "Sphere of Influence" be removed from the Western Extended Planning Area. LAFCO information defines a "Sphere of Influence" as the "probable ultimate physical boundary" of a local government agency. As part of the City of Dublin's designated sphere of influence, -we -were expecting that our land could be used for certain purposes and that the city 'M:>uld serve and also benefit from our land. It was not threatening to us, at the time, that the city of Dublin's planning regulations and politics would be detrimental to our property rights. The proposal for an Urban Limit Line changes those stated expectations that our land could be incorporated into the city of Dublin. The potential value of our land, could be greatly diminished both by the ULL and the DRWI. To quote the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. " Respectfully Submitted, C/?~ ~ Russ Fields Vice President Citizens for Property Rights CPR I I I 'I I I I MICHAEL R NAVE STEVEN R MEYERS ELIZABETH H, SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A WILSON DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS MICHAEL F, RODRIQUEZ CLIFFORD F, CAMPBELL RICK W. JARVIS KATHLEEN FAUBION. AICP ARNE B, SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIEL A MULLER LIANE M, RANDOLPH PATRICKWHITNELL KATHARINE G. WELLMAN JOHN W. TRUXAW , GARY A. WATT JULIE L. HARRYMAN ADAM U. LINDGREN DIANE B, ROLEN CLAIRE S. BARDOS KEVIN R BRODEHL JULIA L. BOND MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION NORTH SAY OFFICE GA TEW A Y PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TELEPHONE: (7071 545-8009 FACSIMILE: (707) 545-6617 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE STOCKTON, CA 95207 TELEPHONE: (2091 951,4080 FACSIMILE: (209) 951-3009 MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL ANDREAJ.SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST STEFANIE y, GANDOLFI TO: Eddie Peabody, Director Community Development Depanment City of Dublin Kathleen Faubion ~_.... DATE: January 25, 1999 I I FROM: I I I I I I I I I I RE: Draft ULL Initiative Eddie, as we discussed this morning, the following are two changes proposed to the draft Urban Limit Line initiative being considered by the committee this evening. First, on Page 2, Section B of the draft ULL resolution: Add a new text amendment at the beginning of the section as follows and renumber other amendments in order: "1. Amend Section 1.8.1, Western Extended Planning Area, to state rather than cross-reference the actual text of the Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture land use designation and to readopt the designation as follows: 'Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture (I unit per 100 gross residential acres). Accommodates agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management, consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks, Open Space, or PublidSemi-public uses. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.''' Second, also on Page 2, Section B of the draft ULL resolution: Revise the second full paragraph under current paragraph B.2 by adding the underlined text as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PAGE: Eddie Peabody, Director, Community Development Department Kathleen Faubion Draft ULL Initiative January 25,1999 2 "In addition to restricting urban development, the City will not approve or recommend approval of the permanent use or extension of city services or facilities, including but not limited to utilities or roads, to suppon or facilitate urban development beyond the Urban Limit Line." I will incorporate these changes into any committee proposal, as appropriate. J:\WPD\MNRS\V\114\O 1 \MEMO\]AN99\URBANLIM.125 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i'-ROM TRAVEL ADVISORS PHONE NO. Jan. 22 1999 04:34PM P1 January 17,1999 The Honorable Janet Lockhart Vice Mayor, City of Dublin 7458 Oxford Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Vice Mayor Lockhart: t requested in writing December 10,1998 and again verbally at the DRWl committee meeting January 4,1999. that jf the DRWI is to become the final product, a clause or provision be included that will make it quite clear that the future elections that DRWI will require are funded by the citizens and not the landowners. In addition to consequences the DRWI has on devaluing our land, we request to not be burdened further with its cost. This is an action that the citizens are proposing not the landowners. When the authors were noting . landowners feedback. they did not mention this item of input, nor the suggestion of an advisory committee. Also clarification on two other points of discussion from that January 4 meeting is vvarranted: 1. The statement that there is an UGB for East Dublin is incorrect. We met with zoning administrator for the city of Dublin, Dennis Carrington. He said that there is no UGB in East Dublin. 2. There was no concrete answer given to the question about the elevation cap in East Dublin. It is set at 770 feet. I'd like to recap 'v\Ihat we have discussed recently regarding the initiative: 1 ) You would like to see the needs of the initiative be met by the city proposing an Urban Growth Boundary. . 2) You plan to set a meeting with Mayor Houston, yoursetf, Mr. Peabody and the Nielsens to discuss placement of this UGB. 3) After the phone conversation with Randy Faccinto, our attorney, you will set up a meeting on Friday, January 22, 1999, TTBA, with Mr. Bewley and the Nielsens to brainstorm ideas to reach mutual goals. 4) You intend to propose that the city look at an Urban Growth Boundary as a city council action item on the February 16_ 5) You will pursue the release of the Western Extended Planning Area from Dublin's sphere of influence and will propose that as a city council action item on February 16. 6) The Tri-Valfey Herald incorrectly attributed the proponents' comments on my II Dear Neighbors" letter, stating the comments were from you. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FROM TRAl.,':::L AD'J I SORS PHONE NO. Jan. 22 1999 04:35PM P2 7) You will let me know as soon as you are made aware, the direction the initiative proponents are going to take. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I really am hopeful that all of us ~ my family, the other families, the city, and the initiative supporters can find the magic "win-win" solution. Sincerely, ./Z) ~h ~ " itl)42-1UtL / t{,e~,v.J Roxanne Nielsen Citizens for Property Rights I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FROM TRAVEL ADVISORS PHONE NO. Jan. 22 1999 04:44PM P1 &~y January 21, 1999 Roxanne Nielsen Dear Roxanne, I am in receipt of your letter dated January 17th, and thought perhaps it would be a good idea to respond in writing to your questions and comments. Your first concem seems to be a clause in the subcommittee recommen- dation (remember that a recommendation is all that we are producing) that relates to who pays for elections. The City of Dublin election code states that the City will pay for all general elections. The expense for a landowner would probably relate to running a campaign for their ballot issue. This would be nec~ssary under any circumstance. You have discussed an advisory committee with the subcommittee in the past, and I donlt think the fact that it has not been repeated by the study group more often is a matter of neglect. It simply means that the subcommittee is not responsive to this alternative. Another point you have raised for clarification is the concept of a U.G.8. in the eastem part of Dublin. While it is true that we do not have a line defined as a U.G.8., we do have a city limit and a general pl~m which specifies our growth limit in the east. I have no idea what your question regarding the elevation cap for the east is, and feel that perhaps you should address it at the I I I I I I il I I I I I I I I I I I I fROM : TRAVEL ADVISORS PHONE NO. Jan. 22 1999 04:45PM P2 City Council meeting of February 16th rather than at the subcommittee meeting since our task deals only with the west city boundaries. You have raised a series of issues regarding the initiative presented by the Dublin Voters Voice Iniative and currently under discusssion by the sub- committee. I would like to remind you that this is still a work in progress and will be discussed once again at the Civic Center in Council chambers the evening of January 25th at 7:00pm. I will try and address each of your 7 con- elusions as briefly as possible. 1. Our discussion has now centered around an Urban Growth Boundary for the city of Dublin regarding ourwestem boundary. Language to this effect, and a model of such an itiative will be discussed next Monday evening. 2. I have no plans to set a meeting with the Mayor regarding the boundary limits or other discussions regarding the work of the subcommittee. Mayor Houston will be presented with ALL of the material at the Council meeting of February 15th with the rest of the Council. 3. I spoke with you and your attorney on Friday, January 15TH at which time you asked me if J could facilitate a meeting between you and Mr, Bewley and your attomey and myself. Your attorney asked jf it would be possible to schedule a morning meeting rather than an afternoon meeting. I told you both that J would be happy to present your idea for meeting to Mr. Bewley, but it was entirely up to him as to whether he felt it appropriate to meet outside of our scheduled subcommittee meetings. Mr. Bewley felt that all meetings should include all members of the committee, and therefore declined. 4. I intend to present a report of the subcommittee to the Council on February 16th. Since we have not concluded our subcommittee meetings, I do not know what the recommendations will be at this time. 5. Our subcommittee has discussed the suggestion of the ranchers to be dropped from Dublin's sphere of influence in the west I personally would be interested in studying this issue, and would like to see it presented in the report. However, we have not voted as a subcommittee on the final yet, so this too will be determined at the meeting of January 25th. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -FROM : TRAV=L ADVISORS PHONE NO. Jan. 22 1999 04:45PM P3 6. Your suggestion that the Tri Valley Herald incorrectly attributed the proponents comments to me regarding your "Dear Neighbor" letter is something I have no comment on, because I have no idea which comments you are referring to. 7, I strongly suggest that you attend the meeting of January 25th and.bring your attomey or anyone else who might be interested in getting the information first hand. Your comments are welcomed, and I think it is most important that you have an opportunity to offer any input you deem necessary directly to the members of this subcommittee. I hope my responses have accomplished their intent in providing you with the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. I look f9~~g you Monday evening. Sincerely, Janet Lockhart Committee Chair I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DAVE BURTON 11396 DILLON WAY, DUBUN, CA 94558 Tel. (925) 829-4390 FAX (925) 551-3763 I I I I I i I Dear Chairman Lockhart and Committee Members; I I This letter is to let you know what I remember, concerning the Nielse~ pr ri rtll, i ' both before and after the Incorporation of Dublin. :' r The Nielsens have always been great supporters of the Incorporation ~f D 'blinl i: and worked on it during the days before incorporation. It was always~ beli \tedl !' that the suggested City boundary included the Nielsen property. I, , January 23, 1999 Chairman, Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart, Dublin Petition Review Committee City of Dublin 100 Civic Drive Dublin, CA 94568 At the time, the only working government agenc,! was DSRSD and we us boundary even though it was vague about where it was on the hillside. 5 had no money for a survey, it was the logical selection to use that boynd ' The Nielsen property has been deveioped in stages over the years. The ~ter 1: . ! ' ' system that feeds the houses of the last stage of development, is on Niel nISi ;: property and the site for the tank and easement for the pipe was negbtia I a d I : sized for the next development that would extend from Brittany Lane.! Th ~ 1 ' market forces changed and the Brittany Lane extension was postponed. : : ~ . I was on the Dublin Municipal Advisory Committee (OUMAC) that wor~ed lth LAFCO as well as the original City Council that intended the Nielsen's ~ro Irty 0 be included in the City of Dublin. If an Urban Limit Une is to be estaqlish , it should include the Nielsen's property that adjoins the present City lim~ b u that Is what was intended by the organizers of the City and it is the o~1y faIr thing to do. ; ~SinCerely, ~ ~~./7 ave Burton ' Former VIce Mayor and Council member City of Dublin I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PA If;,; - : : t: ; ! : i ~ ~ : , ! i ; ; 1 ; ; { ~ ! : ; : I f: i; , , ' j ~ ! ; j i , . l f , ; ! : : l , , , . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G;.'~( ./ L. 3407 - 79th Avenue NW Gig Harbor, W A 98335 The Honorable Janet Lockhart Vice Mayor, City of Dublin Dublin City Hall Dublin, CA 94566 Dear Vice Mayor Lockhart: I am writing in regards to Dublin's General Plan concerning the western side - in particular, the Neilson holdings. As to background, to the best of my recollection the Council at that time set the City's boundaries to follow DSRSD's boundaries as they pertained to the newly formed City of Dublin. The City accepted the County's approved plan of a portion of the Neilsen holdings along with its conditions and densities. One condition was that a water tank and piping be constructed to DSRSD's specifications and then donated to DSRSD. Another condition was that Silvergate Drive be connected. It was my impression that the water tank and its surrounding land would be in the City limits for obvious reasons. If that is not the case, I would strongly urge you to annex that portion into the City limits. As to Dublin's city limits and its sphere of influence, the City Council at that time (1980s) led the landowners to believe that their concerns and proposals would be heard fairly through the planning process and not by referendum. Dublin's General Plan, now nearly twenty years old, was drafted as a blueprint or guide for Dublin's future. It was not drawn up to stop development but to allow development in an orderly manner for the benefit of the City, its residents and to steer the City to its fruition. . The vast majority of developable land lay in Dublin's sphere of influence. The General Plan clearly demonstrated the City's willingness to fairly consider development proposals. Since ingress and egress to the west is dependent on the Neilsen holding, it is only reasonable to conclude they would be the first to be annexed into the City. The extent of development was to be determined by the General Plan and any subsequent amendments. Again, this was to be accomplished through the planning process - not referendums. This planning process was explained to the landowners as an incentive for them to be included in Dublin's sphere of influence. To deal with development issues now by way of moratorium, referendums, etc. would be contrary to what they were told. I: I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Honorable Janet Lockhart January 22, 1999 Page Two I hope my recollection of the intent behind the drafting of Dublin's General Plan in the early 80's is helpful. Sincerely, .;;Ji-~./~(c~ ~ '-~:~z~d~~~ Peter J';"Hegarty, Jr. / i- Former City Councilman I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r:v /& Linda Jeffen Sailors 841 ChaucerWay Livermore, CA 94550 Fax 925/449-9024 Home Phone 925 449-7274 Mayor Guy Houston and City Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Guy, Janet, Lizbeth, George, and Claudia, As you are aware, I was a member of the Dublin Municipal Advisory Committee (DMAC), on the Committee to Incorporation Committee for the City of Dublin and served on the first City Council from the very beginning until my retirement in 1992. I was a party to the LAFCO hearings on the original boundaries and scope of the new city. With that in mind., I would like to comment on what was intended. We had intended all of the area known as "Dublin" to be included in the city, as well as some of the adjacent property. The Nielsen property was considered to be part of Dublin, but when the city limit lines were configured for the election, the Nielson property was not included (as well as, part of the area under development in the western bills area). Some corrections have been made since then, but the entire Nielson property has not been included., as intended. I am hopeful that you will correct this error. The Nielsons were asked to participate in the costs for the water tank on the Western hills which serves Dublin because they were considered to be a part of Dublin. I am sure that the original City Council Members will verify this understanding and support the request to include the Nielson property within the city limits. Sincerely, -", "~ ' ,/ r I ,~ \Z :;:;~ail:~ ..'~ Former Mayor and City Councilmernber City of Dublin cc: Roxanne Nielsen I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Devaluation Letters Bettencourt Real Estate and Appraisal Company Allied Brokers Real Estate Sierra Bay Farm Credit Services Terry O'Neill & Associates, real estate appraisers & consultants Letter to Alameda Co. Board of Supervisors from Frank Neu I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BETTENCOURT REAL ESTATE Al''1l APPRAISAL COMPANY ... 325 SOUTH I STREET LIVERMORE, CA 94BO (925) 4H-5049 FA" "%:l) "~~-OJ~S J anuaI)' 22, 1999 Mr. Russell and Anthony Fields 22084 Eden Canyon Road Castro Valley, Ca 94552 Re: Value of your 1,234.55 acres on Eden Canyon. Gentlemen: I have reviewed your ranch in regard to location, terrain and nearness to development. The following is my opinion of fair market value on your property at this time. After studying comparable sales and knowing the area, I would give your ranch a value of $4,500.00 to $5,000.00 per acre, for a fun value of $5,555,475.00 to $6,172,750.00. This is based on sales of similar type property, along with how close development is at this time. If there is a change in zoning, or new restrictions on future development, this would completely change the value of your property. If the zoning, or new restrictions on future development should occur, I would then value your property as follows: In my opinion, the value would drop to $1,200.00 to $1,500.00 per acre, for a total value on your 1.234.55 acres of $1,481,460.00 to $1,851,825.00. As you can see, if new zoning or new restrictions are put on your property that restrict or prohibit development, you stand to lose $4,075,000.00 to $4,321,000.00 in actual sale value on your property. My background consists of thirty-nine years .in the real estate profession. TIle last thirty-four years, I have spent selling, listing and managing almost exclusively ranches, subdivision and industrial land. I have had my real I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I estate brokers license for the past thirty-seven years and my residential appraisal certification for the State of California since March 2, 1994. I have been doing land appraisals since 1970, and I am a member of the Association of Professional Appraisers. Some of the clients I have appraised for in the past have included Title Insurance and Trust, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, different attorneys, buyers and sellers of property. I have also served as an expert witness in condemnation cases and have worked as a consultant with attorneys in preparation for lawsuits in appraisals concerning Estates, Trusts and the Internal Revenue Service. . Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Yours truly, ,;J ~ A --1! ~~.~ Henry M. Bettencourt Bettencourt Real Estate & Appraisal Hlv1BJma I I allied brokers real estate all I excellence through experience I January 25, 1999 I Chairman Vice Mayor J~~et LOckhart Council Sub-Committee Dublin Ridgeland Voters. voice Initiative City of Dublin 100 Civic Drive Dubli~, CA 94568 I I Dea= Chairman Lockhart and Committee Members; I I was a~~ed to evaluate the 200 acres owned by Mr. Robert Nielsen loca~ed adjacent to ~~e City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California for th~ property's marketability ~s agricultural land. I Due to it's rocky soil, steep terrain, and lack of water,. this land is not suitable for crop production. Grazing c~ttle is really the only viable agricultural use ~or this land. The market demand for agricultural "l~nd.in this area is extremely low. In addition, the proximity of this property bordering on three .sides to ~~e City ot DuDli~ makes it even less appealing as it relates to agricultural land use. I I It is extremely unfair for the City of Dul;)lin to deny the Nielsen's the ri9ht to having any kL~d of re~idential usage for their property. The Nielsen family have paid taxes on this property for many, many years, and been good neighbors to the City of Dublin as they ~aited their turn to be able to develop their property within some sort of sensilble agreed upon city ph.n. '!'o d~ny them that "right is in ray opinio~ unfair. I I An agricultural designation with no future hope of any residential usage down zones a property's value to it's lowest level. In essence the city is sayi~g to the Nielsen family, continue to pay taxes on something that really has no market value. I The Nielsen family ~o have lived in Dublin for over lOO years have always cooperated with_:city and cc~ty officials regarding those agencies development wishes for their land. I would hope t"'lat .the City of Dublin \lIould continue in this effort to work with the Nielsen ~amily in creatL~g some sort of sensible pl~~ that is good for all the residents of the City of Dublin. I sincerely, I c:::r~ Jim Lavey Allied Brokers R.E. Real Estate Broker I 1987 G Santa Rita Road · Pleasanton. Caliiornia 94566 · (925) 546-8116 Fax (925) 646-0190 Ea:h Offlc. lnrW".rIden/ly 0wnIId ~ 0pIJral1ld I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .:0 3984 Cherokee Road P.O. Box 6070 Stockton. Galitornia 95208 209.931-3770 · FAX: 209.931.3855 BOO-659-FARM (3276) Email: info@agcrediLccm Sierra-Bay Farm Credit Services Sierra-Bay Federal Land Bank Association, FLeA Sierra-Bay Production Credit Association January 20, 1999 Janet Lockhart. Vice Mayor City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin. California 94568 Dear Vice Mayor Lockhart: In response to a question from Roxanne Nielsen regarding the process we utilize in establishing amounts we might lend on real property, the following outlines some important factors we consider when making a loan decision. As a point of clarification, Sierra-Bay Farm Credit Services is a part of the nationwide cooperative Farm Credit System and currently has in excess of$300 million in real estate and operating loans to 1 100+/- fanners and ranchers in Alameda, Amador, Calaveras, EI Dorado, Sacr.mlento, and San Joaquin counties. The first and foremost consideration today is the repayment capacity of the operating unit; the net cash flow after paying for all operating expenses which would then be available to service tcnn debt. It is the repayment ability of that asset which governs the "jf' and "how much'" we will lend. Second, an appraisal of the real estate must support the amount of loan being considered. The actual valuation of the underlying asset, in the case ofreal property, is important but is not the major determinant in the amount we would consider lending. As a rule, we keep our lending relationship to a level which would not exceed 50% to 70% of appIaised value - keeping in mind that the repayment capacity discussed above ",ill service the dcbt level being considered. Third., attached to the real property is a "bundle of rights" - mineral rights. water rights, development rights, use rights, etc. If one or more of these rights are sold or otherwise separated from the real property, there is a direct and immediate influence on how we might appraise the affected property. Therefore. a zoning or use change which removes or impairs one of these rights may very well have a material negative impact on the overall value of an individual's real estate holdings so rezoned., and the amount we might be willing to lend. If the appraised value is reduced to a level which would cause our loan to exceed the 50% to 70% guideline, then the amount we might consider lending would be reduced as well. Cc: Roxanne Nielsen Tim Koopman The Farm Credit System ~ .~.. -"'\,1"10. l..r;r~OEr:; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TERRY OtNEILL & ASSOCIATES REAl. EsrATE ApPRA fSERS & CONSULTANTS Dan Drake Farm Advisor Siskiyou County CERTIFIED APPRAISER #A.(;00510} April 7. 1998 Re: Summary of findings: The effect on prope~y values from proposed NMFS Criti.cal Habitat for the Coho Salmon. Dear Mr. Drake: I my inquiry into this matter involved the investigation of "conservation easements" and their values in relation to the underlying value of the "fee" interest in real property in Siskiyou County . I have consulted with both Meunt Shasta Title & Escrow Co. a..'ld Siskiyou County Title Co.. whose coope:-ation in this summary report is gratefully acknowledged. Their title experts concur with me that conservation easements are verj close to the rights acquired under the proposed critical habitat. My conclusions are set forth below. However. a. brief addendum to this letter is available and presented as documentary evidence. Conclusion: ... The citizens of Siskiyou County have been engaged in the commi1ment to preservation of species and habitats under the "market" mechanism of voluntary and mutual exchanges where valUe is received for the rights acquired. The mechar'.Jsm is a conservation easem.ent. . Regarding agricultural propertYt a minimum of 20% to a high of over 90% of a property's agricultural value is acquired under rights very similar to those demanded by'the critical habitat proposed. . I found that if property owners are in a position to make request of. or to ask permission from state or federal agencies regarding their land, and if those lands .represent critical habitat to any endangered specie, or are wetlands, then the rights and values are typically forfeited in the obtaining ofpmnission. . Flowing from the above, it is probable that loan portfolios holding (in particular) agricultural property subject to the rights acquired under the proposed critical habitat. will suffer as the market value of the collateral will be substantially diminished. . I have found anecdotal evidence to suggest that even IWK> the proposed critical habitat is a...-Tecting property transactions in the form. of canceled escrows along the Klamath River. I thank you fur' the opportunity to be of service to you 2nd our Board of SupetVisors. If you have any questions. please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, } P.O. BOX 1012 - YREKA., CAL1FOR..l~IA 96097 - 530-842-1541 - FAX 530-842-7837 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ". FrAt'lk D. Neu 1n210 Carmel Drive Castro Valley, CA 9~546 (tHO) 483-9427 Septembev 19, 1993 Alameda Count.y Board of Supervisors Administration Building Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Boe~d M~mbers: . . Tbis let.tel~. if.: t.i) (~\llpbasil?e the oare t.h<::tt Ajamede CCllll'1ty should t;.~\b~ t,l;'l l't'I.';t.~j~t:. itself from lit.ig~t.i~)n c,v~i' t.he Ridt.!~~1:'ii'}I...i.s I\~l'et:~ment, wi t.h rlt..:!;.l::;::mt~)l'l ~nd lbywat'L'. }t.t:CI::I)t r;::lh:s (If l~:md at :t2G, 000+ ;'\n ar.l'e in the DLlblin and L3v\~r'm(JI'e b.iU~; ~,hnw wb:.\l:, tJ.h" r~al Vt)hw of land in the r i.jl';;t~ 1 at ll.:l:~ :;h\'l\lld b.'!; The P.~ d:. bas vel'Y l'et~ent ly purchaced 1 t:1Dd 1 n tht') Ple"~_~;tI'lt.on Ridg(~ 1 f.U'lc.h:; at :1;0.000 rom f:lUl't~, tll;H~~.t\.l::;(? or t.h!~ r.~1/.:nt..1 f,:?:j:e; l;1.ffr'l1't: of a(IVr:~l'nnH::mt: bodiw:::; t(, tf-:l.b~ aw~y I.'ui:t:;~(jtl;;).lil i'l tJ~~o 1)1' till.' J ~.ll"ld l~hr,:~ru. Thil'\:.l'.H~l'I Lhl:'lu::;:.md ;"-ICI.'I~:; "'1'.,- il)Vc)l',~(;,r.1 i:l thl~. L:\1:.efJt. CLrn:=~pl1'..1C.Y 1 i.\: ~~t ~'.1:,.n,\jt;:\ J'jot. r'1 ,I :::~.,; ,1: 1 :.1 l~; : tlid l\) ;.~rns.:=..(,.l u (~t J\ IfJ:;/ :' ~ !:ll""~ v ':)i": t. ~:tl'J:t" dl~'Hl!..{f~!: Ilf'l t:. j 1 Lilt"! T';;11'l', has n\orl~y (i f ';:'VF.'l.') tel buy .':11 J tb\~ dd/~.~!l~lnds ;:11 bnrrl;dn PL'iCl~!O. Tlw v~'tlu~! lus~~ .i.l:.: L',:t:!~ll'ly :~~O,OOO l?l:!l' i.:lCl'8 (;1;26,.000- :l~(, ,0(0) . SI.), 13 J 000 :El.r).l'e;~ t. i mes ~;20 " 000 means a $:~6 (), 0001 000 t~oLC\l lel3s t.o l:',llt~ ),:'1ndo\\lJ)':>ni. Oft-An t-t'ipJ.~ d~l1lai:!es ~U'~~ 3warch~d ~"l:ll:'n !;;u r:,h c::\ 11 I)W; I l': 1 a t;:s n t . ::1.nd, i 11 t')~ ;:11 f;[(:t. i O:'lr... are I::al' l' i r:,'cl t~lLI t 1::/ /'.~ I,~"./ I:' j' n lilt :./11' \"1.11:. j I. ,) ,~~;: , ' Tl t:.:d; 11\1;> rtn ~;: :.1 PQt",(:~n t.:. i a 1 l~ i :.. f. ';:"If '1 B 0 I:,;: 1 ;.,',!; '_:"~L: .'.:;.:: ~',: ~.)';':' ::-.hl"~e. c11:;nsJ,Jil':~t:I'1'S loom:; altt::'t'1d. ^lamedo County needs to ba ~urd it is not going to be t";:~p')lH;iblf1 [(11' any P::'-lJ't. of .~~uc;h a lit.i.~,-"\t.iol'J a.wl:l.l'c.l, ~~ j tll.: (n' l~ ] Y , F1';~d: I:'. l'1~l.l I I' I I I I I I I i I I I I I I - I I JUST COMPENSATION Position of the Contra-Costa - Alameda County Cattlemen's Association Nevvs article U Judge says Lake Tahoe agency owes landowners compensation" Reno-Gazette Journal 1-20-99 Nevvs article "Ridge lando'Nners seek compensation" Times 1-20-96 Article" A Victory for Private Property Rights", Tim Leslie, First District 1-8-97 Article "The Imperative of Property Protection" John Shanahan, The Heritage Foundation The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~~. '.. , , CONTRA COSTA-ALAMEDA COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 5564 CLAYTON ROAO, CONCO~O, CALIFORNIA 94521 (510) 672-5115 Janet Lockhan, Vice Mayor City of Dublin P.o. Box 2340 Dublin, CA. 94568 Dear Vice Mayor Lockhart: The Board of Directors of the Contra Costa \ Alameda Countv Cattlemen's Association (Association) has reviewed the proposed Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voic.e Initi~tive (DRVVI), ~d on several occasions, members of this Board have listened to the DRVVI authors discuss the rationale for their proposal. Following these considerations, this Association does not support the DR VVI. Many questions arose as this proposal was discussed by members of this Association, and among them were: * Has the DR VVI been written to enhance the property values of an elite few homeowners? * What deals have been negotiated between developers in other parts of Dublin and the DRVVI ? * Are the West Dublin landowners considered a " pawn" in exchange for density elsewhere? * De-valuation by any means, be it zoning, adjacent land use, easements, or initiative requirements, does affect the loanable equity ofreal estate. The DR VVI authors stated that they had received assurance from bank personnel that passage of the DR VVl would not impact real estate values. Did they discuss this with any bankers who make agricultural production, capital improvement or purchase loans ? ~ Is the drawbridge mentality (I've got mine, the hell with you) ethically and morally correct to the land owners of West Dublin, many of them founding families with generations of ownership? '* Should it be the responsibility of a few remaining landovmers to provide viewshed and open space for their new neighbors, without compensation ? * Profitable livestock grazing and production agriculture are realistically impossible in the remaining West Dublin hills, is the City of Dublin willing to subsidize the ranchers to remain in business? The existing City of Dublin policies and procedures for approving or denying development have been effective in providing orderly and planned growth. The City ofDubJin exists with a representative form of government; this DRVVI proposal would alter this process by adding a bureaucratic level that would require costly and unnecessary proc.edures. 0:;\Y~~ Tim Koopmann, President Contra Costa \ Alameda County Cattlemen's Association I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I TRPA sensitive lots is contributing to the lossofLake Tahoe'sclaritv and that the nt05t obvious response to the Frompage lA pro~lcm is to re~.rict development ruled many i'roperty owners - af- there. fected because of regulations "Wethinkthat'sagreatviaol"rfor imposed between August 1981 and the lake and for TRP A and an indi- April 1984-shouldbepaid. cation that the direction we are Reed tossed out claims for dam- going is tbe right one and the only ages stemming from land-use bat- one," Marshall $aid. ties between 1984 and 1987,0011-" TRPA faces problenu with eluding construction prohibitions Reed's conclusion that "DO matter during that period resulted from a how noble th~, goal of protecting the federal injunction and not from la.ke, and no matter how necessary agency actions. the steps taken were to achieving Reed's ruling could bc thefocus of tha! goa.l (landowners) W;ould be a second ~.a1. entItled to Just compensahoIl from Both sides a.cknowledse appeals TRP A:' a.reastrongpossibility. Hoffman declined to estimate "I would have prefe1T~ to have ~ow much the. original $27 milli~n hit a home run on all the ISSUes, but Ul damages might be lowered WIth I'm not dissatisfied with getting a removalofclaimsbetween 1 984 and double." said Larry Hoffman, i 987 but said the S',Utl would still be lawyer lor the Taboe-Sierra Preser- millions of dollars. vanon Council The coalition of Bill Frey ofihe Nevada'Attorney landowners sued TRP A. 'General's office and Dan Siegel of "This from my $tandpomt is a the California Attorney Gc:nera!'s very significant ruling on behalf of office, both of whom argued the case the property owners involved:' on behalf of TRP A. agreed Reed's Hoffman said. "It's the first time 3 niling could benefit and hurt both U.S. District Court has found sides. ,'" TRP A Iiablefor damagesfortbetak- "The cOurt confirmed the ~~on. ingofpnv8teproperty." ableness of TRPA's rest::qt"tIon~ The agency strongly disagrees it because We Tahoe is a speclallake should have to pay any damages to and that development of high. property owneIS. general counsel hazard property clearly harms Lakf John Marshall said. Tahoe," Siegel said. But the agency is buoyed with The harm for the ~ncy eom~ Reec:fs finding that residential eon- from potentially having to pa~ struction in stream areas and other landowners. 1 Judge says j Lake Tahoe agency owes landowners compensation 8y Jeff D.Lono RENO GAZErTE-I0URN^L Some property own~ un- able to build on theu land should be compensated be- cause of actions Lake Tahoe regulators took in the 19805 to protect the lake's clarity, a fed- era! judge has ruled: . Both sides are claimmg par- tial victorv in the landmark lawsuit, wliich more than 400 propertY owners filed nearly IS yeariago a~t the Tahoe Regional PlSDDIDg Agen~_ They $oughtsome $27 nu1lion in damages against ~e bist~e agency charged WIth SSVUlg Lake Tahoe. . Senior U.S. Distnct Ju~e Edward Reed, who ruled Fn- day in the case, didn' deter- m1l1C the exact damaiCs the agency might have to pay. The case was argued last month in Reno's fedCral coUT!o While R.eed found TRPA $ effort ju&tified to save "one of the wonden of the natutal world" by restricting develop- ment of sensitive land, he also See TRPA on3A Ii- ' ; ..-......-. - 'f., z.D -'lq \ A V;CTORY FOR I PRiVATE PROPERTY FJGHTS I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I /< , .:. Tim leslie, Senator, First District It's about time. Last month. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of private property own- ers. ruling essentiaJly that regu- latory takings-no matter how noble, the cause-still amount to regulatory takings. The high Court confirmed in a unanimous decision that property owners have a right to pursue Just com- pensation from regulatory agen- ries who seek to brazenly ab- solve property owners of their right to use or develop their own land without adequately com- pensating them for their loss. In 1972. Mr. and Mrs. John Suitum decided to purchase a parcel in Incline Village. Nevada in a wooded area in order to build a simple A-frame where they could eventually enjoy their retirement years together. Their dream would never be realized. Yes, year after year they worked to payoff their parcel. paid their property taxes and considered various house plans. John died in 1982, before the couple was able t,-) build. but he Wanted her to build theirdream home anyway. It was 1989 before Mrs. Suitum decided to submit her plans to the Tahoe Regional PlannmgAgency. Although there were similar homes abutting Mrs. Suitium's property, TRPA had- unbeknownst to her-deemed her land a "stream environment zone" which essentially barred any construction. TRPA urged Mrs. Suitum to attempt to sell ."transferable developments rights" to anotherbuiIder. Under this strange arrangement, an- other builder could buy her right to build and be granted permis- sion to exceed the development restrictions on their own proper- ty. Mrs. Suitum's property would then be "donated" to the public domain. ,.... ,. .'~ugust 1997 . Page 3 :.;::." '.. ~ '. ":,l Mrs. Suitum didn't want to forfeit her property and did not believe she was obligated to ne- gotiate a sale of her develop- ment rights. She had paid for it. it belonged to her. and she want- ed to build a home on it and pass it on to her children when she died. If the government was go- ing to take it from her. they could pay her fairly for it out- right as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to our U.S. Consti- tution which states that,..... pri- vate property [shall not] be tak- en for public use without just compensation. " Two previous court decisions compelled Mrs. Suitum to find someone to purchase her trans- ferable development rights. These decisions paralleled the reasoning of other lower court decisions which had also seem- ingly bought off on the notion that if a community decides that it want~ to take private proper- ty, theu tile community's needs or desires supersede any consti- tutional duty there may be to pay the owner for the property. Such a deal! The property owner pays for the land, pays property taxes on the land and then for- feits it without compensation to serve a "higher good." The gov- ernment's responsibility to com- pensate has been contorted into a citizen's responsibility to do- nate. It is indeed significant that, at least to some degree. the U.S. Supreme Court has pulled the rug out from under some of the . self-righteous regulatory zeal which has culminated in innu- merable instances of"justffiable" theft. The Court's decision rep- resents a very bright light at the end of a long tunnel. _ :l ~.:~. ; :.. ,'., .:: ''''r.~~.J;....ritI-'''~:- I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I THE IMPERATIVE OF PROPERTY PROTECTION 'here are important constitutional, economic, and fairness reasons for protecting private property nghts. To understand why legislative protection is necessary, one must understand why property rights ex.ist. The U.S. Constitution recognizes 'the importance of property rights.7 The Fifth Amendment implic- itly recognizes that the federal government may take property for public use. In fact. the implicit power of government to take property-known as eminent domain-was recognized by the Supreme Court as . early as 1795 in Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance. in which the Court found that "the despotic power, as it has been aptly called by some writers, of taking private property. when state necessity requires it, ex- ists in every government.... [G}overnment could not subsist without it:'S . . The Fifth Amendment. however. explicitly mandates that government must pay tbe property owner for the land confiscated. Although the government may take private property for public use, the clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation:' ensures that the cost is borne hy those who benefit-the public-and not by the citizen unfortunate enough to own the land the gov- ernment requires. The Constitution does not balance the importance of such governmental action against the importance of compensating individuals. The right to compensation is absolute. Thus, balance is built into the system: The government is permitted to take property unilaterally for public use, but at the same time is required to pay for it and protect private owners from having to bear the financial burden of pur- suing that new use. In its most basic sense, compensation is a fairness issue. Why should one American bear the entire burden of the government's pursuit of a national good? Just compensation for regulatory"takings preserves individual civil rights. Having seen the detri- mental effects of King George's policies, the founders understood that property rights are essential to --~venting the usurpation of other rights under the Constitution. It is this relationship to which Supreme un Justice Potter Stewart was referring in Lynch 1-'. Household Finance Co. Inc. when he stated that there is a 'Jundamental interdependence... between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property. " Practically speaking. governments can control a wide range of individual activity if they can control whether individuals remain financially secure or surrender their property. Thus. the majority truly can tyrannize a disfavored minority. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 10, "[pure] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property:' It was the desire to restrict just such tyranny over individuals that motivated the framers to put severe limits-like the requirement of just compensation-on the unchecked will of the majority. Propert~' protection reduces the incentive for the federal government to confiscate property. If property is to be put to its best and most highly valued use, it must be owned by individuals who appreci- ate its fair market value. The nation' s founders well understood the positive economic consequences .of protecting owners' investments in their property. If government had a free hand to take property without payment, the incentive to confiscate property that conferred only a small public benefit would be overwhelming. In fact. that is exactly what has hap- pened. The federal government now owns 30 percent of America's land. with even higher percentages in the West (for instance. 61 percent of Idaho). and is using regulatory takings with increasing frequency to 7 Conslitution of lhe Uniled Slales. Amendment V. clause 3. 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 304. 311 (1795). 405 U.S. 538. 552 (1972). I enhance its effective cor.r:ol over even more extensive tracts. The rationale: The cost to the e:overnment of compensating owners of the land would be too high. The problem with this approach is that the poten~ rial for relatively small public benefits through regulatory takings can lead to ruinous costs to private o\vners, who must shoulCe:- costs the government deems too steep for itself. In re::.litv. fede;-al e::for::e:uent officials have fouric that thev c:m use rezulations to s:ain control of .. .. - - ?rc~erlY while circ:.H:lVe:::::ng the jus~ compe::sation requirements of the Constirution. Federal properLY r:2:hts le:zisbtion thus is r:eded to orovide a stand:lfd that will force federal rezularors to consider the - -.. - CQ<;rs and be:1efits of rak:r::; private propeny. \Vhen the government decides it is in the public interest to constrain the use of privme property for the public good, compensating the properlY oWner at le:lSt en- sures thm the cost of provicing the public good is spre:ld fairly across all tax.payers and not just a few unfortunate individuals. I I I I I THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION I The Supreme Court n:lS been clear in requirine: federal. state. and local zovemmems to pav J'ust com- - 10 - . ~ensation whenever they t~ke or oc::upy land or rea.l estate. Essentially. the Coun has held that. even if iust a SQuare foot of land is taken and less than one oercent of the value is lost. a tak.ing has occurred and ". . .' . I J' - Just compensatlOn IS requ::ed. I Unfortunately. the Court's decisions regarding regulatory takings have been less clear and consistent. le:J.ving exec'..1tive branch agencies with wide latitude in decisions regarding .the enforcement and inter- pretation of laws. Thus. the federal government can take property through regulations in most cases \vithout payment. Legislative protection is therefore ne::essary, both as a philosophic:ll and as a practic:ll matter. Only then can Foperry owners be se:::ure in the knowledge their r~ghts will be respected. and JDre to invest their savings accordingly. I I CONCLUSION I Although the United States was founded on the principle that government should not be allowed unfet- tered power to impose its will on law-abiding citizens or seize their property, federal agencies have found a loophole that allows them to usurp property through regulation. These regulatory takings can strip any American of the right to use his land as he wishes. In some cases, they even can almost wipe out the value of that land-and with it. the life savings of individual citizens. In light of the ambiguous and limited nature of existing protections against uncompensated regulatory takings. compounded by the increasing tendency of bureaucrats to use this ill-considered and unwise ap- proach. legislative ac~ion is necessary to ensure that private property rights are fully protected. I I I 10 The requireme~; of just compensation by the feder:ll government uncier the Fifth Amendment is extended under the 14th Amendment [0 the states ;md. by extension. to localities. II LorellO \'. Teleprompter Manhattall CA7V Corp.. 58 U.S. 419 (1982). I I I I *NOTE* This information has been reprinted from material written by John Shanahan of The Heritage Foundation. You may contact the Heritage Foundation at:. The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave, N. E., Washington, D.C. 20002, (202) 546-4400. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. _ f.- i-I b , ----. January 25, 1999 Chairman Vice Mayor Janet Lockhart DRWI Committee City of Dublin 100 Civic Drive Dublin, California 94568 Dear Vice Mayor Lockhart, Ms. Beth Howard, Mr. Bewley, Mr. Anderson, and Mr.~~; . In consideration of the placement of your proposed urban limit line, we respectfully submit the following evidence and documentation to support the 200 acres owned by the Nielsen Family to be included within its boundaries: 1. The Nielsen property was being developed with Alameda County, at the time the city of Dublin incorporated. It was intended that the Nielsen property was to be in the Dublin city limits. When the city boundaries were actually defined, not only was the undeveloped Nielsen property not within the city limits but to the best of Mr. Nielsen's recollection also parts of the development were omitted. City records would verify these annexations to remedy the immediate problem of the portions of the development being excluded. It was assumed the remaining undeveloped Nielsen property would eventually be included as well. 2. DSRSD records will confirm that Mr. Nielsen was required to participate in the funding of Black Reservoir. 3. Black Reservoir was designed to have larger capacity for future development. (see figure 6 6-2, map of West Side Water Master Plan) 4. Both Black Reservoir and a city sewer line are on the Nielsen property (see plot map). There are no other city tanks or sewer lines outside of Dublin's City limits.. 5. Since 1960, Zone 7 taxes have been paid on this land. Zone 7 is a tax for the water import system to serve future use. 6. The sewer lines are of a capacity to handle future development. 7. This land adjacent to the city limits has no agriculture value. It is bordered by residential developments on three sides. (see photo, letter Allied Brokers Real Estate) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .- -2- 9. The feed capacity for cattle grazing on this land is one unit per 10 acres. This 200 acres can support only 20 units ( a unit being one steer or a cow/calf). The volume of acreage is not there to make the numbers work to even pay the taxes. Cattle grazing is a means of weed abatement and fire control, not profit. 10.- If we were to pursue a housing plan on this 200 acres, our goal would be to develop 1/5 of the land and designate 4/5 to open space! (see article "Residents Favor Sustainable Development Strategies" Bay Area Poll, Dec. 1998). In conclusion Black Reservoir serves the city of Dublin and the 200 acres it sits on should also be inside the city's limits, just as the founding council of the City of Dublin intended. In the placement of the urban growth limit line that the city of Dublin is considering, excluding the Nielsen property from within that boundary is not justified, nor fair. Sincerely submitted on behalf of the Nielsen Family, ~.cv.0U ~ Roxanne Nielsen I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROTECTED RlDGELANDS :L~:Black iRese.. " '':Jr' ' Black Reservoir 'f..." ~ 0 . ''''1~,~1-~ ~. C Limits ,,~.... ,'~' Hansen Ellis, .... Development to~SQllth /" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Development to North ..... -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <j-; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY October 12, 1998 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and TUESDAY October 13, 1998 1 :30 p.m. to 3 :30 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 1. Introduction and set-up for future meetings 2. Discussion on time line for the Committee 3. Introduction of original initiative 4. Discuss staff report dated October 6, 1998, Item 8.1 NOTE: PLEASE BRING YOUR CALENDARS SO THAT FUTURE MEETINGS CAN BE SCHEDULED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING October 12, 1998 1:30 P.M. TO 3:30 P.M. DUBLIN REGIONAL MEETING ROOM The first meeting of the Dublin's Ridgeland Voters Voice Initiative was held on October 12, 1998. The meeting was called to order at 1 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lockhart. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Cm. Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley and John Anderson, co-authors of the Initiative. Also, Gaylene Burkett, recording secretary. There were approximately 20 members present in the audience, including representative from two newspapers. Chairman Lockhart introduced staff and Committee members. She went over the format for this meeting. This Committee was formed by the City Council and the Committee will be operating under the Brown Act. There will be no negotiating outside the public meetings. All public meetings will be noticed at least 72 hours before the meeting. Agendas will be posted when possible. The Committee will start with their discussion on the issues of the initiative. The last 15-30 minutes of the meeting will be reserved for the public to comment. She asked for the public to fill out speaker slips if they wish to speak so that the comments are properly recorded in the minutes. Cm. Lockhart stated staff was available for feed back for this Committee. The initiative was written by some residents in the western half of the City, and extended the courtesy to the City of sending copies of the initiative and asked the City to discuss with them the initiative. She hoped this Committee would foster good communication with each other and members of the public. She hoped to get this accomplished by the end of October. There was a discussion on future meetings dates set for Wednesday, October 21, 1998, 7:00 p.m. and Friday, October 23, 1 :30 p.m. The place for the meetings are yet to be set. Mr. Peabody, started the discussion. He asked the Committee what the Initiative proponents specifically do the want to accomplish? Mr. King wanted to have this Committee recommend to City Council that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance into law upon receipt of the valid signatures without requiring an election. Mr. Anderson stated there was two more reasons. 1) They want to have a joint session view this to see if its legal and 2) find out ifthere is anything with the initiative that violates the General Plan in any way. Mr. Bewley stated that the another purpose of the Committee is to insure that there is no conflict with existing ownership of private property, and that were is no taking. Mr. Peabody asked about the practicalities of the Initiative. - How it works. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. King stated they were talking about the Western Extended Planning area which is basically the undeveloped portion of the west Dublin foothills within the Sphere of Influence. They exclude any development project that already has its approvals. Mr. Bewley stated that the Initiative, if adopted, would require voter approval at the stage of prezone, where there is a change of zoning from open space to urban, residential or commercial use. This would not impede on the process of zoning, after the act of pre-zone by the City, it would be submitted to a vote City of Dublin registered voters, by simple majority. This would be after LAFCo and annexation. Mr. King stated for example, a proposal to amend the General Plan for the purpose of development other then agricultural or open space, subject to no taking or any interference with what property owners currently have rights to do now. Mr. King stated the time limit is 30 years, which coincides with the anticipated build-out of the East Dublin General Plan, which is indicated to be 30-40 years. Mr. Bewley stated there was also a 670 foot elevation limitation, which came from the County General Plan. Mr. Peabody asked how the 670 relates to the Initiative objective offinding out legal and planning problems or conflicts with existing property. Mr. Bewley stated 740 foot limit in eastern Dublin now requires a General Plan Amendment, and he asked if the use below 740 feet was all urbanized on the Eastern Plan. Ms. Cirelli stated there are portions of that area that are outside our existing City limits, and they would need to go through a pre-zoning with an annexation and then the zoning process. That would be for some areas below the 740 feet elevation. For areas above the 740 feet elevation. there would be a prohibition without further studies being done to see if development could occur. Mr. King stated the intent was to prohibit development above 670 feet in the west foothills. The Initiative has certain exceptions, such as if the prohibition has applied to a particular project which would result in an unlawful taking, then the height limit might not apply. Also, if there was a propelling need for public safety or health, for something to be built higher than that, then it would not apply. The general idea is that there would be no construction at all above 670 feet and anything below that would require the approval of the Dublin voters. Mr. Bewley stated it would be similar to what now exists in eastern Dublin, without the vote. Mr. Peabody stated that the Initiative also has language relating to the prohibition of other staff, agencies from participating in any decision that might cause certain actions to happen. Mr. King stated this prohibition would prohibit roads, utilities, developments or improvements unless it was for agriculture or open space use. There may be a few exceptions that may apply. The Initiative wanted Dublin's representative to DSRSD to not approve extensions of permanent water and sewer improvement in the area without voters approval. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. King stated that those were the principal elements of the Initiative. The Initiative was 16 pages and a lot of the other language was a restatement of policy taken from various statues of State, County, and City documents favoring preservation of this area. Mr. King stated that the Initiative includes some findings, and their purpose was intended to prevent a court from concluding or ruling that the Initiative was arbitrary or capricious. He referred to several findings in the Initiative. Mr. King felt that going point by point in the City Council staff report dated October 6, 1998 would be valid, due to some amending that would be required to the language of the Initiative. There are some things that may need more justification from staff and other items that were incorrect, for example to citations or areas that needed to be fixed. Ms. Faubion wanted to make sure everyone was working off the same document. She stated the current copy was dated 1992 and amended by resolutions. Chairperson Lockhart indicated that the next step would be to go through each section in the Staff Report to solicit dialog. Ms. Cirelli went through point by point of the staff report. Section I. PUl1lose and objectives B. Summary (p. 1) This section states that for a period of 30 years from the adoption of the ordinance, no proposal to zone or rezone the affected area for uses other than agricultural or open spaces uses, and so forth, shall be adopted unless first approved by a vote of the voters of the City. As noted, the initiative would govern land uses if the City annexes the area in the future. She stated currently the City cannot zone or rezone that area because it is outside the City limits. The City has no jurisdiction over that land. If that land is annexed into the City in the future, the City would prezone the land and annex it into the City and then have the power to rezone the land. Similarly, regarding the statement "or to permanently extend utilities or services to such area," the City could not extend utilities to this area unless it is annexed. Ms. Cirelli stated the same applies to the statement in the Initiative as listed above. Note that certain services, such as water and sewer services, are provided by DSRSD, not the City. Currently, Alameda County, DSRSD, and Zone 7 have the authority for extending services within the Western Dublin extended planning area. Mr. Peabody stated that there are a number of other utilities that may go through the area such as Sprint, telecommunications, EBMUD pipelines and things which the City has no jurisdiction over, that may go through the area not related to urban development. The issue of utilities needs to be carefully defined. Mr. King stated he submitted a revised wording that includes road, in addition to utilities, development, improvements for other than agricultural or open space uses. Ms. Cirelli continued with the issues outlined in the staff report. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c. Purposes (p.2) Paragraph CA indicates that one purpose of the initiative is to prevent Alameda County from encroaching on the City's right to control development. The City controls development only within the City limits. Alameda County would continue to have land use jurisdiction over the affected area unless the area was annexed in the future. Cm. Lockhart asked if it was more appropriate to delete paragraph CA since the City has not control over Alameda County. Ms. Faubion stated there may be another way to restate that paragraph. Mr. King stated that he had new language that said the City could discourage the County of Alameda from encroaching on the City of Dublin's privilege to influence, guide or control development within the City's sphere of influence in connection with the affected area. Ms. Cirelli continued. D. Definitions (p. 2) There is a typo in the first paragraph, last sentence. The word should be "West" instead of "est." Section II. Findinl!s (p. 3) E. This finding assumes there is sufficient development potential in the City's remaining planning areas to meet the City's housing objectives in the Housing Element. If this assumption is incorrect, the initiative would be inconsistent with the Housing Element, and if approved, would make the General Plan internally inconsistent. Either the initiative or the Housing Element would need revision to avoid the inconsistency. Ms. Cirelli indicated that either the Housing Element or the initiative would need to be revised in order to avoid the inconsistency. The Housing Element relies on development in the Western Dublin Planning area to meet the City's housing needs for all economic segments of the community. Mr. King thought the Housing Element had been amended in order to make it consistent. He stated that the Housing Element has projections for housing needs for the next 30+ years and shows the number of housing in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. It appears that there is substantially more capacity in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is needed to meet the housing needs over the next 30 years. The recent Urban Opportunity Area that the City Council recently looked at would limit additional housing to about 100 homes. He felt that 100 homes would not have substantial impact on the Housing Element. And with the slopes in that area, 100 homes might not fit in that area. Mr. Bewley indicated that it may be possible to not have to amend the Housing Element. He asked if it would be permissible to ignore the Housing Element entirely, and not make any reference to it at all. Then it is possible to run into a consistency problem, it the Housing Element is incorporated by reference. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Faubion clarified that the General Plan consists of a number of elements so it actually is part of the General Plan and all the elements cannot conflict. Mr. King stated they amended the part of the Housing Element to state that there was only one area suitable for housing and that was the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. There may be additional language required to make it consistent with the General Plan. Cm. Lockhart stated ABAG will be giving the City their new numbers in June, 1999, and the City must have the Housing Element updated by 2001, so things may change anyway. Ms. Faubion stated we currently are going on the 1992 figures. It could all change again in 2001. Mr. Bewley stated they went under the assumption that every corresponding element must be amended. He had seen initiatives that have primarily focused on land use elements only, not mentioning the other elements, and they have passed the court test as being valid. Ms. Cirelli continued. FA. This paragraph in the Alameda County General Plan - East County Area Plan (ECAP) refers to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area, and without more explanation, appears to be inapplicable to the Western Extended Planning Area. Mr. King stated that deleted that paragraph. Ms. Cirelli continued. F.5. This paragraph of the ECAP refers to the general concept of the Urban Growth Boundaries, not the West Dublin foothills, and as'stated in the initiative, may not accurately reflect the County's policy. Mr. King stated they needed to get the language and take a look at it. Mr. Bewley felt the entire area they were looking at was outside the Urban Growth Boundary area. Ms. Cirelli continued. Section III. Policies readoDted and emphasized (p. 5) The following comments address the section of the initiative which proposes to readopt and emphasize certain existing General Plan policies. Certain General Plan language is included verbatim, but is excerpted from the current policy, and is sometimes combined with language from a different policy and/or with different text. In these cases, the policy is not simply a readoption, but would be a text amendment, more appropriate in Section IV.A., Text Amendments to the General Plan. A. The appropriate General Plan reference to these policy objectives is Section 2.1.4.F(2), (3). The initiative's current citation does not reflect the Schaefer Ranch GP A. B. The appropriate General Plan reference to these policy objectives appears to be Section 3.1.E-G. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D. The General Plan refers to "ridgelines" instead of "ridgelands." Citations within the proposed policy should be edited to account for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment (GP A). F. Section 7.1(D) and (F) are not referenced. H. The word "designated" should be included after "development within." I. The word "abuse" should read "misuse." The appropriate General Plan reference to this policy is Section 5 .1.1. in Guiding Policy B regarding design of collector streets. Section IV. Amendments to the General Plan A. Text Amendments (p.6) A.L This proposed General Plan text includes general policy and "vision" statements. They are not required by the General Plan statute for the City's general plan. Ms. Faubion stated there was a General Plan statute that does have complicated and extensive content required. It is important to know what is required by the statute that does constrain everyone that deals with the General Plan. A.2.a.,b. The proposed amendments to Section 2.1.4.a,b. were previously adopted by the City through the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (1993). The proposed additional sentences may appear inconsistent with existing Western Dublin Policies D-F; additional conforming amendments may be necessary for the initiative and/or existing policies. B. Conforming Amendments (p. 7) B.La. The text citations should be edited to reflect the Schaefer Ranch GPA, and existing Western Dublin policies. Also, paragraph no. 2 requires further clarification. For example, "nominal extent" and "minimum extent necessary" should be defined. B.2.c. The appropriate location for the proposed policy is Section 3 .1.H, after the current Western Dublin policies. B.2.e. The appropriate location for the proposed guiding policies is 3.3.Q., R., respectively, with the existing implementing policy re-Iettered to "S". B.2.f. As a result of previous GP As, the Guiding Policy referred to in this paragraph currently appears at Section 3.3.D, and restricts hillside structures that would silhouette above the ridgelines. The policy currently applies citywide, through the Primary, and both Extended Planning Areas. The proposed amendment would apply the policy expressly to the Western Extended Planning Area, but would delete it for the other planning areas. To the extent this effect is unintentional, the initiative may not reflect the Schaefer Ranch GPA which provides policies for the Western Extended Planning Area. Mr. King agreed. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B.2.g. Paragraph J should also refer to DSRSD. Regarding paragraphs K.3. and L.2., the Alameda County General Plan (ECAP) does not reference 670' for the City of Dublin. This elevation cap is for the cities of Pleasant on, Hayward and Castro Valley, and may not provide a rationale for applying it to Dublin. Mr. Bewley stated that was correct, but would have to be discussed further. B.3.a. The effect of the initiative on the Housing Element depends on how much residential development potential is currently in the initiative's affected area, and how much of that potential would be required for the City to meet its Housing Element objectives. As noted earlier, if the initiative conflicts with the Housing Element, either the initiative or the element must be amended to resolve the conflict. As a procedural note, the next periodic review of the City's Housing Element by HCD is June 3, 2000. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(2)). In addition, Housing Element amendments must be sent to HCD for review. Ms. Cirelli indicated this was discussed earlier and can be discussed at a later time. B.3.b. These policy statements could make the Housing Element and General Plan internally inconsistent because one of the City's housing goals is to provide housing in both of the extended planning areas for meeting the housing needs of very low, low, moderate and above moderate income households. See previous comments. B.5.a. This language is surplus. (City feels that this language is not necessary) B.5.b. This language is surplus. (City feels that this language is not necessary) Mr. King felt further discussion would be required. C. Map Amendments (p. 14) I. The unincorporated Western Dublin Extended Planning Area already has an agricultural land use designation under the Alameda County General Plan. The map reference should be changed to Figure 2- 4. 2. It is inappropriate for the initiative to amend unspecified maps; this paragraph should be revised to direct the City to make such other map changes as necessary to be consistent with the initiative. Section V. ImDlementation (p. 14) E. The people, through the initiative process, can repeal a legislative act (such as a general plan or zoning action) but the repeal will be effective prospectively, not retroactively. The word "rescinded" in the first sentence should more appropriately be "repealed". Mr. King agreed. 7 I I I I I I I I I .. '~j I .~ I I I I I I I I. The people, through the initiative process, can do what the City Council can do. This provision would bind a future Council's discretion with respect to a legislative act and, thus, appears to be invalid. Mr. Bewley stated that if it was invalid, there could be two approaches; 1) It could be deleted it or 2) it could be left in, because if it was invalid, it would not apply. Ms. Faubion stated it could be discussed more at a later time. Mr. Peabody stated that some of these items can be taken care of relatively easily, and then the Committee can focus on 4-5 items that seems to need some major discussion. Cm. Lockhart felt we could come back with clean up language and focus on the major issues. Staff would provide the correct citations and other language to clean up some of the details. Cm. Lockhart asked that the areas of most importance be designated so that the Committee could concentrate on those areas at the next meeting. Ms. Faubion suggested that the first focus be on General Plan. It is the policy document for any City or County in California. Once the General Plan issues are resolved, the Committee can continue on the others issues. That would include all of the elements. Mr. Bewley stated it would be helpful to have those elements that were included by reference. Mr. King stated the Initiative would only amend the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Faubion stated yes, but focus on the General Plan, you may not need to get into the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peabody stated there is reference to other agencies such as the Alameda County and DSRSD and those issues need to be address, there may be some language added that may state "for these purposes, it may be Ok, but for these purposes, it is not OK." We do not have the authority to bind people who belong to other organizations that do not directly relate to the City to do certain things. Mr. King asked if the City could instruct their representative on the DSRSD board to vote a certain way. Mr. Peabody stated the City does not have a representative on the DSRSD board. They are directly elected. Mr. King asked if the City has a representative on LAFCo. Cm. Lockhart stated the City mayor may not. Those representatives are appointed and there have been years when Dublin did not have a representative. Mr. King asked about the LA VWMA agreement, does it include Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated no it does not. 8 I I I' I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Bewley asked if Dublin initiated an annexation through LAFCo, are there times when Dublin does not have representation. Mr. Peabody stated that was correct. Last time we had an alternate, our Mayor. Mr. King stated that on the Schaefer Ranch vote from LAFCo, our Mayor was the alternate and voted for the project, can the Council instruct its representative on how to vote. Cm Lockhart felt that would be a problem. That position is an appointment, and although it may be a person from Dublin, they are not necessarily representing Dublin. She did not or commission, when they are an appointment. We could encourage it, but not demand it. Mr. Bewley felt maybe the language should state encouragement. Ms. Faubion stated that prior to an annexation, a General Plan Amendment had to have been approved, if there is an action that could be dealt with at the General Plan level, everything else falls out. Mr. Bewley stated there was reference there early on in the formation stages considering what relationship Dublin has outside of its own planning jurisdiction. Mr. Faubion stated a number of jurisdictions include specific policies on extra-territorial jurisdiction, stating basically that the city does not have any, but if they did, here is what we would say. That might provide an opportunity to provide a policy statement, which would not be binding, but would be a statement nonetheless. Cm. Lockhart stated the agenda for the next meeting would concentrate on references to other agencies and relationships and General Plan policies. Cm. Lockhart asked if there was any other items for the next agenda. Mr. Anderson stated that would be fine. He was anxious to hear from the public. Cm. Lockhart opened the public hearing part of the meeting. She asked the speakers to keep their comments short so that each speaker had a chance to speak. Comments would be considered by the committee and entered into the minutes. Randall Faccinto, representing Nielsen Properties, felt there had not been enough time to study the issue. He wanted to know what the Council had asked the committee to do, will they be going back with a recommendation. Can they be noticed? Cm. Lockhart stated the Mayor formed the subcommittee and asked staff to work with the authors of the initiative. The Council will be deciding whether or not the initiation would go on the ballot, or if there would be a special or general election, or whether the initiative could be approved by the Council and put into effect. The sub-committee would not be making those decisions, that will be up to the Council. Mr. Faccinto asked what is the involvement of the City Attorney and City staff. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I Mr. Peabody stated staff and the City Attorney is here for technical resource only and provide answers raised about the General Plan, it is up to the Committee to decide what they want to do. Cm. Lockhart wanted to make it clear that this Initiative was not started by the City Council, it was started by residents of the community. The City Council is attempting to communicate with the residents and find our their plans, is there any consensus, is there common agreement, etc. The City Attorney will get involved at the will of the City Council. All meetings will be public and noticed. Mr. Faccinto asked if the City Attorney would be offering a legal opinion on validity of the Initiative. Ms. Faubion stated the City Attorney is the attorney for the City of Dublin. Their role is to advise the City Council. Mr. Faccinto asked if there would be meetings held other that those scheduled, with the City and the proponents of the Initiative Cm. Lockhart stated every meeting the City has with the proponents would be public and notices. Mr. Faccinto stated he represents the Nielsen family and there was quite a few owners who could not attend the meeting today. The owners in the western hills are concerned about this, they want to know what will happen next. His comment was that the purpose of this Initiative is to take power away from City Council decisions and this should not be taken lightly. He stated the Initiative's effort is to pull the rug out from under the City Council and the people effected would be watching this very closely. They are very concerned about the impact the Initiative. Marjorie LaBar, has been attending Planning Commission meetings since 1986, and stated that there had been one successful Initiative that had over turned a large development on the Western side. She stated there is a great deal of land in Eastern Dublin and the voters have already said no to western Dublin, and previous City Council have not paid attention to the citizens of Dublin. If a developer can create a development that meets the needs of the community, then let them try. Tom Ford, this is the first initiative Dublin has ever faced. Previous efforts were referendums, citizens actions. He has worked on other referendums, and felt the Initiative would be more permanent. He wanted to comments on the relationship between the City and DSRSD. DSRSD has frequently stated there are a service utility and only acts on the City of Dublin requirements. Representatives ofDSRSD and City of Dublin meet regularly to discuss development. He felt the City could control some of the decisions, and a general policy should be consistent with the Initiative. There is a lot of joint planning with the City. He wanted DSRSD to reflect in their policy's the City's wishes. Mr. Benigno, felt this whole process is biased, the way this forum was set up. Tim Koopmann representing Contra Costa/Alameda County Cattlemen's Association, indicated he lived in Sunol, but his family was one of the founding families in the City of Dublin. He stated objections he will be fleshing out in writing. He wanted to know why there was not owner- representation on the Committee. He said the fast track issue bothered him also. To him, that means that it may not be able to stand much scrutiny. He felt by forcing development in the San Joaquin Valley, we force people to use 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the road that impact our transportation issues here. He felt 30 years was a miss-guided concept at this time. Cm. Lockhart reiterated that this Initiative did come to us from residents of the community and that is their legal right. We hope to gain an understanding of this Initiative and hope to come together with something that can go forward to the City Council. Bud Nielsen asked for more time. We are dealing with a 30 year issue and hoping to have it settled in 3 weeks. Cm. Lockhart said this was not a three week issue. The proponents of the Initiative are going to do this with or without the Committee and community help. They want to bring it back to the City Council for a vote and focus on the Initiative, not on general growth or other issues, this is the format of the subcommittee. Mr. Anderson stated it may help if the members of the audience had copies of the Initiative, and he had no problems getting them copies. The citizens will all have a chance to vote on this issue. It does not mean that it will pass, it is simply a vote. The Initiative is in a draft form currently and will be changing through the process. em. Lockhart stated that once the Initiative is put together, there is three options; 1) adopted by City Council; 2) special election or 3) on next general election. She stated that signatures have not been collected yet. Mr. Bewley stated once the Initiative is filled, it cannot be changed and they were not there yet. It is slated to go on a special election in the spring. Someone asked if the Initiative is voted down, can Mr. Nielsen start building? Mr. Bewley stated no. Mr. King went over the process. He said this Initiative takes the vote from the City Council and gives it to the people. Step one, citizens come forward with a proposed law; when language is finished, file it with signatures, approximately 2,000 or 15% of registered voters, and if they are all valid, then the City has two choices; 1) special election or 2) City Council can skip election and adopt it into law, and it cannot be changed or repealed unless going to the people for a vote first. Cm. Lockhart stated if anyone wanted to be noticed for the future meetings, to let the Secretary know and they will be added to the list. Next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 13, 1998 at 1 :30. NOTE: THESE MINUTES ARE NOT TRANSCRIBED VERBATUM AND ARE SUBJECT TO lHE INTERPRETATION OF THE MINUTE SECRETARY 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING October 13, 1998 1:30 P.M. TO 3:30 P.M. DUBLIN REGIONAL MEETING ROOM The second meeting of the Dublin's Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative was held on October 13, 1998. The meeting was called to order at 1 :30 p.m. by Chairperson Lockhart. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Cm. Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley and John Anderson, co- authors of the Initiative. Also, Gaylene Burkett, recording secretary. There were approximately 10 members present in the audience, including representative from one newspaper. Chairperson Lockhart opened the meeting and indicated that Mr. Berigno had requested to video tape the meeting. After conferring with the City Attorney, she indicated he would be allowed to video tape the meeting. She indicated that the evening meeting of October 21, 1998 will be held at the Senior Center, located at 7437 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin. The Friday, October 23, 1998 meeting will be held back at the Civic Center in the Regional Meeting Room. The agenda for today is how the initiative affects the General Plan and how the initiative will relate to outside agencies. Mr. Peabody indicated there had been two updates to the initiative received today, and it was staff s goal to get the initiative on disc with the changes so that everyone was working from the same verSIOn. Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office, started with the initiative and how it affects the General Plan. There are portions of the Zoning Ordinance that will be affected. She suggested the Committee stick to the General Plan and once the amendments to the General Plan proposals are done, they might accomplish what the Initiative wishes to accomplish. She stated that the Initiative would basically put the normal process to a vote of the people. She stated that the Initiative proposes to do two things: 1) it would put some decisions that the City would make to the vote of the people, and 2) it would make policy changes and modifications. These both raise different issues. She stated the vote of the people would be the easier of the two. She suggested the Committee consider the earlier discussion that the intent of the Initiative is that people would vote only if the City had approved the General Plan Amendment in the first place. That was not stated in the Initiative and she suggested that it should be. Mr. Bewley stated that was added language in one of the revisions. Ms. Faubion stated it would be best to go through the General Plan Amendments one by one. The intent of the Committee was to find common ground. Then move on to the text amendments. Mr. Peabody stated there needed to be clarification on when there needs to be an election. For example, 1) Once the City Council adopts a General Plan Amendment and prezones a piece of 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT property, would it go to a vote of the people before it becomes effective or 2) Does the election take place before the prezoning or final action by the Council? Mr. Bewley stated it would be #1. Mr. King stated the first step would be for the City to vote for the development or not. Mr. Bewley stated the City would have to do an act within its jurisdiction under the State Constitution, if the City does not do an act, the Initiative could not speak to an act. Mr. Peabody stated nonrially in Dublin, entitlements are bunched up 2-3 together, but it is possible for the City Council to effectuate a General Plan Amendment only, not a prezoning, to change a piece of property. That might preclude the City to deal with the question of pre zoning. Mr. Bewley asked for a definition of prezone vs. a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Peabody stated that the zoning implements the General Plan. The issue the Initiative speaks to is that it does not allow any type of General Plan Amendment that allows urban use, residential, commercial, industrial. The property would first have to have its General Plan change. The second step (prezone) implements the General Plan. Mr. King asked if the second step happens during the same City Council vote? Mr. Peabody stated that frequently happens, but it does not have to happen. Mr. Bewley stated the Initiative was created by looking a prior Initiatives, and had discussions about urban growth boundaries, but that was fairly restrictive. So they felt it should be left up to the people, not the authors of the Initiative. Mr. Peabody stated that once a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is voted on, if it is not approved, then the prezoning and other actions disappear, they cannot go forward. Cm. Lockhart asked that if the vote was at the General Plan stage and not the prezone stage, what is the involvement of the land owner at that point? How invested are they going to be with the project at that point? If there is an election, it is only fair that they have a development plan and people are not just voting on the concept of growth or no growth, but voting on a plan. Mr. Peabody stated you would go to the prezoning stage, which would list the amenities. At the General Plan stage the vote would simply be for or against an urban use or not. Cm. Lockhart felt that was not fair to the land owners. Mr. Bewley understood that there was some flexibility in the approval process. The way it will be structured will be the trigger for the mechanism to begin. It can be structured that the vote happens at the GP A stage, but this would allow for a complete analysis and a presentation of a specified project, it would not be prohibited at the GP A stage. 2 I I DRAFT I , II Ms. Faubion stated you would not rezone to build a road, you would rezone to a use to approve a development, and if approved, might need roads. Mr. King stated ifroads were being built for other than agricultural or open space use or other than public health and safety, or other than required utilities, would that require a rezoning or GPA? I Ms. Faubion stated probably someone would come to the City and say they wanted to build an agriculture road, the first comment from the City would be that they need a grading permit, and grading permits needs to be consistent with the General Plan. You cannot grade for any reason, agricultural grading is often exempt. If you wanted to build a road with curbs and gutters to your pig farm, the City might look at it and see if it were really intended for some type of urban use. She said the Initiative can only do what the City Council can do. If someone was just building a road to their pig farm, the City Council could not say they needed a GP A for the road. I I I Mr. Peabody stated the property must be annexed to the City before they can have control of the road, the County must approve a road in the Western Extended Planning Area. LAFCo does not annex property unless you have a GP A and a pre zoning on the books. I Mr. Bewley asked what the City's suggested language would be? I Mr. Peabody stated it depends on if the Initiative wanted the vote to be at the General Plan stage. Then the question would be, do you believe in urbanization, or at the prezone stage; where the question would be, do you like this 55 unit project on site X, that developer Y wants to do? I I I Mr. Bewley felt that was the core issue and the Committee should spend some time talking about it. He stated the GP A for urban to agricultural use is something the City would do, rather then a land owner. A land owner would come forward with a certain development which activates stage 1, stage 2 and CEQA. I Mr. Peabody stated as a practical application, no developer would ask for just a GP A because that is not an entitlement to do anything, it just means that there is a designation on the property. I I Ms. Faubion indicated that it comes down to different layers. Looking at the structure to distinguish what the City will be looking at prior to the vote and what the voters will be looking at prior to the vote. The City will look at the package the developer will submit. If the GP A part of the package goes to the vote, and the vote is no, everything else falls out. If the vote says yes, then everything else which has gone to the City public hearings and is public record, is in. Mr. Bewley stated that fitted the Napa and Ventura law. I Mr. Anderson stated the Initiative's purpose was to give the voters the right to vote on a quality of life. So the City will have a complete package through stage 1, but what will be submitted to the voters is only the GPA and not the rest of the package. I Ms. Faubion stated no, only the GP A goes to the voters, but they would already know what the rest of the package is, the rest of package would be available to the citizens through public 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Cm. Lockhart stated that the joint powers agreement would not be DSRSD and the City of Dublin acting as an entity. Mr. McCormick stated there first must be a facility or structure there that is using septic tanks and the tanks would have to fail enough to become a health hazard, and at that point LA VMA could then consider allowing sewer service. Mr. King read a section from the joint powers agreement. Cm. Lockhart stated Mr. McCormick and Mr. King need to get together and discuss the details of the agreement. But to say in any way, shape or form that the City would demand of the City staff or City Council who they can or cannot have conversations with is not appropriate. Mr. Peabody read again the section J wording. Mr. Bewley stated that was good. That fit the concerns of the Initiative proponents and the City. Cm. Lockhart asked for comments from the public. Marjorie LaBar went over some of the points made earlier in the meeting. She stated CEQA was extremely expensive. There was not a developer out there that could afford to do CEQA for a GP A and then do it again for a development. They will look at the whole process at one time. She felt as a resident looking at a ballot argument, the phase I detail would be helpful to her. However, if that causes legal questions, practically that may not work. She felt it more important to focus on the necessity of a good geographic definition of the area. She felt the statement "Anything west of San Ramon Road, south of the Alameda/Contra Costa line" would be good language to use. It is a geographic element that is not going to use, its large, its on all the maps and will not move. This would be for areas outside the City limits. Cm. Lockhart stated that this would not include an in-fill project within the City limits west of San Ramon Road. Mr. Bewley felt there would be a time definition needed, because what is in the City limits today may not be in the City limits tomorrow. Mr. King felt the definition would be the day the Notice ofIntent was filed. Ms. LaBar felt the City Attorney gave a clear definition of what the GP A does, and what it can give, and if the inclusion of level 1 development information poses a legal challenge, it could be simplified. Mr. Bewley asked the Chairperson to define her definition of in-fill projects. Cm. Lockhart stated she had no definition in mind, but that land uses change within the City. Mr. King stated the Initiative excludes anything already within the City limits as of the day they file the Notice ofIntent. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Cm. Lockhart stated only if annexed to the City of Dublin. And it cannot be annexed without a General Plan and going to LAFCo. The City supplies utilities to areas annexed to the City of Dublin, but you can only annex from the Sphere of Influence. She stated if a project was in the Sphere ofInfluence, the City of Dublin would comment on the project, but unless it was annexed to the City of Dublin, this Initiative or anything else would not take precedence over it. Ms. Cronin stated that the City had a responsibility by taking an area in as the Sphere of Influence, and it gives some control to the City. Also, as Mr. Eastwood stated, property rights cannot be totally ignored. The Initiative is for 30 years, she felt 50% of the people would be dead. She felt somewhere along the line, the property owners should be involved in the process. Mr. Bewley asked about the thought of ranches being formed, were those not agricultural uses. Mr. Peabody stated that would be residential. Cm. Lockhart explained the process of the Initiative. She stated that the residents have a large voice, and have drafted the Initiative. They approached the City Council and stated their intent, and before they filed and got the signatures to place the Initiative on the ballot, wanted to talk to the City and make sure there were not consequences to the way the Initiative was written that were unintended. The Mayor thought it would be beneficial to meet with the proponents and come to some common ground. It was not the intent to have the landowners as part of that process. The City is interested in what the landowners have to say and the residents as well. Ms. Cronin commended the City Council and staff on going through this process. She stated two other jurisdictions had residents that had an Initiative and that went all the way to the Supreme Court and it lost. The fact is they did it and got it done, but it was illegal. Mr. Bewley stated what she was referring to was between Hayward and Pleasanton and it was not a GP A and was done by the legislative bodies, not by individuals. He was found to be in violation of the separation of power legislation. He stated that closed dealings has been a problem in the past, and wanted to have this looked at in an open forum. Mr. Peabody stated that by the next meeting, there should be a clean draft of the Initiative. Ms. Cronin asked if the property owners could be notified. Cm. Lockhart stated at the last meeting, the property owners were asked to let the secretary know and give their address. She stated the meetings would continue until the Committee gets through the entire discussion. . Ms. Cronin still wanted to be notified. Mr. King stated that in the past, the City has only done what was legally required of them. Here they are going the extra mile by taking a great deal of valuable staff time and City Attorney time to have these meetings, and they are going beyond and extending the courtesy to the property owners, that as residents of the Dublin have seldom received. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Cm. Lockhart stated that the property owners had the chance to notify the City if they wanted to be notified. Ms. Burkett, recording secretary, stated that only one person left their name to be notified. All of the other property owners left without leaving their information. M. Cronin wanted someone to ride up the road and place a notice in each persons mailbox. Mr. Eastwood asked if a copy of the Initiative would be available before the next meeting. Mr. Peabody stated that staff is doing the work, and would do their best to have it available before the next meeting. Cm. Lockhart adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m. g:initiative/l0-13min 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY October 12, 1998 1 :30 p.m. to 3 :30 p.m. and TUESDAY October 13, 1998 1 :30 p.m. to 3 :30 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 1. Introduction and set-up for future meetings 2. Discussion on time line for the Committee 3. Introduction of original initiative 4. Discuss staff report dated October 6, 1998, Item 8.1 NOTE: PLEASE BRING YOUR CALENDARS SO THAT FUTURE MEETINGS CAN BE SCHEDULED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY October 21, 1998 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. TillS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN SENIORS CENTER LOCATED AT 7437 LARKDALE AVENUE, DUBLIN and FRIDAY October 23, 1998 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. TillS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER REGIONAL MEETING ROOM 100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN 1. Continue discussions on Initiative language PLEASE NOTE LOCATIONS OF MEETINGS! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING October 29, 1998 . 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on October 29, 1998 at the City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson, co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. Cm. Lockhart stated that Kit wanted to discuss the organization of the Initiative. Mr. Peabody put up some overheads for everyone to see. Ms. Faubion stated that they have worked on the structure of the Initiative. She went over her suggestions for the document. She stated that they have been working toward compacting provisions that are duplicative. In the definitions of the affected area there is a little overlap. She stated that the "Findings" section might or can be moved up under "Purposes." The key to all of this and what drives this is that the people will vote on City Council approved General Plan Amendments. She discussed the Map Amendments. Mr. King asked if there was a map other than Figure 1-2. Ms. Faubion stated that map was amended when the development elevation cap was adopted. Mr. King asked if it is still Figure 1-2. Mr. Peabody states yes. He stated that there is another map, which is not in the same context that specifically describes the Western Extended Planning Area by the language that has been written in the document. Ms. Faubion stated that Figure 1-2 is the primary map that identifies the area affected. She stated that the Initiative actually amends the General Plan. She was concerned that Conforming Amendments was not being used correctly. The Conforming Amendments should be identified in the Initiative. Conforming Amendments are secondary changes that are necessary because of the main changes. If all you had in this initiative, was a vote by the people after City Council approval, then there would not be any Conforming Amendments. The amendment would be adding this text in the appropriate place in the General Plan. To the extent that the proponents are making other changes then it might raise the need for Coriforming Amendments and those should be in the Initiative itself. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Implementing measures would be changes to the Zoning Ordinance or changing the Drainage Master Plan to make sure they don't conflict. If there are amendments to the Housing Element they should be specified and where the proposed change would be. The Initiative cannot do anything that the City Council cannot do. If the City Council is amending the General Plan, the text must be written first. She stated that Conforming Amendments in the Initiative as currently written are basically implementations. She brought a copy of another Initiative from the City of Windsor. Mr. Bewley stated that he would like a copy of the Windsor Initiative. He asked when the Windsor Initiative was adopted. Ms. Faubion stated Windsor's Initiative was adopted last year. She was concerned that the draft Initiative for Dublin was confusing and the legal thread was being lost. Mr. King stated that the latest version of the Initiative has lost about 6 pages and maybe they should be added back. The rule that the General Plan has to be consistent by two different levels of a plan; one is the mechanics and the other is policy. He felt that to have a section of Conforming Amendments is to make sure that everything throughout the General Plan that is contrary or inconsistent with the main amendment needs to be changed. (The original draft they had combed through the whole General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, found every mechanical aspect or policy aspect that did not fit with the Initiative and changed it.) Ms. Faubion stated that when talking about Policy, it is not Policy in an amorphous sense, it is text in the General Plan. Mr. King stated that some of the text is not consistent. The Housing Element finds that the hills are suitable for development, which is inconsistent with Policy statements in the General Plan and the Alameda County General Plan. In terms of what is most important, when writing something like this, you are anticipating sitting in front of a judge and he is trying to figure out what was intended. Quite often the judge has to fall back on the policy statements. Ms. Faubion stated that it is important to make a procedural amendment and the policy amendments. If all you want to do is have the people vote after Council approves a General Plan Amendment, this Initiative can be extremely short. Add a paragraph under Western Extended Planning Area stating that the voters ~et a shot at it. Mr. Bewley repeated Ms. Faubion for clarification; he stated that the crux of the amendment in the language, and that the prezone stage is not valid until ratified by a vote of the people. Ms. Faubion stated not a prezone. She stated that none of it means anything unless the General Plan is amended. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. Peabody stated that the top of page six under the General Plan Land Use Element for the Western Extended Planning Area; section "for a period of30 years" is the real meat of what Mr. Bewley is after. Ms. Faubion stated that in addition to the "Procedural Amendment," which simply adds a vote at the end, she asked if they were also going to change the policies by which the City Council would make their decisions before it gets to the voters? Mr. Bewley stated that what they were trying to do is put a safe guard of the public votes. If they don't change any policies whatsoever, and add an amendment paragraph, they will accomplish the same goal. The grievance the people of Dublin have had was the lack of communication with City Council. Ms. Faubion stated that when a City evaluates a General Plan Amendment, before the vote, before the procedural element, the city has to approve the General Plan Amendment. In order to approve the General Plan Amendment, staff would look at the application, go through the text, determine if the project is consistent, prepare a staff report and the City Council decides one way another. She stated that is why she and Mr. Peabody commented on how workable some of the policies are. This is how the meaning of conform should be understood, ifthere is a policy in another element that needs to conform, such as a policy in the open space element that conflicts with the substantive change, then that is a conforming amendment and it should be in the Initiative. That is only a function of the text amendments, not a function of the procedure. Mr. King stated that some of the text of the six pages that were eliminated might need to be added back in to the Initiative. Section II, Land Use, states Extended Planning Area, Guiding Policy consider residential development proposals, if we are faced with a situation of a bazaar series of events regarding an election; the judge would need to figure out the intent. Ms. Faubion stated that how would he get to that point; there would have to be a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning to urban. Mr. King asked what if there is an argument on what is the Extended Planning Area? The point of the Initiative is to stop housing, and the judge will ask where does it state that in the policy. To be consistent, under Procedures it should state why that procedure is necessary . Ms. Faubion said that the Findings state that and why it is a concern. Mr. King stated that some of the Findings are really policy statements. Ms. Faubion asked if they are text changes to the General Plan. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. King stated not in the Findings. It does not make sense for the Findings to say one thing and the General Plan say something else. It needs to be made consistent. Ms. Faubion stated that this is a different issue than just having the people vote at the end. Mr. King stated that the draft they proposed does more than that. Every word that was written in the original draft, they considered possible litigation. The Devita case was a case where the Initiative was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. The context, the legislative intent, and the policy must be consistent with what is trying to be achieved. When you read the findings the intent is to focus the community's attention that the hills must be preserved as greenbelt. Ms. Faubion stated that this draft Initiative makes substantive changes and is not a procedural change. It is not the Initiative that the Government code requires being internally consistent. The Government code requires the General Plan to be internally consistent. Mr. Bewley stated that the trigger is a procedural change, we don't have to worry about any inconsistency because we have changed the procedure. However, if we do an Amendment to the General Plan other than procedure, any type that refers to any area directly or indirectly in that general element must have consistent language. Ms. Faubion stated that if making substantive changes to the General Plan text and it creates an inconsistency in another General Plan element, then there needs to be a text amendment to resolve the inconsistency. Mr. King felt that the six pages that have been taken out need to be added back. Ms. Faubion stated that the people of Dublin would not be the one reading the policies. Mr. Bewley stated that if they do a policy change that is essentially a substantive change that requires a text amendment. Ms. Faubion stated that the basic point is the Initiative does two things; it adds a procedural step and it changes the General Plan text that the City would have to consider. She stated that from what she is hearing, the citizens are concerned that policies have not been properly implemented so they want to vote on the issues. Why is anything else needed? Mr. King stated that he has been practicing law for 27 years. A judge has a dispute in front of him, with a policy stating the City will encourage residential development in the West Dublin Foothills, the judge will give benefit of doubt to the developer. He stated that the policy states the foothills should be preserved as greenbelt. The statement "to consider residential development proposals in the Extended Planning Area" is inconsistent with the policy statement of "the foothills should be preserved as greenbelt." 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Ms. Faubion stated that assume there is an inconsistency. There has been confusion that needs to be resolved. If the General Plan is going to be amended it needs to be amended in the Initiative. Mr. King stated that he would go back and look at the Schaefer Ranch Amendments. He stated that they are amateurs trying to do what professionals do, so if there is confusion or misunderstanding it is likely to be on their part. The General Plan as written has never been a well-defined policy. Cm. Lockhart asked if what they are looking for is to make the General Plan more consistent for land preservation as well as the vote of the people. Mr. Anderson stated that the Initiative is about a vote of the people. Mr. Bewley stated that the General Plan needs some work, and it has been modified from SIX or seven years ago. Mr. Peabody stated that on pages 4 through 7 of the Initiative, there is section A through o and in the actual General Plan the section marked Western Extended Planning Area has amendments 2.1.4 which is the residential land use elements; amendments 3.1 to open space for preservation of natural resources; amendment 3.2 for agricultural open space; and 3 for outdoor recreation, those were the major policies. Most of these he has read in the Initiative are either partially described or can be changed to meet the policies they are talking about. He gave an example, on page 6 the section that states "any development in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be integrated with the natural setting." Guiding Policies can be changed in that section that reflects some of these items that they have described. These are all of the amendments that have been described when dealt with the Western Extended Planning Area and the ones that are in the General Plan. Mr. Bewley stated that we did not have the Schaefer Ranch Amendment. Mr. Peabody stated that under Section "A" it describes the Western Extended Planning Area with a map to go along with it. The Initiative language states "30 years from the adoption of the Initiative, no General Plan can be changed to permit any urban use other than agricultural or open space purposes. Anything that City Council does to approve that is not affective unless first approved by the City of Dublin voters." He stated that Mr. King, Mr. Bewley, and Mr. Anderson asked to add a new number 5 "Encouraging the City Council to consider a general or special election to reenact this Initiative for an additional 30 years within two years prior to the expiration date of this Initiative." Again definitions the Western Extended Planning Area is the same as it is on page 1. Open space in the Government Code includes agricultural land and parks and recreation; so the definition of agricul~al can be avoided. Mr. King asked if the Open Space Act gave definitions of agricultural uses. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. Peabody stated yes it does. It is the exact reference to the Government Code. He stated that going over the draft document, he changed the word ordinance to Initiative. He also changed the word foothills to Western Extended Planning Area. He stated that the 670-foot elevation cap in the Initiative needs to be re-considered. If there is a General Plan Amendment and the voters have to vote on it, it does not make any difference if it is 2 feet above ground or 1000 feet above ground. Mr. King stated technically that is correct. There is one underlying purpose for putting in the Initiative is if it does go to an election on whether to adopt the Initiative, there may be an argument, that the City tried to put an elevation cap and they (the writers) defeated it. Cm. Lockhart stated that the elevation cap was discussed at a City Council meeting and it was voted against. Mr. Bewley stated that the 670 feet is logical. We can put it in the Findings or Purpose section. The county has a 670-foot limit over in Pleasanton, and in the Western Extended Planning Area there is no height limit. Mr. Peabody stated that he just wanted to bring that to their attention and this factor is not significant. Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Bewley what is the clear concise concept that he wants the public to grasp. Mr. Bewley stated that if the Initiative states the elevation cap stops at 740 feet, that would imply logically that it could go under 740. Mr. Bewley asked if the Schaefer Ranch Plan and the Eastern Dublin Plan has changed. Mr. Peabody stated that if the Initiative is proposed to make changes to the General Plan with items "A" through "0" it would need to be looked at in the context to what the City has in Western Extended Planning Area. He stated that in the Text Amendments of the Initiative he did not change anything. He went over a few other changes he made. The top of page 6 changes to Land Use Element would be "J". Section "K" needs some language because it is not a General Plan Amendment. Section "K" states that such proposed development does not add, except to a nominal extent, to traffic flow upon any public street that is contiguous with, or provides access to existing residential neighborhoods, or public or private schools, or residential neighborhoods west of San Ramon Road in the City of Dublin. For purposes of this section, any proposed addition to the traffic level shall be approved only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private lands. He stated that he did not know how he would get traffic out of there without adding traffic to some existing streets. Mr. Anderson asked if there was a traffic code that says what the streets should be able to handle. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. Peabody stated that depending on what the definition of a residential street and how many cars per day. It is a General Plan definition of the Circulation Element and describes what the function of the street is. There are different definitions of streets, residential street, residential collector, a regular collector, a major street, a parkway and so forth. Cm. Lockhart asked where the definition for streets come from. Mr. Peabody stated that they come from the Circulation Element and are based on traffic engineering standards. It may be slightly different for other cities. Mr. Anderson asked how does the City forecast what the actual number of cars allowed. Mr. Peabody stated that a project comes in and a traffic study is done. Mr. Anderson asked if the traffic study would be available before the people vote on it. Mr. Peabody stated yes. The objective is to not overload existing streets from traffic from new development. There is only a few ways of getting in and out of the Western Extended Planning Area. It will be hard in a practical matter to not add anything but a nominal extent to any public street. Mr. Anderson stated that they are coming to the conclusion that nominal extent is not acceptable language and what we are looking for is a set amount of what is acceptable. He asked what kind of standard is used to come up with an acceptable amount of traffic? Ms. Faubion stated there is the Circulation Element and the General Plan includes standards that state the design criteria. The second thing would be the level of service, which gets into CEQA review. Mr. Bewley stated that they might need to do an additional amendment to the General Plan in addition to the people voting. The uses of the streets are excessive. Accessing from the Silvergate area would have been best designed as collector streets. Mr. Anderson asked if all the codes and standards are in the General Plan. Mr. Peabody stated they are in the Circulation Element. They continued reviewing the Initiative. He discussed the elevation cap and felt it was not needed. Under Map Amendments it is covered two ways under the definition; the City's General Plan Amendment calls agriculture as a part of open space uses and also state law includes agriculture as part of open space. He asked what do they want to do with the 670- elevation cap and the traffic issue in the neighborhood. Mr. Bewley stated that the crux of the Initiative is the traffic and the use of streets. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. Peabody stated that there was a pattern established in the 1980's when the subdivisions for Western Dublin area was laid out. Cm. Lockhart agreed that that traffic is the crux of this Initiative. Mr. King stated that some of the people who are passionate of the Initiative are because of the traffic concerns. Those same people do not see a problem with covering the hills with houses as long as it does not create a traffic problem on their streets. Mr. Bewley stated that balancing open space use and traffic is multi dimensional and is the main part of this force. Cm. Lockhart agreed that it needs to be dealt with. Mr. King stated there is two ways to handle this; one is to not mention it in this Initiative and leave it as a political question when there is an election. Mr. Peabody stated that geographically there is very few ways to get in and out of the Western Extended Planning Area. Cm. Lockhart stated that the next meeting they should tackle traffic and circulation. Mr. King stated that he wants to discuss the elevation cap at the next meeting. Cm. Lockhart opened'the meeting up for public comments. Mr. Peabody stated that he would look at the Schaefer Amendments to see how they might fit in. Mr. Bewley stated that they would probably need to set up another meeting. He also stated that he would like to have a meeting with the landowners on the final document. Cm. Lockhart stated that they could continue to take public comments at the Initiative meetings as we are getting to that final point and take it to the Council. If there are any comments from Council, have another meeting to discuss those comments. Tom Ford stated that page 7 section "N" and "0" seem to conflict with each other. Section "N" states "The City Council and City staff, for those services under its control, shall not permit a permanent extension of such roads or other services in the Western Extended Planning Area in conjunction with other than agricultural or open space use of this area, without the approval of the Dublin voters..." Section "0" states "To avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property in connection with any proposed use or development within the Western Extended Planning Area, the City Council may approve a general plan or zoning amendment. . ." 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Draft Mr. Anderson agreed. It may have been lost in the changes. Mr. Peabody stated that "0" if there was a question of an unconstitutional taking; the Council may approve a General Plan Amendment. Any General Plan Amendment automatically goes to the voters. Ms. Faubion stated that it sounds that the intent of "0" is to say that if an otherwise approved General Plan Amendment went to the voters and was denied, the City Council can approve it. Normally the council action would come before a vote of the people. Mr. Anderson agreed. Mr. King stated that they have thought of setting up an exploratory committee to find out how to compensate the property owners. He stated that he approached one property owner at the last meeting but she was not receptive. Cm. Lockhart stated that the City will have that as an agenda item and will be explored through East Bay Regional Parks District. She asked if anyone else had any other comments. Mr. Peabody stated that they need to schedule another meeting after the November 4th meeting. Cm. Lockhart scheduled the next meeting for Monday November 9th at 7:00 p.m. She adjoured the meeting at 9:35. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT MINUTES DUBLIN RlDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING October 23, 1998 1 :30 to 3:30 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on October 23, 1998 at the City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 1 :40 p.m.. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson, co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. There were 4 people present in the audience. Cm. Lockhart went over the schedule of the next two meetings. The next two meetings will be held on October 29th at 7:30 p.m. and Nov 4th at 1 :30 p.m. in the Regional Meeting Room. She stated that they will review the October 23rd version of the draft Initiative. Mr. Peabody went over the draft Initiative. He stated that on the left hand side there is notes in the margin. The objective was to shorten the document as instructed. Ms. Faubion will be available to answer any questions. This document still needs work; for example the sphere of influence does not go all the way to Eden Canyon. Under section "B" Summary, there were some changes made related directly the General Plan designation of the property. On page 2 under "Definitions" a section described the planning area and location that needs to be discussed. Under findings on page 3 under "J" is the same. The amendments to the General Plan section are exactly the same. Text Amendments need to be discussed. Conforming Amendments, under "A" tried to deal with issues of General Plan. Page 6 is exactly the same, the top of page 7 is the same, but the question of map amendments needs to be resolved. Implementation was worked on. The City Attorney has some comments and questions about item "A" Napa's translation. Items "B" and "c" on page 8 are the same. Section "D" is the General Plan designation rather than rezoning. Mr. Bewley stated that "I" on the last page should be moved to Findings. Mr. Peabody asked ifthere was anything that was removed that may need to be added back in. Mr. Anderson stated that when we review the document tonight, we will check at that time. Mr. Peabody stated that the area described outside the existing western City limits that contains the unincorporated areas in the City's sphere of influence. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner stated that it would be helpful to refer to a map figure 1-2 that shows the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment project as being incorporated into the City and the rest is the extended planning area that goes beyond the sphere of influence. Mr. Peabody stated that the planning area is slightly larger than the sphere of influence. He stated that he did not know what area the Initiative wanted to cover. Mr. Anderson stated that this only affects the City of Dublin doing their amendment. You can't do an amendment outside the sphere of influence. Mr. Bewley stated that if you do an amendment to a plan and can't define the area that is being amended, that would be a fatal flaw. Mr. Anderson stated that the area needs to be defined. An area that is not in the City's sphere of influence can not be amended. Mr. Bewley asked would there be a problem if they included the Schaefer area and left the old definition since Schaefer is exempt. Ms. Cirelli stated Schaefer is currently within the City limits. The last version of figure 1-2 in the General Plan shows where Schaefer is. Mr. Anderson asked ifthe area could be defined as "all area west of San Ramon Road." Mr. Bewley stated so what if it covers Schaefer, it would have no impact or legal affect on it. Mr. Peabody stated the City could not do that. He recommended they clearly define the sphere of influence. Mr. Anderson asked why. If they simplify the area, there is no doubt. Ms. Cirelli stated that would be slightly confusing to the voters. Geographically when you look at a map, everything west of San Ramon Road will go to a vote of voters, which is not true. The City has a clear Dublin General Plan map that shows the western extended planing area. Mr. Anderson asked what if they defined the area as everything west of San Ramon Road zoned agricultural. Mr. Peabody stated that there are 2 pieces of property zoned agricultural that are inside the City limits. Mr. Anderson asked where and what is the problem with that. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated Mr. Bukhari's property and Mr. Nielson's property are zoned agricultural Mr. Anderson asked what portion is in the City limits? Mr. Peabody stated across from Creekside, the gully and all the hill is in the City. Mr. Anderson stated the gully is not part of Mr. Nielsen's property. It is zoned as custom lots. Mr. Peabody stated no that is not correct. Mr. Bewley referred to the area on the hill that had the shed on it. He stated that area is zoned agricultural. Mr. Anderson responded so what if it covers that area. He stated to forget the sphere of influence; what would be the down side of stating everything west of San Ramon Road zoned agricultural is affected by the Initiative. Mr. Peabody stated that would affect two properties within the City limits. Mr. Anderson asked why wouldn't it affect that land also. Mr. Peabody stated that there are a number of properties that are zoned agricultrual in the City. The dog kennel and Mrs. Koller's property on Tassajara Road is zoned agricultural. The kennel is west of San Ramon Road, which would interfere with their" use. Mr. Anderson asked why would it interfere with their use. Mr. Peabody stated that you can have dog kennels in an agricultural use, but it is an urban use. Mr. King asked what is wrong with the basic original definition of the area outside the existing incorporated area west of San Ramon Road. Mr. Bewley stated it will create a problem with those affected properties. He stated that they will have to have an accurate definition of the area. Mr. Peabody stated that however it is perceived, it needs to be clearly defined. Mr. Bewley asked how do you get an urban use on an agricultural zone. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated that under the agricultural zone definition, commercial operations area permitted. Dog kennels are permitted in an agricultural zone. Cm. Lockhart stated that the affected area will be left open for right now. Mr. King stated that they thought the sphere of influence was exactly the same boundaries as the western extended planning area. Mr. Peabody stated it is slightly different. Mr. King asked staffifthey see any reason why the provisions of the proposed ordinance could not affect that part of the western extended planning area that is not in the sphere of influence. Does it matter if it is defined as the western extended planning area; the sphere of influence or everything west that is currently not incorporated. Mr. Peabody stated the easiest way to do this would be to describe the western extended planning area and make it simple for everyone to understand. Mr. Bewley stated that map 1.1a shows the sphere ofintluence. Ms. Cirelli stated map 1.1 a shows the entire western extended planning area as defined in the General Plan. Cm. Lockhart stated if we are affecting the General Plan then we should go with what is defined in the General Plan. Mr. Bewley stated that the City did not set the sphere of influence. Ms. Faubion stated the City chooses its planning area boundary. She stated it all ties into the General Plan. In many General plans there will not be a discussion of a sphere of influence because the land use designation and the policies can guide LAFCO' s decisions. Mr. King stated that LAFCO statute refers to spheres of influence. Cm. Lockhart suggested moving on. Mr. Peabody stated that he worked on section "B" and tried translating it into General Plan designation. He stated that no proposal will institu.te a change of the General Plan designation of property within the affected area to any urban designation other than agricultural or open space purposes; and he added the wording, "shall be adopted as first approved by the voters of the City of Dublin." Ms. Faubion stated that there are certain areas that should not be vague, such as what triggers the application of this initiative. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King stated that adding parenthetical language creates a confusing element. Any General Plan Amendment for other than agricultural open space purposes, includes everything that is not agricultural open space. The Zoning Ordinance defines commercial, industrial, and several different varieties of residential; but someone could create a new zoning designation. Ms. Faubion stated the ultimate goal is that all of us, future parties, decisions makers, staff, everybody needs to know when and how the Initiative applies. She stated that the General Plan as amended might define urban land use categories as everything that is not defined agricultural. She stated that there may be something in the General Plan that defines urban and non-urban. Cm. Howard asked if any type of building in this area would have to go to a vote. Ms. Faubion stated that is the confusion we want to avoid. Mr. Bewley stated that they could find our primary definition by looking at the General Plan. Ms. Faubion stated to get the General Plan definition as it stands would include the Eastern Dublin and Schaefer Ranch amendments. Mr. Peabody stated that the Dublin General Plan land use designation has all the categories - residential, commercial, industrial, public, semi public facilities, parks and recreation, and the only thing left is stream corridors, agricultural and open space. Mr. King asked what element of the General Plan has these categories. Mr. Peabody stated that this is the Dublin General Plan Land Use and Circulation on page 1-7. Mr. King stated that the City decides what these designations are and how they are defined. He stated that what ever is not listed is allowed. Mr. Anderson stated that what if the City changes the definition of urban use. Mr. Peabody stated staff would look into the urban definition and maybe add the wording "i.e.," or "such as." Cm. Howard asked if the landowners want to put up a couple of private homes, would that have to go to vote. Mr. Anderson asked if that would change the zoning to residential. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Ms. Cirelli stated that agricultural zoning designation allows one building per 100 acres. The County allows the same amount. It would depend on if they want to annex into the City if they are with the County. Mr. Bewley stated that a 300-acre parcel would allow 3 homes. He stated that the County would require a General Plan Amendment. It only becomes relevant when they are asking for a General Plan Amendment to Dublin and contemplating annexation. Ms. Faubion stated taking that down to a procedural level, this addresses a change in the land use designation of the site because that is the General Plan Amendment level. If the use is not defined, and only states non-agricultural uses without that procedure may cause a problem. Mr. Anderson asked what if they put back the word "zoning." Ms. Faubion stated no; that makes it more confusing. Mr. Anderson stated that the trigger here is when a General Plan Amendment is being done to change the zoning. Mr. Peabody stated that is not correct. Mr. Bewley stated that zoning does not exist and is not relevant. He stated for clarification, if an applicant comes in and applies for a General Plan Amendment and the City processes it, at that point it becomes a statement of intent. It has all the procedural requirements behind it showing why it can make that statement of intent. State law and CEQA approves it, then the Initiative kicks in and it goes to a vote of the people for prezoning, and if the voters say yes then it gets annexed into the City. Mr. Anderson stated the objective is for the land to get annexed and pulled into the City as part of the City limits. Ms. Faubion suggested that they did not have to go down that far in the process. The starting point is exactly right. She stated that they are changing the land use designation from agricultural open space to urban. She suggested they look at the agricultural and open space designations and make sure that those are all the uses that they want protected. Mr. King stated we defined open space per the Government Code. Ms. Faubion stated that is what the General Plan does. Ms. Cirelli stated that the City's General Plan does not have an agricultural land use designation, but the amendments to the General Plan do. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Anderson asked how were there two agriculturally zoned areas in the City. Mr. Peabody stated before the City incorporated, they were zoned agricultural and remained agricultural in zoning. Ms. Cirelli stated they are shown as open space on the General Plan. Mr. King asked ifthere was a designation of open space? Mr. Peabody stated yes. Mr. Bewley stated that they were a little too vague. Ms. Faubion stated it could raise the question that Ms. Howard brought up; if a house is built in an open space land use designation how is it reconciled if it is in or out of the Initiative. Mr. Anderson stated that a General Plan Amendment also triggers this. Would a General Plan Amendment be required to build a second, third or fourth house on the property. Ms. Faubion stated that would be a subdivision issue. The General Plan is required by law to establish a land use, permitted uses, and density factor. The subdivision map has to be consistent with the General Plan but does not guarantee that it will be approved. Mr. Bewley asked what jurisdiction is the Subdivision Map under? Ms. Faubion stated the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Anderson stated that this thing does not generate a General Plan Amendment unless it violates the General Plan. Ms. Faubion said unless it is different from what the General Plan currently provides. Mr. Bewley stated that the point that Ms. Howard brought up needs to be addressed. He stated that if the landowners want to build homes for their families that is fine. This Initiative is not about that. Mr. Nielson asked a question for clarification; is it the desire of the writer's of the Initiative to prohibit the City or the people of Dublin to protest anything allowed on the agricultural zoning. Mr. Bewley stated no. If you or anyone sells their land, we want it to be an open process and put to a vote. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Nielson stated that they have that already. Cm. Lockhart stated that they are working on making sure their language does not interfere with exactly what the law allows you to do right now. It is only if it were a bigger development or the land was annexed to the City. Mr. Bewley stated that this Initiative would protect landowner rights. Mr. Nielson stated he was confused and appreciated them answering his questions. Mr. King asked if there was a definition for agricultural use in the General Plan. Ms. Cirelli responded no. Only the amendments to the General Plan define agricultural zoning, the Eastern Dublin and Schaefer Ranch projects. Mr. King asked if the County plan defines agricultural zoning. Mr. Peabody stated yes, the County has a lot of agricultural land. He discussed the document and the changes that were made. Number 1 "Purposes" is the same, number 2, 3, and 4 are the same. Under definitions "D" the Western Extended Planning Area definition will be checked. Number 2, 3, and 4 are the same. Under "Findings" A, B, C, D, E, and F is all the policies and our notes say to leave it in. Also G, H, and I are the same. He stated that at the last meeting they talked about paragraph "J" and that has been put in "Findings." Mr. Bewley stated that would not go in findings. Ms. Faubion suggested that it be moved under "Purposes" and to add a new number 5. Mr. Bewley asked Ms. Faubion, if such a provision is not a valid legislative act. Ms. Faubion said it is vulnerable. Cm. Lockhart asked if it would be better to not have an expiration date on it. Mr. Anderson asked why would it be vulnerable. Ms. Faubion stated that if a future City Council does something where as the actual amendment changes the General Plan now and tells voters to vote on these things, it does not tell the City Council what to do in the future. They would otherwise have the choice to do it or not. She suggested rephrasing it to say, "we would hope that you see the value of doing this." Mr. Bewley stated it could be a guiding policy. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Ms. Faubion stated this is a complicated amendment. Ms. Faubion suggested moving it to page 2 as number 5. Mr. Peabody continued reviewing the document; all of page 4 is the same; top of page 5 number 1 under Text Amendments is worded "General Plan Amendment for the area described on the City map as the Western Extended Planning Area shall not be approved for other than agricultural open space uses." Mr. King stated that would work if the Western Extended Planning Area was the same as the affected area. The wording "General Plan is amended with the following respects" should be a little more specific. Mr. Peabody stated he looked at the catch all phrase "to clean up the whole thing in 180 days," in Implementation. It would be staffs job to put it in the right place. Ms. Faubion stated to take paragraph A-2 and move to B.l.a. It is in a specific section with specific text. Cm. Lockhart asked if number 2 under Conforming Amendments needed to be included. It states, "that such proposed development does not add, except to a nominal extent, to traffic flow upon anyjpublic street that is contiguous with, or provides access to existing residential neighborhoods, or public or private schools, or residential neighborhoods west of San Ramon Road in the City of Dublin. For purposes of this section, any proposed addition to the traffic level shall be approved only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private lands." Mr. King stated that it would prevent another Bay Laurel. Cm. Lockhart stated we have levels of service, formulas and methods to determine that and deal with traffic. Mr. Peabody stated that what if a project that came through, went through the process, the voters said yes, and it adds traffic to the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Bewley stated that is one of the reasons they are here discussing this issue. Mr. Peabody stated that if such a project was proposed and the voters said yes, there would be traffic on your street. Mr. Bewley, stated that Mr. Peabody was right. They originally wrote an urban growth boundary limit and if approved by the voters, it would have prevented something like that happening. He stated that they chose to let the public decide and have an open process. It could end up right back on top of them. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated the language does not relate to a General Plan Amendment. It says to a nominal extent, won't be added to traffic flow, which is hard to do when the issue of the Initiative is yes or no on allowing a development. Cm. Lockhart, stated that this may not be the right place to address that. Mr. Peabody stated that this particular policy may preclude any residential project being approved by the voters at all. Mr. King stated that they first started out with a percentage of additional traffic. A percentage did not seem to work because the number of houses is different on each street. Then they thought a judge should decide what a nominal extent is if it ever goes to court. One of the big reasons for this Initiative is the traffic on Bay Laurel. It is a major safety hazard for anyone who lives on it. Mr. Bewley stated that if it is placed in Policy, then it is not binding. He asked what would be the outcome if a street was changed out of the nature by which it is defined if development was proposed in this area. Mr. Peabody said the standards in the General Plan define the purposes of streets and the average type of volume found on certain streets. The Circulation Element defines class 1 collector, class 2, residential, it describes the average grade, how wide they are and what kind of traffic volume they do. It may be possible to add more traffic to a residential street and not exceed the standards. Mr. Bewley asked ifhe was referring to the ADT standards of 1500 cars a day. Mr. Peabody stated yes. Mr. Bewley stated that is defining one part of it will control the whole; divide that by 10 homes, by 10 car trips per day and divide that by 1500 and that is how many residential homes are on a street. Mr. Peabody responded that it actually has to do with the volume. People usually have more than one way to get out of where they live. Mr. Bewley stated that Hansen was once to be an extension for the Hansen development but changed it because it was not a good idea. What if it was not changed then the volume would have exceeded the standards of a residential street. Mr. Peabody stated then maybe design a system with residential collector rather than residential street. Ms. Faubion stated that she was not familiar with Bay Laurel. She stated that if this policy was adopted through the Initiative, put in the General Plan, the City would have to 10 I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT deal with it when it has a proposed development. The City would need to check if the proposed development added traffic flow to any public street, except to a nominal extent. That policy may not be what the voters have in mind. Mr. King stated no voters will understand the additional traffic impact from a General Plan Amendment of agricultural to light residential. Mr. Bewley asked if it is in the policy language, would it force staff to do studies with conformance? Ms. Faubion stated that it must be consistent the General Plan land use'designation and the land use policies. The underlying question is what does nominal mean so the City can interpret whether a project is consistent. Also is there a possibility that this is a strict enough standard that the City may not be able to approve much of any development. Could the City approve any project in the Western Extended Planning area that wouldn't have some affect on residential neighborhoods. Mr. King stated no. On some of the streets nominal traffic would not be unacceptable, but streets like Bay Laurel any increase would be unacceptable. Mr. Anderson stated that nominal is not clear and they need to come up with something clearer. Ms. Faubion stated that the City has to process and apply before it gets to the voters. You don't want anything unconstitutional. Mr. Bewley asked what would be the impact if the wording stayed and it was moved under policy? Ms. Faubion stated this is a policy statement or an option to that, put a finding up front, if concerned with existing residential street being overloaded with development. It might be easier once this is restructured into an actual text amendment. Mr. King asked if same question applies to the elevation cap. Mr. Peabody stated elevation is much easier than defining this. Mr. Bewley stated our motivation here is partly because the Hansen Hill project was changed. There was all kind of prohibitions, which protects trees, a problem occurred, with an earthquake fault being discovered, the development plan changed and trees were removed anyway. Mr. Nielson asked would any traffic on the streets related to agriculture be allowed. Mr. Peabody responded yes, it is an allowed use without the vote of the people. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King stated that agricultural covers and the open space act allows equestrian use. Mr. Peabody stated that nothing more on page 5, page 6 needs to discussed, and the map amendments needs a revised figure from Ms. Cirelli. Section B, and C are the same. He stated that "D" was changed to General Plan Designation. Section E and F are the same. He changed G, and added the wording "election code." Ms. Cirelli stated that in her notes they were going to discuss "E". Mr. Peabody agreed and will make a note of that. On page 7 Map Amendments needs a revised figure. He stated that Section 4 Implementation "A" is Napa translated to this Initiative. Cm. Lockhart suggested moving on to public comments. Mr. Benito stated it is hard to dissect this stuff. He asked about the part of a single house on 100 acres was under County regulations. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Mr. Benito asked if a person wanted build a house and the roads were put in would that have to go before the voters. Cm. Lockhart responded no, only if annexed to the City of Dublin. Mr. Peabody stated that follows under "G" and it would not permit a permanent extension of such roads or services in the Western Extended Planning Area in conjunction with other than agricultural or open space uses. Mr. Benito asked what specifications are required if once the dirt road is there and the County asks for the road to be donated, and the County paves the road. Mr. Peabody stated that it is allowed because it is County. Mr. Benito asked if one house and one mother in law unit would be allowed on the 100 acres under agricultural. Cm. Lockhart stated the Initiative does not have any effect on the current land uses. Mr. Benito stated that what if it is within the City limits. Cm. Lockhart said that if it is in the City limits it is already being dealt with. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Benito stated that he would like the title changed from Dublin Ridgelands Voters V oice Initiative to Dublin Ridgelands Initiative. The people of Dublin have not voted yet. Mr. King stated the title defines the intent ofthe Initiative. Mr. Benito said you've got the chicken before the egg. Mr. Anderson stated it is named that way for the objective. Marjorie LaBar complimented everyone for working in a civilized way"and complimented staff for getting this stuff turned around. Mr. Benito asked about page 4 "J" where it refered to the section that states no earlier than 2 years prior and no earlier than the expiration date; does that mean a total of 34 years. Cm. Lockhart stated the time frame makes it 28 to 30 years. Mr. Benito asked if the Ordinance 30 years from now could be change by the City Council and make it another 30 years. Cm. Lockhart stated that the Council in place 30 years from now would discuss the section of 30 years and whether it should be changed. Mr. Peabody stated that he would work on the wording and restructure the document before the next meeting. Mr. King asked if they were to come up with any changes, could they fax the language ahead of time. Mr. Peabody stated that would be fine. Ms. Cronin asked if "I" on page 14 of the old document has now become "H" on page 8. Mr. Bewley said "I" was moved to Findings under "J" on page 4. Mr. Peabody stated that there is 6 or 7 different places that state "shall go to the voters" and he thought that he could put them in logical places rather than repeating them 6 or 7 times. Mr. Anderson stated as long as they are looked at in content. Ms. Cronin asked what was done with "J" today. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley stated "J" was changed to a suggestion and placed under Policy. Ms. Cronin asked when the next draft would be available. Cm Lockhart stated at the next meeting, Wednesday October 29th at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Benito asked when the whole initiative is complete will it go to Council. Cm. Lockhart yes, it will go to City Council. Mr. King stated that they are going to collect signatures and once it is presented, the election codes gives the City two choices, they can adopt within the law, or put it on the ballot for the people to decide. Cm. Lockhart adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY October 29, 1998 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER REGIONAL MEETING ROOM 100 CIVIC PLAZA and WEDNESDAY November 4, 1998 1 :30 p.m. to 3 :30 p.m. THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER REGIONAL MEETING ROOM 100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN 1. Discuss changes made to initiative PLEASE NOTE LOCATIONS AND TIMES OF MEETINGS! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING November 9, 1998 . 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. City of Dublin Council Chambers The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on November 9, 1998 at the City of Dublin Council Chambers. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Members ofthe Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. Mr. Peabody discussed the previous draft Initiative. He stated that he tried to place all goals policies in direction of land use, open space changes to the General Plan. He stated that he took all the shading off and tried to put all the language in the right location. Mr. King stated the way it is written is not what they had in mind regarding the Findings. Mr. Peabody stated top of page 4 there is a description of the Western Extended Planning Area. The map changes needed to be moved up to 1.8 rather than 2.2. He apologized for the mistake. Under land use element he added Schaefer Ranch to the wording because of the Schaefer Ranch amendment. Mr. King stated there are some things that need to be thought about in terms of wording. He stated that the best thing to do is set aside some time and go right to the 2 things that are real time consuming are, the elevation cap and the traffic issue. He stated that they are proposing the City Council take up the issue of whether the traffic guidelines for the Western Foothills be revised and the elevation cap issue. He would like the City Council to give them a recommendation by January 26th. They want to take the 2 constraints, include them into the Initiative and make them a Guiding Policy. If they can reach a consensus, they will draft some language and include it as a Text Amendment. Mr. Bewley stated that the idea of a vote of the people is the main issue of the Initiative. They looked at the neighboring cities of traffic and circulation element and compared them to Dublin. He stated that the current average daily traffic flow in a residential area of 1500 cars is unacceptable. He wants the traffic standard for residential streets to be changed to 500 cars, and the slope reviewed. , John Anderson stated that there are references in the Alameda County Plan that state the ridgeland from Pleasanton to San Ramon should be considered a regional issue. The cap in Pleasanton is 670 feet. He would like to see a group study the issue from a regional perspective rather than a local perspective. He stated they would be happy to participate in the study group but that is up to the City. The issues of the Initiative that need to be addressed are the vote of the people when a land use change is made, the elevation cap 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT and the traffic issue. The current General Plan is in conflict with some of the streets in Dublin. He stated the reason they chose January 26th because it offers enough time for a study group to meet, examine the data and come back with a legitimate recommendation. Mr. Bewley stated that they wanted to get the Initiative to the voters earlier but they have lost their window. Mr. King stated that they are trying to launch this by the end of February or early March. Cm. Lockhart stated that if we can get a consensus and if there are changes to the General Plan get them done. We want to simplify what the voters are voting on. Mr. Peabody asked the proponents of the Initiative why they chose January 26th to complete the Initiative. Mr. Anderson stated that would leave enough time for Council review. That way it could go before Council in February. Mr. Peabody stated that if they want to change the General Plan they would need to go before the Planning Commission and the City Council and an environmental documentation would be needed. A General Plan Amendment takes about 90 days. Mr. Anderson asked if that could be expedited? Mr. Peabody stated if City Council instructs staff to do so. Ms. Faubion stated that a Public Hearing would be required for Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Peabody stated a Public Hearing must go out 15 days prior to the hearing date. Mr. Anderson asked if they could explore what the schedule would be. Mr. Peabody stated sure, but how much time and effort do they think it will take from now until the 26th. Mr. Anderson stated he did not know. Mr. Peabody stated a negative declaration will be needed and an initial study. Cm. Lockhart asked if the elevation cap and traffic issue could be proposed to the Planning Commission for study. Mr. Peabody stated that someone has to initiate a General Plan Amendment and go to the Council. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley asked what would be the quickest way. Mr. Peabody stated that the easiest way is to go to Council with a report of the findings of this discussion and ask the Council to initiate the study for a possible change of the General Plan. Cm. Lockhart stated that if we can do our report at the next City Council meeting then it would go on to Planning Commission. Mr. King asked when the next Council meeting would be. Mr. Peabody stated it is too late for the next Council meeting. The earliest would be December 1, 1998 Council meeting. Mr. Bewley would like to have a meeting for a two-way dialogue, which will also increase the timing. Cm. Lockhart stated that we have answered all but the two issues of traffic, and elevation cap. If you are putting something to the voters that they can understand, it will give the voters a real clear picture of what is being talked about. Mr. Peabody stated that what they are proposing is to change the standards oftraffic on residential streets, establish criteria involving slopes, and re-institute an elevation cap for the Western Extended Planning Area. Mr. Anderson asked when should it be submitted to Staff for the December 151 meeting. Mr. Peabody stated by November 18th. Ms. Faubion stated that for any General Plan Amendment they need to stay focused on what they want changed. Mr. Anderson stated we are not proposing the total change, they want a study group to come up with that. Mr. Peabody stated to save time, the easiest way would be for the Council to initiate it. He stated that the elevation cap took up a lot of staff time. Mr. King asked when they should request the study before the Council. em. Lockhart stated that all they need to do on November 17th is request it be on the agenda for December 151. At that time they could discuss the General Plan Amendments. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Anderson asked if the all the wording would need to be complete to put into a report that goes before the Council. Mr. Peabody stated that they don't need details but a request for an evaluation of traffic volumes now used in the General Plan for residential streets. He stated that they need to tell the Council what they want to do. Cm. Lockhart stated that on December 1 sl the report will be presented to the Council and they will ask for further work to be done. Mr. Bewley asked how will the information get to the Planning Commission. Cm. Lockhart stated it will get to the Commission by staff. Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Department is the vehicle through which a General Plan Amendment is processed. Mr. Peabody stated staff would do a report, present all sides, and give the Planning Commission a recommendation. He asked if the Initiative would be put to rest temporarily? Mr. King stated that they would slow it down, but not put it to rest. Ms. Faubion stated that the two issues that need to be looked at are the housing element, and check for any inconsistencies. Look at the most recent materials. She stated that the map in the first draft does not exist anymore. Also make sure there is evidence to support your Issues. Mr. Bewley stated that they will need to look at the housing element. Mr. King stated that it was still unclear to him the level of information needed to propose a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Anderson asked what pieces of information must be available by law to make a General Plan Amendment. Ms. Faubion stated that assuming that the purpose of General Plan Amendment is to allow a development project then the land use designation should be changed if needed. Basically the General Plan Amendment would state the land use designation change to allow the development on a proposed site. If there is anything else in the General Plan that needs to be changed to accommodate that, then they would need to propose those changes as well, and Schaefer Ranch is an example of that. Mr. Anderson asked if a General Plan Amendment would entail an Environmental Impact Report. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated yes for the Western Extended Planning Area. Ms. Faubion stated that CEQA would require it if it were going to be a residential development. Mr. Peabody stated the project would need to identify if it affects woodlands, if it affects drainage patterns and so on. The EIR will cover all those types of issues. Mr. Anderson stated the reason he is asking is so there would be a sufficient amount of information available for the people voting. Ms. Faubion stated that you would be looking at an EIR for a highly constrained site. Mr. Bewley was concerned that a General Plan Amendment triggered by the voting process would not give sufficient data to the voters. Mr. King stated that he is satisfied there will be sufficient data to give to the voters. He asked if the City could initiate an annexation. Mr. Peabody stated yes, and the City would have to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Mr. King asked if a developer came forward with a proposal and a General Plan Amendment is proposed and adopted what extent could the proposal be changed after approved by the voters. Mr. Peabody stated that if a project was approved and the voters said yes, and it was annexed and designated, the decision would have been if that would be urban or not. For example, a residential project of 1-6 units per acre, whether the voters approved the project within the framework of that General Plan Amendment, the City could change the plan but it would remain residential 1-6 units. If the proposed development went to a higher density, it would be exempt from the Initiative, which would be a process that any other land use within the City has the right to do, because General Plan Amendments happen. There is no way to stop that other than growth management. Ms. Faubion stated to look at the process of how these things happen. One of the issues discussed in length is the Planned Development Ordinance, and in creating the PD, tying down the basic thrust of the development and allowing some flexibility for minor details. A minor detail such as a house is 2 feet over in an area that is unconstrained. There are a lot ofPD's that have been approved and have been built the way they were approved with the exception of Hansen Ranch. It is all a package, a General Plan Amendment with a PD element to it. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley stated that an EIR is not required when doing an Initiative. What effects does a General Plan have on those particular elements such as a land use element for open space policy in the Initiative. Ms. Faubion referred to the Napa Initiative, which cited three or four policies that could not be changed without a vote of the people. They were readopted through the Initiative and once adopted by Initiative it can't be changed unless by an Initiative. Mr. Anderson asked when readopting a guiding policy, does it only affect that portion of policy that is cited. Ms. Faubion gave an example that if policy 4 is cited to be readopted then all of policy 4 is covered. Mr. Anderson stated that there are certain policies they want part of the argument when it comes to land use change; if adopted and it turns out that they are locked in and it needs a vote to change them violates what they are trying to do. Mr. Bewley stated that they are in favor of the open space use plans. Over the past 10 years, the open space policies have been ignored which is a political thing and they could make it legal if they wanted to sue but they never did. They now have the opportunity to put that in the Initiative as an element for the vote but it won't allow any progressive ideas to come through except for by a vote. Mr. Peabody stated that he had one fuzzy area he wanted clarified. He asked the three proponents of the Initiative if the use of the area for agricultural or open space use is appropriate. Mr. King stated it depends on how agriculture is defined. Mr. Peabody stated that agricultural is defined as open space and management of natural resources. Agricultural will have cattle operation and a more broadly use of agricultural processing is the establishment of a tree farm, grapes, wine and wine making. Some of these things may cause roads to be built to provide access to these facilities. Mr. Anderson stated the Initiative does not address or try to stop those uses. Mr. Peabody stated some of these things might cause traffic. Mr. Anderson stated that is why the traffic issue needs to be addressed. Mr. Bewley stated they don't have a true definition of agricultural. Under Alameda County General Plan there are two definitions; one for light agricultural and one for heavy agricultural. He believes that the County only allows light agricultural use. An example of heavy agricultural would be a waste dump. 6 I I i I I I I i I j I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King asked if someone came before the City and wanted a site annexed in the Western Extended Planning Area to build a bed and breakfast, would that trigger a vote. Mr. Peabody stated that one unit per 100 acres is allowed in an agricultural zone. If a bed and breakfast is proposed and they have one unit on 100 acres it could be built. The easiest way to cover agricultural is under the definition of state law. Mr. Anderson stated that this initiative does not address agricultural. However the definition should be defined. Mr. Peabody stated that the easiest way to define it is by the state law of open space and agricultural, which are synonymous. Mr. Anderson stated they don't get to vote unless the site is annexed to the City. Ms. Faubion suggested looking at the General Plan definition of open space. Mr. Bewley stated that they would like to have some type of analysis from the City Attorney to prevent any potential problems with the final document. Cm. Lockhart stated that when they do the final report to the Council it would include an analysis. Ms. Faubion stated that it would be better to have direction from Council to do that. Cm. Lockhart stated they could request a City Attorney analysis. She stated that they want as much information to go to the Council. She stated that on the November 17th she will inform the Council and have it go on the agenda for December 1 st. Mr. King stated they will let staff know when they are ready to schedule the next meeting. Mr. Peabody stated please let staff know more than 72 hours prior, they can send out a notice. Mr. Peabody stated that he will need some language from the proponents for the staff report for the December 1 st meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that they would have it to him before then. Mr. Peabody suggested that one of the proponents spend a little time with him to discuss the language for the staff report. Cm. Lockhart took public comments. 7 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King stated for the record that they are inviting the property owners to engage in the dialogue with them to see if funding can be found to purchase their development rights. Roxanne Nielsen stated that the property owners have contacted the proponents of the Initiative. Mr. Bewley stated he has not been contacted. Ms. Nielsen stated she has a letter that she helped draft. She asked if they received a letter from Bob Jih. Mr. Bewley stated he received a fax from Bob Jih asking them to over see and set policies. Ms. Nielsen stated the letter suggested a compromise rather than going to a vote. Mr. Bewley stated he did receive it via fax. Mr. King asked Ms. Nielsen how she could be contacted. A person from the audience asked for the letter be read for the record. Ms. Nielsen asked if they were going to talk about the possibility of purchasing their land. Mr. King stated no, not the land but purchasing the development rights. Ms. Nielsen stated that she needs to contact the eight families and will get back to Ms. Lockhart. She stated that she feels hand tied. She asked how productive are the property owners comments. Mr. King stated the comments are productive. He stated that the property owners are victimized by the same thing that they have been victimized. What has been allowed in the hills has caused a reaction with the rest of the voters. What they are doing is perceived to be a threat to the property owner's property rights. He stated that they are not against the property owners and would like to explore a way to ease the situation with the owners. Cm. Lockhart stated that is an issue that Council should decide whether it needs to be studied. Mr. Bewley read the letter he received from Bob Jih for the record; "Dave and John, how are you? Have not seen you guys for quite a few years. I still remember the good old days when we had a few discussions on the West Dublin Hills development; time really flies. Recently I have learned about the Initiative being proposed. After reading the draft 8 I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I - DRAFT I can appreciate your concerns and intent that were so familiar to me. I support citizen's involvement in rigorous review process that will result in a better development project. After giving some serious thought about the Initiative, may I suggest an alternative that will meet your purpose more effectively, serve the City better, and save the tax payers money? What do you think about setting up a permanent committee consisting of concerned citizens for the development of west Dublin? Any future development project in the region will have to be approved by the committee prior to its application to City government. We can set this up as part of the formal review process. We do respect you effort and intent on the Initiative and would like to share the above idea with you before it gets out of hand and becomes irreversible. Your comments will be appreciated. If you think there is a good alternative I do not mind sharing it with others. I look forward to working with you, best regards, Bob Jih." Ms. Nielsen asked the date on the letter. Mr. Bewley stated October 21 st. He asked if that was the same letter she was talking about. Ms. Nielsen stated no. She stated she had nothing to do with that letter. Mr. Bewley stated that is the only letter he has received. Cm. Lockhart stated she did not receive that letter but received the letter that Ms. Nielsen is talking about. Mr. Bewley gave Ms. Nielsen their fax numbers. Cm. Lockhart asked if anyone had any other comments. Mr. Benito stated that the traffic issue of 1500 cars is too many. He asked if the height limitation was resolved. Cm. Lockhart stated that issue needs to be studied. Mr. Benito asked if the proponents were going before the City Council on the November 17th. Cm. Lockhart stated it would be put on the agenda for December 1st. Mr. Benito asked if there would be new Council at the December 1 st meeting. Cm. Lockhart stated yes and it will be presented to the new Council the same way. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Benito asked if there will be a $200,000 fee to CEQA for an EIR and who pays that fee. Mr. Peabody stated that the developer would pay the fee. Mr. Benito asked if the proponents have to pay the EIR fee to have the site studied. Mr. Peabody stated there is not an EIR required. Mr. Benito asked about the City's cost for this group and who has the figures. Cm. Lockhart stated that the City has done this for the City and does it on a regular basis. Mr. Bewley stated that this area being studied and who is governing right now, and who makes the rules is the County. It only becomes part of Dublin when someone asks or requests to become part of Dublin. Mr. Benito asked if there was a quota in dollars for the development rights for the area. Mr. Anderson stated that they are not saying they are going to finance that. They are willing to have the landowners participate in the dialogue. Mr. Benito stated that as a citizen and watching the different people affected he thought there would be different input from the citizens. If going up before a referendum and the minutes are looked at, the only time people are able to talk is at the end of the meetings, is not fair. Cm. Lockhart stated the same format has been used for all public meetings and has been set this way. Cm. Lockhart adjourned the meeting at 9:06. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING November 4,1998.7:30 to 9:30 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on November 4, 1998 at the City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 1 :40 p.m. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, and David Bewley, co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. . Mr. Peabody went over the latest version of the Initiative. He stated that what he tried to do is to take statements and find a home for them as he perceived they should belong. He stated that page 1, 2, and 3 are exactly the same. He took from the last document everything that was found from the bottom of page 4 which is the "General Plan Amended As Follows," all of pages 5, 6, 7 and up through "Map Amendments," were items that they wanted to change the General Plan. He took those pages, and assimilated the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, which set forth in the City's General Plan, a description of the Western Extended Planning Area and went through land use, open space, and tried to find a home for these statements. He went through the changes he made on the document. Mr. King stated that he thought the wording "been rejected by the voters" provisions was added back into the document. Ms. Faubion stated that she drafted some language which would be added before the language "to avoid an unconstitutional taking of property." The inserted language she drafted is "if the General Plan Amendment for urban uses is approved by the City Council and subsequently turned down by the voters, not withstanding the voter approval, disapproval," then it goes into the existing text. Mr. King asked if there was a 4th paragraph. Ms. Faubion stated that was the fourth paragraph. The third paragraph described the 670- foot elevation cap. Mr. King asked ifthe 670-foot elevation cap was put somewhere else. Mr. Peabody stated that he did not put the 670-elevation cap was in this draft. Mr. Bewley asked about the traffic provisions. Mr. Peabody stated the traffic provisions are on page 6. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King stated that there are a couple of issues that need to be hammered out. A few conforming amendments need to be added back in. He thought that the definition of agricultural use should be added. He looked up the State Open Space Act, but it does not define it well enough. He liked the Alameda County definition of light agricultural use. He felt that after looking at the Schaefer Ranch Amendment they might want to amend a few more policy issues. Cm. Lockhart asked if they are still talking about the original intent of the Initiative. She wanted to make sure that they are still in the same direction. The original charge was to see whether there was common ground and come up with an Initiative for the community that the people must vote on all the development in the Western Hills approved by the City Council. Mr. King stated it is still on the same road but it needs to be specified. The traffic and elevation cap issues are controversial and they are not sure if these two elements should be policy or statute. Cm. Lockhart stated that she wants to be sure when they go to Council that they are not going with a different concept than originally intended. Mr. Bewley stated that they see the ramifications that may arise from the original document. They also felt that the 670-foot elevation cap and the traffic issue needs to be addressed. Cm. Lockhart stated that these issues belong in the Initiative since they are asking people to judge. Mr. King stated that the purpose of the committee was to fmd common ground, so as a committee they would be prepared to recommend to City Council. The other purpose of the committee was to work out any unintended consequences that staff would perceive. Mr. Bewley stated that working out the ramifications is bogging them down. Mr. King stated they tried to stay as close as possible to Napa's Initiative but did not cover some issues that they felt should be addressed. Cm. Lockhart stated that in the beginning it seemed that they were following the Napa Initiative closer than currently. Mr. Peabody stated that the traffic and elevation cap could be discussed. Cm. Lockhart agreed and once those two issues are resolved, they can follow the format a little more closely. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated that it was redundant to add an elevation cap. Any elevation cap would need to be approved by the voters. Mr. King stated that whether or not voters changed it, he does not see how that is different than what was proposed by urban opportunity area. We like the language in there for a red flag for the voters. This is an elevation that Alameda County recommends. Mr. Bewley stated that the height limit was established in the east but was not taken to the west. Alameda County has a height limit so we put it in there for philosophical thrust. If it is put in policy and is not necessary from a logical standpoint it can be amended anyway. Mr. Peabody stated that it adds an additional barrier. Ms. Faubion stated that rational for the 740-foot elevation in Eastern Dublin was because it was the upper limit of the Zone 7 pressure zone. Mr. King asked the rational for the County's 670-foot elevation cap. Ms. Faubion stated that she was not aware of the County's rational for the cap, but the same rational may not apply here. Mr. King stated the rational they stated in the Findings was that it looked better without development above the 670-foot elevation. He felt it wasn't any less valid than the water pressure tank. The 670-foot cap is an arbitrary number. Mr. Peabody stated 740-foot cap in the east is because the Master Plan for water of how high water goes and the General Plan mimics the water plan because there is no urban development beyond 740 feet. The west is not the same. There is existing water pressure, which is a function of what is currently out there. Schaefer Ranch is the only exception, that level there is only for Schaefer Ranch and was the heart of the elevation cap discussion. Mr. Bewley stated that the rational for the west was not for the Schaefer Ranch project. Mr. Peabody stated the rational for the west was because of where the tanks are now. Cm. Lockhart thought that without the height limitation they could accomplish the same thing and not have a point that can be challenged. Mr. Bewley picked 670 because the County has a 670 limit. He stated that the principal is the same but they are using the County guideline and applying it to this Initiative. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Cm. Lockhart asked why would the elevation cap trigger a stop if looking at a project. Would you still process the project and have the developer amend their proposal to the height talked about. Mr. Peabody stated that it adds an extra burden because there is an established policy that says the City is not looking for any development above 670 feet. Cm. Lockhart stated that from what she is hearing they want that extra burden so it will make people aware. Mr. Peabody stated it will place an additional burden on someone applying for an application. Mr. Bewley stated that they should be discussing the 740-foot elevation. Mr. Peabody stated that he is not sure there is any land in the Western Extended Planning Area that is below the 670 feet. Mr. Bewley stated that they wanted the elevation cap to be a public discussion. Cm. Lockhart stated the City already has capabilities to 740 feet. Mr. Bewley stated that we should change it to 740 feet. The 740-foot elevation cap can be a guiding policy. Mr. King stated maybe the way to address it is to have a 670-foot elevation cap on the Western Side of the slope and a different elevation cap on what is visual. Mr. Peabody stated they are putting an artificial limit on the evaluation of the General Plan. If the Council approves any amendment it still goes to the voters. Mr. Bewley asked if they put the height limitation in as guiding policies, would that prevent the process. Mr. Peabody stated no it does not, but adds an additional layer and difficulty for someone to evaluate on the merits of what the proposal is. For example, the question of whether water can be serviced to this amendment that is being evaluated would be an element anyway. Mr. Bewley stated that if they put it in the policies, it is an additional barrier but not prevention. Cm. Lockhart asked what would have happened if they had adopted the Urban Opportunity Area when it went to Council earlier this year. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley stated if the Urban Opportunity Area was adopted it would be more strict than putting in a policy in the Initiative. Ms. Faubion stated that the elevation cap provides a fairly subjective standard. By having the voters vote it provides the same protection. Mr. Bewley stated that they put that in because they saw that as the thrust the City was giving on its own. If there is a cap they are still asking for a vote of the people. They want the elevation cap in the Initiative so it is an issue for discussion. True, it is an additional step to go through, but they think it is a good policy reason. . Ms. Faubion stated that a policy is something the City has to comply with. Mr. King stated that the General Plan has Guiding Policies and Implementing Policies. Are they different things? Mr. Peabody stated the Guiding Policy states what the City wants done and Implementing Policies state how it is accomplished. The original 670-foot elevation in the County's General Plan came from the City of Pleasant on. That is Pleasanton's water service in the Pleasanton Ridge. Mr. Bewley stated that a 740-foot elevation cap is far more logical. Mr. King stated that for the record, he did not agree. It is not anymore logical than the 670-foot elevation. Mr. Bewley stated thdt they will come up with an answer on the elevation cap. He stated that he wanted to go to the next step and figure out what other method they can put it in so if they have a vote it becomes a public issue. They are simply putting back what the City attempted to give in the first place. He asked if a developer could be prevented from proposing a development in elevations below or above the elevation cap. Mr. Peabody stated no. They can apply for a General Plan Amendment. Mr. King stated that there are Guiding Policies that state the City is to preserve the woodlands and he said the City has not done that. Mr. Peabody asked if that means to preserve the woodlands and that no trees ever come down? Mr. King stated a guiding policy is not one of the Ten Commandments. He stated that it was not fair to say that the City must follow a policy. The Guiding Policies seem to set the guidelines, but is not necessarily something set in stone. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley stated one of the reasons for the Initiative is because of the relationship with the people of Dublin and the City Council. Although the elevation cap is an extra barrier, there were strict barriers on the Hansen project and they were disregarded. Mr. Peabody stated that ultimate factor will be the vote of the people. If the people do not like a proposed project, it is not going anywhere. Mr. Bewley stated that they want the elevation cap so it is discussed. Mr. Peabody stated that he is not recommending what language they need to put in but from a practical standpoint it is not necessary. He stated that if they want to put in the elevation cap language that is fine. Mr. Bewley stated that they want to put the language in unless it will mess things up. Cm. Lockhart stated that at the next meeting they would finish the elevation cap discussion. Mr. Peabody asked Cm. Lockhart if the secretary should put the language back in. Cm. Lockhart agreed that the language should be added back in. Mr. Peabody stated that the language will be added back and will appear on page 6, number 3. Mr. King stated the elevation cap was in the Initiative more than once. Mr. Peabody stated that staff would find a place for the cap. Mr. King stated the cap needs to also be in Findings. Ms. Faubion stated that the cap could be added as narrative text of page 4 and 5. Mr. Peabody stated that it could also be added to the Findings section. A member of the audience asked the wording for the height limitation. em. Lockhart stated the wording has not been completed yet. It is related to an elevation cap. She asked to discuss the Land Use element since Mr. Beebe is here from DSRSD. Mr. Beebe, DSRSD, stated that from what he is hearing, they do not want infrastructure above elevation. He stated that it would be important for the district to locate a water tank, properly screen it, and make sure it meets all the criteria. It might be necessary for the tank to be in the forbidden zone in order to have the elevation necessary to provide servIce. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley asked if the elevation cap would prohibit a tank from going up. Mr. Beebe stated that only in the sense that DSRSD is excluded and they would like to have some recommendation to the water structure. He stated that they could also add the language that it is not under the City or staff s control. Mr. Bewley stated that he does not have a problem adding language regarding water tanks. Mr. Peabody stated that he will be happy to add language regarding water. Mr. Peabody discussed the traffic issue. The Initiative states "That such proposed development does not add, except to a nominal extent, to traffic flow upon any public street that is contiguous with, or provides access to existing residential neighborhoods, or public or private schools, or residential neighborhoods west of San Ramon Road in the City of Dublin. For purposes of this section, any proposed addition to the traffic level shall be approved only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private lands." Mr. Bewley stated that they are trying to put in the Initiative a philosophical thrust that is sound and fundamental and comes from a reasonable basis regarding traffic. The traffic and circulation element in the General Plan is inconsistent. Public safety does not allow 10 cars per day per home and that is the inconsistency. He stated that San Ramon has an ADT of 500 cars per residential street and Dublin has 1500 cars. Mr. Peabody stated each city looks at traffic in a different way. Dublin's traffic is dated back to the beginning of the 1980's when the plan was put together. He agreed with Mr. Bewley; modern day subdivision design does not put enormous numbers of houses on residential streets. Cm. Lockhart asked what other vehicle could they use to address traffic at the City Council level. Mr. Peabody stated to change the definition of what is a residential street. Cm. Lockhart asked if it is possible to take the traffic issue from the Initiative and do something else with it. Mr. Peabody stated yes. Mr. Bewley stated that there is language in the Schaefer Amendment on traffic that should be considered for the Initiative. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated that it is difficult to interpret what is a nominal amount of traffic that would be considered acceptable. He asked if their concern was they did not want to add additional traffic to existing residential streets. Mr. King stated yes, they did not want additional traffic on existing residential streets. Mr. Peabody asked what amount of traffic is the "minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking?" Mr. King stated that would be up to ajudge to decide. Ms. Faubion stated that if the issues are whether the ADT design standard for residential street is appropriate as defined in the General Plan then one option is to present the traffic problem to the City Council and request they initiate a General Plan Amendment. Mr. King stated that is an option that they will consider. The whole foundation for the Initiative is they want the voters to decide not the Council. Ms. Faubion stated that the Initiative states whatever the Council does related to a project that involves a General Plan Amendment, the Council does not have the last say. Cm. Lockhart stated that if Council decided the Traffic Circulation Element is wrong and it needs to be changed then it should be brought to their attention. Mr. King stated that the standards for yesterday are not the standards for today. Which level of development proposal can be required to go to a vote of the people. If the traffic element is put in the Initiative, the count can not be exceeded without a vote. Mr. Peabody stated that a General Plan Amendment is usually done in a Planned Development District. The General Plan may say 0-6 units per acre, the maximum amount of development would be 6 units per acre, and if there is 100 acres with 600 units. Conceivably someone could get Planned Development zoning for 50 houses and come back with a plan that would allow 100 houses. Mr. Bewley asked where does the definition come from for the 0-6 units per acre. Mr. Peabody stated the General Plan residential density has the ranges. Ms. Faubion stated that a developer with a proposed project would have to review the General Plan, see what the categories are, see what the range is and fit themselves into one of those categories. She stated to keep in mind that a proposed development would need to go through the City with an application first before it goes to the voters. Mr. Peabody asked Mr. Bewley if he would like him to clean up the document for the next meeting. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley responded yes. He stated that the housing and circulation element is a state interest that he has a concern with. Cm. Lockhart stated that the next meeting was scheduled for November 9th. Mr. Peabody stated that at the next meeting he would have a cleaned up document, and discuss the 740 feet elevation. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIOGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday November 9,1998 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN 1. Discuss changes made to initiative. 2. Take public comments. PLEASE NOTE LOCATION AND TIME OF MEETING! I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I DRAFT MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING November 9, 1998 . 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. City of Dublin Council Chambers The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on November 9, 1998 at the City of Dublin Council Chambers. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. Mr. Peabody discussed the previous draft Initiative. He stated that he tried to place all goals policies in direction of land use, open space changes to the General Plan. He stated that he took all the shading off and tried to put all the language in the right location. Mr. King stated the way it is written is not what they had in mind regarding the Findings. Mr. Peabody stated top of page 4 there is a description of the Western Extended Planning Area. The map changes needed to be moved up to 1.8 rather than 2.2. He apologized for the mistake. Under land use element he added Schaefer Ranch to the wording because of the Schaefer Ranch amendment. Mr. King stated there are some things that need to be thought about in terms of wording. He stated that the best thing to do is set aside some time and go right to the 2 things that are real time consuming are, the elevation cap and the traffic issue. He stated that they are proposing the City Council take up the issue of whether the traffic guidelines for the Western Foothills be revised and the elevation cap issue. He would like the City Council to give them a recommendation by January 26th. They want to take the 2 constraints, include them into the Initiative and make them a Guiding Policy. If they can reach a consensus, they will draft some language and include it as a Text Amendment. Mr. Bewley stated that the idea of a vote of the people is the main issue of the Initiative. They looked at the neighboring cities of traffic and circulation element and compared them to Dublin. He stated that the current average daily traffic flow in a residential area of 1500 cars is unacceptable. He wants the traffic standard for residential streets to be changed to 500 cars, and the slope reviewed. John Anderson stated that there are references in the Alameda County Plan that state the ridgeland from Pleasanton to San Ramon should be considered a regional issue. The cap in Pleasanton is 670 feet. He would like to see a group study the issue from a regional perspective rather than a local perspective. He stated they would be happy to participate in the study group but that is up to the City. The issues ofthe Initiative that need to be addressed are the vote of the people when a land use change is made, the elevation cap 1 j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT and the traffic issue. The current General Plan is in conflict with some of the streets in Dublin. He stated the reason they chose January 26th because it offers enough time for a study group to meet, ~xamine the data and come back with a legitimate recommendation. Mr. Bewley stated that they wanted to get the Initiative to the voters earlier but they have lost their window. Mr. King stated that they are trying to launch this by the end of February or early March. Cm. Lockhart stated that if we can get a consensus and if there are changes to the General Plan get them done. We want to simplify what the voters are voting on. Mr. Peabody asked the proponents of the Initiative why they chose January 26th to complete the Initiative. Mr. Anderson stated that would leave enough time for Council review. That way it could go before Council in February. Mr. Peabody stated that if they want to change the General Plan they would need to go before the Planning Commission and the City Council and an environmental documentation would be needed. A General Plan Amendment takes about 90 days. Mr. Anderson asked if that could be expedited? Mr. Peabody stated if City Council instructs staff to do so. Ms. Faubion stated that a Public Hearing would be required for Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Peabody stated a Public Hearing must go out 15 days prior to the hearing date. Mr. Anderson asked if they could explore what the schedule would be. Mr. Peabody stated sure, but how much time and effort do they think it will take from now until the 26th. Mr. Anderson stated he did not know. Mr. Peabody stated a negative declaration will be needed and an initial study. Cm. Lockhart asked if the elevation cap and traffic issue could be proposed to the Planning Commission for study. Mr. Peabody stated that someone has to initiate a General Plan Amendment and go to the Council. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley asked what would be the quickest way. Mr. Peabody stated that the easiest way is to go to Council with a report of the findings of this discussion and ask the Council to initiate the study for a possible change of the General Plan. Cm. Lockhart stated that if we can do our report at the next City Council meeting then it would go on to Planning Commission. Mr. King asked when the next Council meeting would be. Mr. Peabody stated it is too late for the next Council meeting. The earliest would be December 1, 1998 Council meeting. Mr. Bewley would like to have a meeting for a two-way dialogue, which will also increase the timing. Cm. Lockhart stated that we have answered all but the two issues of traffic, and elevation cap. If you are putting something to the voters that they can understand, it will give the voters a real clear picture of what is being talked about. Mr. Peabody stated that what they are proposing is to change the standards of traffic on residential streets, establish criteria involving slopes, and re-institute an elevation cap for the Western Extended Planning Area. Mr. Anderson asked when should it be submitted to Staff for the December 1 st meeting. Mr. Peabody stated by November 18th. Ms. Faubion stated that for any General Plan Amendment they need to stay focused on what they want changed. Mr. Anderson stated we are not proposing the total change, they want a study group to come up with that. Mr. Peabody stated to save time, the easiest way would be for the Council to initiate it. He stated that the elevation cap took up a lot of staff time. Mr. King asked when they should request the study before the Council. Cm. Lockhart stated that all they need to do on November 17th is request it be on the agenda for December 1 st. At that time they could discuss the General Plan Amendments. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Anderson asked if the all the wording would need to be complete to put into a report that goes before the Council. Mr. Peabody stated that they don't need details but a request for an evaluation of traffic volumes now used in the General Plan for residential streets. He stated that they need to tell the Council what they want to do. Cm. Lockhart stated that on December 151 the report will be presented to the Council and they will ask for further work to be done. Mr. Bewley asked how will the information get to the Planning Commission. Cm. Lockhart stated it will get to the Commission by staff. Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Department is the vehicle through which a General Plan Amendment is processed. Mr. Peabody stated staff would do a report, present all sides, and give the Planning Commission a recommendation. He asked if the Initiative would be put to rest temporarily? Mr. King stated that they would slow it down, but not put it to rest. Ms. Faubion stated that the two issues that need to be looked at are the housing element, and check for any inconsistencies. Look at the most recent materials. She stated that the map in the first draft does not exist anymore. Also make sure there is evidence to support your Issues. Mr. Bewley stated that they will need to look at the housing element. Mr. King stated that it was still unclear to him the level of information needed to propose a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Anderson asked what pieces of information must be available by law to make a General Plan Amendment. Ms. Faubion stated that assuming that the purpose of General Plan Amendment is to allow a development project then the land use designation should be changed if needed. Basically the General Plan Amendment would state the land use designation change to allow the development on a proposed site. If there is anything else in the General Plan that needs to be changed to accommodate that, then they would need to propose those changes as well, and Schaefer Ranch is an example of that. Mr. Anderson asked if a General Plan Amendment would entail an Environmental Impact Report. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Peabody stated yes for the Western Extended Planning Area. Ms. Faubion stated that CEQA would require it if it were going to be a residential development. Mr. Peabody stated the project would need to identify if it affects woodlands, if it affects drainage patterns and so on. The EIR will cover all those types of issues. Mr. Anderson stated the reason he is asking is so there would be a sufficient amount of information available for the people voting. Ms. Faubion stated that you would be looking at an EIR for a highly constrained site. Mr. Bewley was concerned that a General Plan Amendment triggered by the voting process would not give sufficient data to the voters. Mr. King stated that he is satisfied there will be sufficient data to give to the voters. He asked if the City could initiate an annexation. Mr. Peabody stated yes, and the City would have to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Mr. King asked if a developer came forward with a proposal and a General Plan Amendment is proposed and adopted what extent could the proposal be changed after approved by the voters. Mr. Peabody stated that if a project was approved and the voters said yes, and it was annexed and designated, the decision would have been if that would be urban or not. For example, a residential project of 1-6 units per acre, whether the voters approved the project within the framework of that General Plan Amendment, the City could change the plan but it would remain residential 1-6 units. If the proposed development went to a higher density, it would be exempt from the Initiative, which would be a process that any other land use within the City has the right to do, because General Plan Amendments happen. There is no way to stop that other than growth management. Ms. Faubion stated to look at the process of how these things happen. One of the issues discussed in length is the Planned Development Ordinance, and in creating the PD, tying down the basic thrust of the development and allowing some flexibility for minor details. A minor detail such as a house is 2 feet over in an area that is unconstrained. There are a lot ofPD's that have been approved and have been built the way they were approved with the exception of Hansen Ranch. It is all a package, a General Plan Amendment with a PD element to it. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Bewley stated that an EIR is not required when doing an Initiative. What effects does a General Plan have on those particular elements such as a land use element for open space policy in the Initiative. Ms. Faubion referred to the Napa Initiative, which cited three or four policies that could not be changed without a vote of the people. They were readopted through the Initiative and once adopted by Initiative it can't be changed unless by an Initiative. Mr. Anderson asked when readopting a guiding policy, does it only affect that portion of policy that is cited. Ms. Faubion gave an example that if policy 4 is cited to be readopted then all of policy 4 is covered. Mr. Anderson stated that there are certain policies they want part ofthe argument when it comes to land use change; if adopted and it turns out that they are locked in and it needs a vote to change them violates what they are trying to do. Mr. Bewley stated that they are in favor of the open space use plans. Over the past 10 years, the open space policies have been ignored which is a political thing and they could make it legal if they wanted to sue but they never did. They now have the opportunity to put that in the Initiative as an element for the vote but it won't allow any progressive ideas to come through except for by a vote. Mr. Peabody stated that he had one fuzzy area he wanted clarified. He asked the three proponents of the Initiative if the use of the area for agricultural or open space use is appropriate. Mr. King stated it depends on how agriculture is defined. Mr. Peabody stated that agricultural is defined as open space and management of natural resources. Agricultural will have cattle operation and a more broadly use of agricultural processing is the establishment of a tree farm, grapes, wine and wine making. Some of these things may cause roads to be built to provide access to these facilities. Mr. Anderson stated the Initiative does not address or try to stop those uses. Mr. Peabody stated some of these things might cause traffic. Mr. Anderson stated that is why the traffic issue needs to be addressed. Mr. Bewley stated they don't have a true definition of agricultural. Under Alameda County General Plan there are two definitions; one for light agricultural and one for heavy agricultural. He believes that the County only allows light agricultural use. An example of heavy agricultural would be a waste dump. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King asked if someone came before the City and wanted a site annexed in the Western Extended Planning Area to build a bed and breakfast, would that trigger a vote. Mr. Peabody stated that one unit per 100 acres is allowed in an agricultural zone. If a bed and breakfast is proposed and they have one unit on 100 acres it could be built. The easiest way to cover agricultural is under the definition of state law. Mr. Anderson stated that this initiative does not address agricultural. However the definition should be defined. Mr. Peabody stated that the easiest way to define it is by the state law of open space and agricultural, which are synonymous. Mr. Anderson stated they don't get to vote unless the site is annexed to the City. Ms. Faubion suggested looking at the General Plan definition of open space. Mr. Bewley stated that they would like to have some type of analysis from the City Attorney to prevent any potential problems with the final document. Cm. Lockhart stated that when they do the final report to the Council it would include an analysis. Ms. Faubion stated that it would be better to have direction from Council to do that. Cm. Lockhart stated they could request a City Attorney analysis. She stated that they want as much information to go to the Council. She stated that on the November 17th she will inform the Council and have it go on the agenda for December 1 st. Mr. King stated they will let staff know when they are ready to schedule the next meeting. Mr. Peabody stated please let staff know more than 72 hours prior, they can send out a notice. Mr. Peabody stated that he will need some language from the proponents for the staff report for the December 1 st meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that they would have it to him before then. Mr. Peabody suggested that one of the proponents spend a little time with him to discuss the language for the staff report. Cm. Lockhart took public comments. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. King stated for the record that they are inviting the property owners to engage in the dialogue with them to see if funding can be found to purchase their development rights. Roxanne Nielsen stated that the property owners have contacted the proponents of the Initiative. Mr. Bewley stated he has not been contacted. Ms. Nielsen stated she has a letter that she helped draft. She asked if they received a letter from Bob Jih. Mr. Bewley stated he received a fax from Bob Jih asking them to over see and set policies. Ms. Nielsen stated the letter suggested a compromise rather than going to a vote. Mr. Bewley stated he did receive it via fax. Mr. King asked Ms. Nielsen how she could be contacted. A person from the audience asked for the letter be read for the record. Ms. Nielsen asked if they were going to talk about the possibility of purchasing their land. Mr. King stated no, not the land but purchasing the development rights. Ms. Nielsen stated that she needs to contact the eight families and will get back to Ms. Lockhart. She stated that she feels hand tied. She asked how productive are the property owners comments. Mr. King stated the comments are productive. He stated that the property owners are victimized by the same thing that they have been victimized. What has been allowed in the hills has caused a reaction with the rest of the voters. What they are doing is perceived to be a threat to the property owner's property rights. He stated that they are not against the property owners and would like to explore a way to ease the situation with the owners. Cm. Lockhart stated that is an issue that Council should decide whether it needs to be studied. Mr. Bewley read the letter he received from Bob Jih for the record; "Dave and John, how are you? Have not seen you guys for quite a few years. I still remember the good old days when we had a few discussions on the West Dublin Hills development; time really flies. Recently I have learned about the Initiative being proposed. After reading the draft 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT I can appreciate your concerns and intent that were so familiar to me. I support citizen's involvement in rigorous review process that will result in a better development project. After giving some serious thought about the Initiative, may I suggest an alternative that will meet your purpose more effectively, serve the City better, and save the tax payers money? What do you think about setting up a permanent committee consisting of concerned citizens for the development of west Dublin? Any future development project in the region will have to be approved by the committee prior to its application to City government. We can set this up as part of the formal review process. We do respect you effort and intent on the Initiative and would like to share the above idea with you before it gets out of hand and becomes irreversible. Your comments will be appreciated. If you think there is a good alternative I do not mind sharing it with others. I look forward to working with you, best regards, Bob Jih." Ms. Nielsen asked the date on the letter. Mr. Bewley stated October 2 pt. He asked if that was the same letter she was talking about. Ms. Nielsen stated no. She stated she had nothing to do with that letter. Mr. Bewley stated that is the only letter he has received. Cm. Lockhart stated she did not receive that letter but received the letter that Ms. Nielsen is talking about. Mr. Bewley gave Ms. Nielsen their fax numbers. Cm. Lockhart asked if anyone had any other comments. Mr. Benito stated that the traffic issue of 1500 cars is too many. He asked if the height limitation was resolved. Cm. Lockhart stated that issue needs to be studied. Mr. Benito asked if the proponents were going before the City Council on the November 17th. Cm. Lockhart stated it would be put on the agenda for December 1 st. Mr. Benito asked if there would be new Council at the December 1 sl meeting. Cm. Lockhart stated yes and it will be presented to the new Council the same way. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT Mr. Benito asked if there will be a $200,000 fee to CEQA for an EIR and who pays that fee. Mr. Peabody stated that the developer would pay the fee. Mr. Benito asked if the proponents have to pay the EIR fee to have the site studied. Mr. Peabody stated there is not an EIR required. Mr. Benito asked about the City's cost for this group and who has the figures. Cm. Lockhart stated that the City has done this for the City and does it on a regular basis. Mr. Bewley stated that this area being studied and who is governing right now, and who makes the rules is the County. It only becomes part of Dublin when someone asks or requests to become part of Dublin. Mr. Benito asked ifthere was a quota in dollars for the development rights for the area. Mr. Anderson stated that they are not saying they are going to finance that. They are willing to have the landowners participate in the dialogue. Mr. Benito stated that as a citizen and watching the different people affected he thought there would be different input from the citizens. If going up before a referendum and the minutes are looked at, the only time people are able to talk is at the end of the meetings, is not fair. Cm. Lockhart stated the same format has been used for all public meetings and has been set this way. Cm. Lockhart adjourned the meeting at 9:06. 10 I , I I I I ! I I - I ',I it I II I' i i I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday January 4, 1999 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER Regional Meeting Room 100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN Review of Committee Progress and Council Direction Please call the Planning Department if you have any questions at 925-833-6610. I I I I, I I I I MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING January 4, 1999 . 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. City of Dublin Regional Room The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on January 4, 1999 at the City of Dublin Regional Meeting Room. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Claudia McCormick, substituting for Beth Howard; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. There approximately 50 people present in the audience. I I t . f I I I J I Cm. Lockhart asked everyone on the panel to introduce themselves. She stated that there are two sets of minutes available, the November 4th and November 9th meetings. She explained that the City Council has asked a sub-committee of two Council members to hold public discussion with the three proponents of the proposed Initiative regarding the west hills of Dublin. The proponents of the Initiative brought the issue to the Council and discussed their opportunities in writing an Initiative and asked for public discussion before the Initiative is put on the ballot. They did not want to leave any unexpected consequences for the community. The City has agreed to a series of meetings to discuss their ideas. The Council has not taken any action other than form a subcommittee to discuss all aspects of the issue and to look at some specific concepts for the area. There is a time limit of 2 hours for the meetings with public comments the last 30 minutes. Mr. Peabody stated that in our previous meetings there has been a discussion on other forms of Initiative that addresses growth. Ms. Faubion will discuss some of the issues. Ms. Faubion discussed a Urban Growth Boundary that many communities use to proceed with growth issues. A growth boundary may be as simple as a very informal growth management line. The text of the General Plan can add policies to that aspect. This is a fluid concept and can be customized to a particular community or issue. There have been a number of communities that have adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The City Council can put something on an agenda and amend their General Plan to establish an Urban Growth boundary. It can be adopted by Initiative of the citizens and the Council has the option of putting it on a ballot. The way an Urban Growth Boundary is organized can vary from community to community. Some communities state that if changing a land use designation for anything agricultural must be done through a vote of the people. In the past couple years there have been a lot of citizen initiated UGB's. She stated that her office has done a rough draft of a resolution. If there is an Initiative that goes to the voters, simple is better and more understandable. Morgan King stated that their last statement to Council was that they were going forward with the Voters' Voice Initiative. He stated that they are open to anything the City wants to propose. Cm. Lockhart explained that there isn't anything being proposed, and the Council has not taken a position or made a decision to initiate an Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Faubion discussed some alternatives to the Initiative. One approach is designating lands outside the current Urban Boundary to be Rural Residential Agricultural. Another alternative is to establish an Urban I I I i I , I I I Limit Line and everything on the other side of it will be designated Rural Residential. She had draft resolutions for each alternative. Mr. King asked Ms. Faubion to explain Rural Residential. Ms. Faubion stated she does not have a copy of the General Plan. The Rural Residential Agriculture designation was amended in to the General Plan with the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. It is a 100-acre minimum parcel size, which allows agriculture, open space and a home to be built on it. Mr. King asked ifthere is 1,000 acres, how many homes would be allowed? Ms. Faubion responded 10 homes. Mr. King stated the land is currently defined agricultural defined by Alameda County. He asked if the new land use designation allows more housing than the County allows? Ms. Faubion stated that she has not compared the designations however she believes the County's designation is also one home per 100 acres. Mr. Bewley asked if this is using the current definition of Rural Agriculture as it exists in the General Plan? I I I i Ms. Faubion stated it is in the General Plan under the land use designations for Western Dublin. Mr. Bewley stated that the draft resolutions are not changing the definition of Rural Agriculture in the General Plan. Ms. Faubion stated that the draft resolutions take the existing definition and applies it to everything west of the City limits. Mr. Bewley asked what jurisdiction does Dublin have for lands outside the City limits. Ms. Faubion stated it has no jurisdiction. I I Mr. Bewley asked how it can be designated Rural Agriculture outside the City limits. Ms. Faubion stated if in the City, the City regulates, if outside the City, the City does not regulate. The reason the General Plan addresses land outside the City, is because it allows the City to define an area in which they have some interest. The General Plan then states "if' Dublin has control over the land it would be defined as Rural Agriculture. I ,I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that the intent of the land use designation is to define the area before it is annexed to the City. Mr. Bewley stated that the County of Alameda governs the area outside the City limits. He asked if someone wanted land uses changes, did they have the option of going to Alameda County or the City of Dublin. Ms. Faubion stated that if they wanted to propose a change, it would be processed through the County. If they wanted to be within the Dublin City limits they would need to request an annexation with the City. 2 II I I i I Mr. Bewley asked if outside the City but within the Sphere ofInfluence, who decides w at General Plan is the governing document. Ms. Faubion responded that it depends on who is proposing whatever the change is. LAFCo is the Local Agency Formation Commission and every county has one. An unincorporated area that wants to become part of a city is processed through LAFCo. The intent of the boundary is to provide guidance to LAFCo on an annexation question. I I I I I I Mr. Bewley asked if they have to request annexation. Ms. Faubion stated if they are proposing Urban Development outside the City they would have to follow LAFCo' policies. It also depends on what a developer wants to do and how they.want to provide services. If they want to be part ofthe City, they would need to request an annexation. Mr. King asked for Ms. Faubion to explain the difference between the Urban Growth Boundary and the Voters' Voice Initiative. Ms. Faubion stated that the Initiative and the draft idea for Urban Growth Boundary include a voter's component for 20 years. The other major change is that it does not attempt to address policies. Mr. King stated that the draft Urban Growth Boundary prohibits development for non-agricultural and open space use. Ms. Faubion stated without a vote of the people. She stated that a developer could request to be placed on the ballot for a project. Mr. Bewley asked if a developer could request an Initiative study if they are incorporated outside the state of California. , I I I I Ms. Faubion stated an Initiative process could be requested for a development outside of California. Mr. King thought they had to be a registered voter in the district to be a proponent of an Initiative. Mr. Bewley stated that the draft resolution states no development for 20 years instead of 3 0 years. They (the proponents) picked 30 years because they followed other Initiatives throughout the state of California. Ms. Faubion responded it can be more or less but there should be some continuity through the process. It made sense to use the lifetime that many General Plans use. Mr. Bewley asked for an explanation on the draft resolution ten-day vested right. Ms. Faubion stated a vested right is where a project is far enough along in the process and they have the right to go on. The Scheafer Ranch project has been approved and would not be affected. I I f Mr. King asked if the City is asking the proponents of the Initiative to set it aside for an Urban Growth Boundary issue. Ms. Faubion stated that the UGB is only an idea. 3 I I aJfJP Cm. Lockhart stated at the Council meeting, there was discussion about the Initiative, and would staff be comfortable with all the different areas it covered. The question came up if the Initiative is limiting growth and setting a boundary in the west. Whether it is done by the voters voting on every project outside the City limits or some other measurement. The feeling of the proponents is that the hills are being impacted and the life style of people living there is affected. At a City Council Meeting a Council members commented that the issue is to limit growth in the west hills and that it should be done as simple as possible. The UGB is a simple way of accomplishing the same issue and is it something the proponents of the Initiative could consider. The discussion was to simplify the question to the commonest ground and let the community have a voice. I I I I I I I I I Mr. King stated that there was discussion on what it should say. They feel that the voters should decide and their main thrust has been the most democratic way is the Voters' Initiative. ~fthe idea is to set that aside, and start working on an Urban Growth Boundary is an odd situation. The UGB is still democratic and can always be changed by Initiative. Mr. Bewley stated they took the model Initiative from the County of Napa, which had the ultimate seal of approval from the California Supreme Court. There is some logical inconsistency with a City vs. County Initiative. The majority of a City Council can approve or disapprove a particular project and the public is always capable of taking in up as a referendum. The UGB makes it different and makes it a known element any process up there will be processed to public scrutiny. A developer will have to have contact with the public and show the public the benefits and burdens of the public. Cm. Lockhart stated the burden is shifted to the developer. Mr. Bewley stated he liked it. I I I I Mr. King stated he is not opposed to a UGB but can't say tonight if they are in favor of it. He stated that it is awkward for them to go to all their supporters and tell them they are dropping the Voters' Voice Initiative. Mr. Anderson stated the Initiative was set in motion to do one thing, and that was for the citizens of Dublin to vote on the merit of a development. The problem with that is it is repetitive and has to be done every time a development came. A UGB will have a vote on the right to build which is done prior to the fact and would require the developer to get the initiative. The drive is still the same. There have been development projects that the community have been in favor of and projects that they have not been in favor of. Many citizens were in favor of the Schaefer Ranch project. The Eden Canyon project was not shot down because it was a bad development; it was shot down because the developer was arrogant and did not want to talk to the citizens. Mr. Bewley stated that he disagreed, and Eden Canyon was shot down because of the amount of housing that was going in. If the developer was sensitive to that maybe it could have changed. I I I Mr. Anderson stated that there were other reasons such as the top of the hills being chopped off. Whatever the reason, when people spoke about it, they did no say shut the whole thing down. He would like to see advance communication with the citizens. Roxanne Nielsen stated that the City should consider an advisory committee. Mr. Anderson stated they are not in favor of an advisory committee because it takes it out of the hands of the citizens and puts it in the hands of the committee. I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Nielsen stated that the committee takes it one step further, and items can be negotiated. Cm. Lockhart stated that public discussions would be taken at the end of the meeting. Claudia McCormick stated she would like to cut to chase. She asked the proponents if there are proposed to the UGB. Mr. King stated they are not proposed to the UGB. If the City wants to propose an UGB then the Voters' Voice Initiative is unnecessary. He stated that they are not going to propose the UGB. Cm. Lockhart stated that they would go back to Council and have them decide whether the City wants to go with an UGB or to move forward with the Voters' Voice Initiative. Ms. McCormick asked if the language was set on the Initiative to move forward. Mr. King stated that the language is close enough and they could finish it on their own. Mr. Bewley asked if the City wanted them to substitute the UGB for the Initiative. Ms. McCormick stated that was their intent. Mr. Bewley stated they would need to discuss it further with their supporters. The UGB would achieve the same goal and only change the burden of proof. They would want to go over a few different issues such as the 20 or 30 year cap. The traffic would not need be addressed because the UGB is structurally different. It is a simpler way of doing it and he is in favor of that. Ms. McCormick asked them to let Cm. Lockhart know their decision. Cm. Lockhart stated that if the proponents support an UGB but not initiate it, that is their point of view. If they do not support it and only support their Initiative it would give the Council their point of view and the Council could make some decisions. The Council would like to know their bottom line answer. Mr. Bewley asked if the City wanted an UGB because it is simpler and has the least amount of impacts. Cm. Lockhart stated that the goal of Council and staff is to try to bring from the Initiative the basic issue and see if there is a simpler way of handling it. She stated that it is not the intent of the Council to pass the buck and make them the bad guys. They are only looking for the simplest way of doing it. Mr. King stated that they can not make that decision tonight. Cm. Lockhart stated that it is taking the philosophical point of the Initiative and putting the burden of proof on the developer. Mr. King asked if they are being asked to drop the Voters' Voice Initiative and initiate an UGB; or would the City like to see an UGB and have the Voters' Voice Initiative set aside. I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that the Council has not had that discussion. She stated that she would like to go back to the Council and inform them the direction the proponents of the Initiative want to go; if they still wish to put the Initiative on the ballot, or have the City look at Urban Growth Boundary. 5 I I I I I I Mr. Bewley stated that what he is hearing is the Initiative is complex and can create unintended consequences. Cm. Lockhart stated that staff feels that a UGB will accomplish the same thing without putting a burden on the General Plan. Mr. Anderson asked when the City wanted to wrap this up. Cm. Lockhart responded by the end of January. Mr. Peaboody stated that the Council will meet January 5th and January 19th. Cm. Lockhart would like to wrap up their discussion by the end of January and go to Council in February. I Mr. Peabody stated it could go to Council on February 15th. Cm. Lockhart opened the meeting for public comments. I I Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, stated she supported the West Dublin Initiative and would support an UGB if the Council initiates a traffic study done on the entire City. She feels that the City should stop approving development until the traffic study is done for the west and the east. She wants to see the City keep a consistent planning horizon. I Cm. Lockhart stated that her understanding from Council on traffic issues and elevations were separate issues. The east and west are separate issues and need to be addressed separately. She did not hear a commitment from the majority of the Council that traffic would be looked at. I I I I' I I Ms. LaBar stated that it is something she would like to see done and would like it filtered back. Cm. Lockhart stated the planning process in the east is much newer and has been processed more recently. The concern by City staff is that the east and west are two different issues and the traffic impacts for the east and west is like comparing apples and oranges. The City is not looking at combining the east with the issues in the west. A Dublin Citizen stated that she agreed whole heartily with Cm. Lockhart. Her first impression with the Initiative is to not stop development or growth, but to make sure the City has planned safe residential neighborhood communities. The previous Council has not taken that into consideration. She owns a home in the hills but was not looking to buy up in the hills. They had deposits on two other homes but they purchased a home in the hills which was the nicest and best value. If she knew what she was getting into she would not have purchased it. She is in favor of an UGB and a traffic study for the west. Russ Fields stated he is a 3rd generation rancher. He has a Castro Valley address but he is in Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence. He can't vote against the Initiative, yet Dublin has control of his ground. His Grandfather moved into the house where he lives in 1918 and the ground is still the same. The three guys who wrote this Initiative want to devalue his ground and take it down to nothing. He borrows money from the bank and his land is used as collateral. If they devalue his ground, it is highway robbery. He stated that they are taking his livelihood and he can not make a living. I I Mr. Anderson asked how the land is devalued. 6 I I I I I I I I Mr. Fields stated that ifthe land can't be built on for 30 years the land is not worth anyt ing. Agricultural ground is only worth $100 per acre. He explained that the land is currently valued at $2,000 per acre and that is what the bank will value the land at. Mr. Bewley asked if$100 per acre is all it would be valued. Mr. Fields responded yes, if the Initiative is adopted. Mr. King asked Mr. Fields if he could currently develop the land. Mr. Fields stated that he is not looking to develop his land right now and that is not the point he is trying to make. Mr. King asked Mr. Fields what is it that they are doing to him. Mr. Fields responded that they are proposing a 30 year moratorium and nobody will be able to develop their land. I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Mr. King stated that he could ask the County if he wants to develop his property. Mr. Anderson stated that the Initiative will not state no development; it will state that a developer must come up with a development plan that will satisfy the citizens. Mr. Fields stated that the ground he owns has nothing to do with Dublin and all the traffic would go through Castro Valley. He asked why the land is in Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence. Any proposed development would have to fight the City of Dublin voters to get it approved. Cm. Lockhart stated, only if the development wants to be annexed into the City of Dublin. She asked Mr. Fields ifhe would feel more comfortable ifhis land was not in Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence. Mr. Fields responded yes. Mr. Bewley asked Mr. Fields if he was giving an example on the land value of $100 per acre. Mr. Fields stated that he was giving an example of the land value ifthe Initiative is passed. The ground will be devalued and will be a lot less for him to borrow on to run his business. Mr. Anderson stated the land is zoned agricultural. He asked how the land is valued more if zoned agriculture. Mr. Fields stated that it has a higher value because the ground has the potential of being developed. Mr. Bewley stated that the land is valued based on an expectation of development. Marie Cronin stated to take the guys word for it or go to the bank and talk to the banker; the land will be devalued. Cm. Lockhart stated that Mr. Bewley is trying to understand the issue. Ms. LaBar stated she could clarify the issue. When an agriculturist borrows money against their land, the banker looks at long term growth potential. The bank will look at possible commercial value. 7 I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I A person from the audience stated that if the property forecloses, and the bank owns the property, the bank wants to know if the property is developable in the future. It has a lot more value if the property is developable and that is the factor on borrowing money. Cm. Lockhart stated that would be based on whether the property is in the Sphere ofInfluence. The gentlemen stated that it needs to be made concise. The City of Dublin should not have any control on property outside their City limits. Cm. Lockhart asked just for discussion purposes, what if the UGB matched the City limits and there was no Sphere ofInfluence. Would that make it easier on the ranchers to borrow on tp.eir land? The consensus was yes. One gentlemen stated that the whole reason Dublin came up with a Sphere ofInfluence is because of Eden Canyon development. Cm. Lockhart stated that there is know reason for the City to tie up people outside the City. Marie Cronin asked what would happen if five years down the road a person with agricultural land in the Sphere ofInfluence wants to develop their land. Cm. Lockhart stated that the land is in Alameda County and the person would have to apply with Alameda County. The City of Dublin would have the right to comment on the proposed development but would not have the right to make a decision. Mr. Anderson asked if there is an UGB at the City limits, would that negate the Sphere ofInfluence for Dublin. Mr. Peabody responded no. Marie Cronin stated she lives near the Schaefer Ranch project. If there is going to be an UGB, there should be a committee. If Dublin wants to give away the west of Dublin, it would be a horrible error in judgement and poor government. It would be equal to when Dublin gave away all the land to the south. These people want the UGB; they should be part of the decision-making on where that line goes. Dublin would be the loser of an area that would be a big plus to Dublin. She stated that the land owners are not going to suffer, Dublin will suffer. Mr. Bewley asked why she is concerned if Dublin is the one that will suffer. Ms. Cronin stated that she feels it will be a disgrace for the community of Dublin, not the three guys who have surfaced in 1998. Mr. Bewley stated that he was here when Dublin gave away the land to the south. Ms. Cronin asked Mr. Bewley if he went down to the Board of Supervisors to object to Dublin's land being lost. Mr. Bewley stated the Board of Supervisors were in favor because they also feels the land should not be developed. 8 I , I I I I I Ms. Cronin stated that it is stupid to be in favor of losing land for the community of Dublin. Mr. King commented that people are pointing their fmger at them and saying "you three guys" and if all the people in the audience really believe it is just three guys why are they here. He stated that if it were just their three votes, the Initiative would fall flat on its face. Ms. Cronin stated that these people are here because they are concerned about their property. Mr. King asked why would they be concerned if it is just three guys. He told Ms. Cronin that she knows it is not just three guys and the three guys on the panel represent 70% to 80% of the voters of Dublin. A person from the audience stated the reason the landowners are at the meeting is because they are concerned about their land and the three guys on the panel keep talking about a democratic process for Dublin. He asked how is it democratic that the people in Dublin can vote on land outside the City limits yet the landowners can not vote on their own land. I , Mr. King asked what the alternative would be. I I Ms. Nielsen stated that she feels strongly about an advisory committee because it gives the landowners a voice. She would prefer that the City fund the election in the future rather than victimize the landowners. She stated that her family's land is on the border of the City and they can't go to the County or to the City. They had to fund a tank and future sewer line. If there is placement of a growth boundary she would like it behind their property so they could get some type of return. They are willing to look at alternatives and the type of developments that would work. She stated there isn't any development plans for her land but does not like that choice taken away. Mr. Anderson asked why her family had to put in water tank. Ms. Nielsen stated for future development. I I I Bud Nielsen stated they were required by DSRSD to put in the water tank for future development. The sewer line was to serve future development; the water tank was to serve the church, the Hansen Development, and future developments. He said he did not come to the meeting to make a speech or to argue with Mr. Anderson, Mr. Bewley, or their Attorney, Mr. King. If the City Council and Planning Staff had listened to these same arguments back before Hansen Ranch was built the houses these three gentlemen live in today would not exist. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Nielsen. He stated that they are trying to share their views. Mr. Nielsen stated that he made a comment and does not want to argue. I I A person in the audience asked if it is possible for the City of Dublin to purchase Mr. Nielsen's property. Cm. Lockhart responded no. I George Williams stated he does not agree with Initiative. He stated that maybe the City should increase the Planning Commission members and have more public input. The process of what is developed, and public comments are not brought in early enough. In 1985 when the City tried to establish a General Plan there were many meetings and comments from the public. If there is a process where the voters can vote on something early enough in the development process maybe the answer. I 9 I I I I I I I I, Cm. Lockhart stated that the City has asked the people who proposed the Initiative if they want to stop growth in the west; and the answer to that question was yes. They want to stop growth in the west on development that the community does not support. What the City has tried to do is simplify the process. At the end of all of this it will be a question on a ballot; it is not five Council members answering that question for the entire community of Dublin. She thanked everyone for coming and giving their opinions and stated their opinions have been invaluable. Trying to find the best solution for people on both sides of the issue is why the City has a sub-committee. Mr. Bewley stated that it is a mischaracterization to say the three of them are up there to turn the City around. He is concerned with the gentlemen who stated that his land would be devalued. The issues with the tank required by DSRSD and the land being devalued are facts that help them .understand the nature of the decisions made. He stated that they are there to deal with the problems and impacts of growth, both negative and positive. A person in the audience asked ifthe City was looking at an UGB in Eastern Dublin and ifthere was a height limitation. I I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that there is a height limitation of 740 feet in Eastern Dublin. All of the projects in Eastern Dublin have gone through the public process. A person asked why the City was discriminating against the people in the west. Cm. Lockhart stated that the Community of Dublin feels the west is built out. Mr. Fields stated that the City should vote on all development not just in the west. Mr. Bewley stated there was a referendum for the west and for the east. The referendum for the east passed. Cm Lockhart stated the whole City voted on annexing the land in the east in 1993. I I I I I Mr. Fields asked how they could be taken out of Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence. Cm. Lockhart stated that the City would have to petition LAFCo and state the City wants an Urban Growth Boundary up to the City limits and not be responsible for the land on the other side of it. Mr. Fields stated that sounded fair. Mr. Anderson stated he appreciated everyone's input and has a clearer picture on the land owners issues. The problem with an advisory committee is there is no safeguard built in the way there is with the people voting on a project. Ms. Nielsen stated it is a vehicle for a compromise. She made an analogy that it is like owning a car but you have to ask permission for the keys. I Mr. Emmit King 11460 Rothchild Place stated that he has retired and put his life savings into his home and can not afford to move. He said that he can see the landowners point but he is in favor of the Initiative. The main objective is traffic will impact the streets with more development and that would be disastrous. It will create a strain on everything from electric to water and sewage. He stated that it would I 10 I I I I I not make any difference if the Initiative was set for 20 years or 30 years at his age he does not even buy green bananas. A person in the audience asked how people would get to the extended future right of way if they did not go through the Hansen Hill development. I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that people are speculating on development that is not planned, on maps that have been drawn many years ago or on issues that have not been resolved. She understands the peoples concerns but there is no development plans. A gentlemen in the audience stated his concerns are a little different, both proposals are looking to the voters of the community for decisions. He stated that California has 750,000 ne",: comers a year and Dublin should not be against growth. I I I I I I I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that Dublin is accommodating to newcomers. Dublin has reached a critical point in the western extended planning area. The voters of Dublin have a right to answer some of the issues Dublin faces. The people of Dublin pay taxes and support the community and they have the right to say when there is enough development. He agreed with Cm. Lockhart. The City Council has done a pretty good job with growth and he is concerned about turning that over to the public because it is hard for the public to understand the needs of the terrain, infastructure, and utilities. Ms. Nielsen asked ifthe voters decided they did not want Eden Development when the referendum was voted down or were the voters saying no to any development. Mr. Anderson stated it was the specific development. Robert Nielsen stated that they want to see good planning and projects that will work. He stated that Dublin has a process that already works and it does not need an Initiative. Mr. King stated the system does work, but the Initiative will work better. Cathy Quine, stated she is at the City limits. She is concerned with the impact of landsides because the hills are very high and once grading begins and the land is disturbed, it could create many problems. She can not get landslide insurance and if her house gets demolished because of a landslide she will be out of a home and an investment. Cm. Lockhart thanked everyone for their comments and stated that it will be on the February 16th City Council agenda. She adjourned the meeting at 9:25. I I 11 I r-:-':'.'::'='-"':"'::'';''C~~''':'C'-~~~::::'3-:'=:=:C-::~'' ':_':'.''''-.,,-o,.'..-~,:,.'c.,- -.. CC'._..' -. ".',--.-"'. ._ c. '....._= -"';0,' - ,,- ",'--' - -,-,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF DUBLIN - PUBLIC MEETING DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday Janaury 25, 1999 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN PLEASE NOTE LOCATION AND TIME OF MEETING! I I MICHAEL R. NAVE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK KENNETH A WILSON DAVID W. SKINNER STEVEN T. MATTAS MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL RICK W. JARVIS KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP ARNE B. SANDBERG BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIEL A MULLER LIANE M. RANDOLPH PATRICKWHITNELL KATHARINE G. WELLMAN JOHN W. TRUXAW GARY A WATT JULIE L. HARRYMAN ADAM U. LINDGREN DIANE B. ROLEN CLAIRE S. BARDOS KEVIN R. BRODEHL JULIA L. BOND MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION NORTH BAY OFFICE I I I I I GA TEWA Y PLAZA 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300 FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 TELEPHONE: (7071 545-8009 FACSIMILE: (707) 545-6617 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE STOCKTON, CA 95207 TELEPHONE: (2091 951-4080 FACSIMilE: (209) 951-3009 MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL ANDREAJ.SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST STEFAN IE Y. GANDOLFI TO: Eddie Peabody, Director Community Development Department City of Dublin Kathleen Faubion ~ DATE: January 25,1999 I II I I I I I I I I I FROM: RE: Draft ULL Initiative Eddie, as we discussed this morning, the following are two changes proposed to the draft Urban Limit Line initiative being considered by the committee this evening. First, on Page 2, Section B of the draft ULL resolution: Add a new text amendment at the beginning of the sectiQ.!! as follows and renumber other amendments in order: "1. Amend Section 1.8.1, Western Extended Planning Area, to state rather than cross-reference the actual text of the Residential: Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture land use designation and to readopt the designation as follows: 'Residential: Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture (I unit per 100 gross residential acres). Accommodates agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management, consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks, Open Space, or PublidSemi-public uses. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.''' Second, also on Page 2, Section B of the draft ULL resolution: Revise the second full paragraph under current paragraph B.2 by adding the underlined text as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PAGE: Eddie Peabody, Director, Community Development Department Kathleen Faubion Draft ULL Initiative January 25,1999 2 "In addition to restricting urban development, the City will not approve or recommend approval of the permanent use or extension of city services or facilities, including but not limited to utilities or roads, to support or facilitate urban development beyond the Urban Limit Line." I 'Will incorporate these changes into any committee proposal, as appropriate. J :\WPD\MNRSW\114\O I \MEMO\JAN99\URBANLIM.125 I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I Exhibit A AL~2'~; ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PlAN AMENPMENT TO ESTABLISH AN URBAN LIMIT LINE FOR WESTERN DUBLIN The People of the City of Dublin do hereby resolve as follows: SECTION I. Purpose. Effect. Findin~. A. Purpose. The purpose of this General Plan Amendment is to encourage a cohesive pattern of urbanization in the City of Dublin by establishing an Urban Limit Line along the current westerly city limits. The Urban Limit Line is a boundary beyond which urban development shall not encroach into the western hills unless approved by the voters of Dublin. The areas beyond the Urban Limit Line are " among the steepest and most heavily wooded in the City's western extended planning area. This General Plan Amendment supports existing General Plan polides calling for preservation of natural habitat, oak woqdlands, natural creeks, ridge1ines, scenic views, open space, agrirulture and other similar resources which characterize the area beyond the Urban Limit line. Through the voter approval provisions of this General Plan Amendment, Dublin residents will be able to more directly participate in important land use dedsions which affect the unique constraints and resources in the westem hills and, in tUn'l, affect the residents" quality of life. B. Effect. This General Plan Amendment will foster and protect the lUral character of the western hills where steep slopes, prominent ridgelands and other constraints make urban development difficult. It vvill also promote uses that foster public health and safety and productive investment for grazing and other agricultural enterprise on lands outside the western City limits. This General Plan Amendment will add a definition of Urban Limit Line to the General Plan and will locate it along the current western City limits. This Amendment will add related policy text to the General Plan and will designate lands beyond the Urban Limit. Line as Rural Residential/Agriculture as defined for the western extended planning area. c. Findings. The People of the City of Dublin hereby find as follows. I. This General Plan Amendment serves the public inlerest in "7 protecting Dublin's natural resources and limiting development to areas where it can reasonably be accommodated. 1 I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE 2 : ULL ~ 4. Amend Figure 1-2 to delete the Western Extended Planning Area >>1iY' Guiding and Implementing policies shown thereon. V B. Text. Amendment. 1. Amend Section 1.8.1, Western Extended Planning Area, to add the . following after "Other land use categories" and before Table 1.1: "Urban Limit line. An Urban Limit line was adopted by initiative in 1999 for the Western Extended Planning Area. The Urban Limit line is located along the city limits line as of the effective date of the initiative. Pursuant to the initiative, lands west of the Urban Limit Line are designated as Rural ResidentiaJ/Agncu1ture on the Land Use Map. The initiative is effective for 30 years from its effective dale: the location of the Urban Limit line may be changed only by .a vote of the people of Dublin during the effective period, and only following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the City Council." 2. Ainend Section 2, Western Extended Planning Area., to add the following at the end of the section, after Table 2.2: .. AIl lands in the Western Extended Planning Area located west of the Urban Limit Line shall he designated Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture for a period of 30 years from the effective date of Resolution , adopted by initiative in 1999. The intent of the Urban Limit Line is to protect the natural resources of the western hills and to restrict further urban development in the western hills, instead guiding it to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and. where urban services can be provided in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. In addition to restricting urban development, the City will not approve or recommend approval of the permanent use or extension of city services or facilities to support or fadlitate urban development beyond the Urban Limit line." SEC)ION 3. Implementatio!.l. A. Effective Date. Upon the effective date of this resolution, the provisions of Section 2 of the resolution are hereby inserted into the City of Dublin General .Plan as an amendment thereof. B. City Ordinances and Policies. .All City plans, policies, ordinances, rules and regulations constituting legislative acts shall be amended as necessary as 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALTERNATIVE 2 ; ULL "'" soon as possible and in the time and manner required by State law to ensure ~I/f' consistency between those policies and the provisions adopted by Section 2 of this V resolution. C. Project Approvals. Upon the effective dale of this resolution, the City, and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General Plan Amendment, rezoning, specific plan, tentative or final subdivision map, conditional use permit., building permit or any other ministerial or discretionaIy entitlement, which is inconsistent with this resolution. SEGrION 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects. TIlls resolution shall not apply to any development project that, as of the effective date of this resolution, has obtained a vested right pursuant to State law. SECTION 5. Severability. If any ponion of this resolution is declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to be considered valid. SECTION 6. Amendment or Re:pp-aJ. Except as specifically provided herein, this resolution may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Dublin at a City election. Exhibit List: A - General Plan Figure 1-2 reflecting changes proposed herein. APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE PEOPLE ON ,- 1999. YES NO Adopted by declaration of the vote of the City Council of the City of Dublin on . Effective Mayor Attest: City Qerk. J:\WPD\MNRSW\114\Ol\RESO\URBANI..1M.WPA Rev. 1121/99 4 I III I I MINUTES DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS' VOICE INITIATIVE MEETING January 25, 1999 7:00 - 9:00 Council Chambers I The Dublin Ridgeland Voters' Voice Initiative meeting was held on January 25, 1999 at the City of Dublin Council Chambers. Chairperson Lockhart called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Members of the Committee present were Cm. Janet Lockhart, Chairperson; Lisbeth Howard, Council Member; Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, representing the City Attorney's Office; Morgan King, David Bewley, and John Anderson, co-authors of the Initiative, and Maria Carrasco, recording secretary. I I I There were approximately 24 people present in the audience. I Cm. Lockhart stated that tonight's meeting will wrap up everything and have a recommendation for the City Council on February 16, 1999. The committee will discuss four topics, the draft resolution for urban growth boundary; the Sphere of Influence for land outside the city limits; Roxanne Nielsen will do a presentation regarding the Nielsen property; and the committee will discuss a moratorium on development for the area. The results of these issues will go into a staff report for the City Council on February 16th. She stated that there are copies available of the draft resolution for the UGB and draft minutes of the January 4th meeting. I Ms. Faubion stated that she added some provisions to the previous draft on the Urban Limit Line to try and bring the City and the proponents of the Initiative closer in dealing with some of the issues. The resolution is entitled Alternative 2:ULL and titled The Resolution of the City of Dublin Approving a General Plan Amendment to Establish an Urban Limit Linefor Western Dublin. It is a fairly simple and direct resolution, which establishes an ULL and designates everything on the other side Rural Residential Agricultural. It is an existing land use designation in the General Plan. There are a couple of changes from last draft resolution; one change is that the resolution is in affect for 30 years instead of20 years. She added some language to the Findings to explain why and what the rational is for imposing these limitations. The Findings recognize the area as most constrained by ridges, deep slopes, and there is a map adopted from Schaefer Ranch project that shows the development constraints in Western Dublin. One minor change is to state the defmition of Rural Agricultural. There was some concern about extending City services, so she added some language that will clarify those issues, and read the change for the record; in addition to restricting Urban Development, the City will not approve the recommend approval of the permanent use or extension of City services or facilities to support or facilitate urban development beyond the ULL. She stated that the intent of the language is to support the rest of the idea that the ULL defmes where Urban Development should occur. I I I I Cm. Lockhart asked for any comments I Mr. King stated he did not fmd anything he did not agree with. I Mr. Bewley stated the draft is fme. It is different than their Initiative but it is establishing a voter provision. He stated that their original Initiative was more complex with more restrictions. The draft ULL states that the City Council can change the ULL and change the use of the land behind the ULL and will go to the vote of the people. It has brought the public in and has changed the dynamic of the planning process. I Cm. Lockhart stated that she understands it as shifting the burden of proof that it will be a good development from the City to the developer. I Mr. Bewley stated that when they began writing the Initiative, they looked at various models. Some of the cities were very restrictive, but the draft ULL states that the City Council can be approached by interested parties and the Council will decide whether the project will go to a vote of the people. The project will not be valid until there is a vote by the people. I I I I I Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Anderson ifhe had any comments. Mr. Anderson responded no. I Cm. Lockhart opened the meeting up for public comments. A gentleman asked if the voters would be all of Dublin. I I I Cm. Lockhart stated it would be on a ballot and would be all of Dublin. He asked why Eastern Dublin is excluded. Mr. Bewley stated that Eastern Dublin is a different landmass with a whole different set of rules. There was a referendum done for Eastern Dublin and the public voted for development to go forward. Cm. Lockhart stated that the public has already voted on the east and the public supported development in the east. I Ms. Nielsen said she thought this was not about development but the planning process. Mr. Bewley stated that development and the planning process are all intertwined together. I feel it is shifting the burden. The lands of the west are different then the lands of the east. I Cm. Lockhart stated the reason they are only dealing with the lands in west because that was the issue that came before the Council. The subcommittee was given a specific direction to look at; they are not discussing Dublin in general, rather the west hills. I Mr. Bewley stated that there is a West Dublin General Plan and an East Dublin General Plan. I Ms. Nielsen, said that she thought this was talking about the process of planning and this was enhancing and improving it. It should be for the entire City. Mr. Bewley said ifpeopl~'want to do that for the entire City or for the east, they should step forward. He stated that what they have done represents years of study and analysis. It is a complex process. I I A gentleman in the audience stated he agrees that it is a complex process. When the Western Plan development was on the table, how many of the citizens came down to review it and really voted on the facts? What he saw on the referendum was not about facts, it was pictures of things that were not reality. The people voted on fear and not on a clear factual information. To say the land is not developable is more fallacy there are pockets that are developable. I Mr. Anderson stated this is not about whether the land is developable or not. It is about the citizens having the option to vote on whether development should go in. I A citizen stated that the Ruby Hills project started as a Livermore project, the City Council wanted the project, but the citizens decided they did not want it. The next day the City of Pleasant on took it and annexed the land to Pleasanton. Livermore lost every inch of control over that project. I Cm. Lockhart stated that every time there is a proposed project, there would be people on both sides of the issue. Dublin would rather have the entire community vote on a project. What this is trying to accomplish is giving the residents of the City of Dublin, a better place to live and the right to say yes, or no to development in the west. I Mr. Bewley stated that there was the City Council in Livermore and the City Council in Pleasanton with different ideas. I 2 I I I " I A citizen stated that the Council needs to be careful. Castro Valley wants to become a city, and there is development on the other side of those hills; they could come in and take over and Dublin could end up with a worse mess. I Mr. Bewley stated Castro Valley does not have the legal jurisdiction for that area. Castro Valley has its own General Plan under Alameda County. Castro Valley governs what is in their area and outside of it falls under another General Plan. I A resident of Dublin asked if the Initiative or resolution would be adopted without the vote of the people. Cm. Lockhart said no. It will be a voting initiative and will appear on the ballot of June of2000. I I Mr. Burton stated that it does not state when it is going to a ballot. Mr. Bewley said they were originally going to do an Initiative, and put it on special election. Many people complained about it being put on a special election so they dropped that. The City has come up with an ULL, which will accomplish the same goals, make it simpler and more consistent with the General Plan. I A citizen in the audience asked if the UGB would require an Environmental Impact Report. She also asked what the difference is on a UGB and an ULL. Both the UGB and the ULL are stating there won't be any urban development beyond the City limits. I Mr. Bewley said the purpose of that is if the County is going to develop in that area, the City of Dublin does not have to pay for what the county wants to develop. I Cm. Lockhart stated that is on the agenda and the committee will discuss that further in the meeting. Marie Cronin asked if it would be assigned to a particular election and when will it go. I Cm. Lockhart stated it could be set whenever the Council wants and the recommendation will be for June of2000. Mr. Peabody stated if it goes on a special election the City has to call for it and has to pay for it. I Ms. Cronin made a comment to the Chairperson, that for 17 years the people in Dublin have had a voice, but the people who have l~ved on these lands for 150 years do not have a voice to this issue. She realizes that the authors of the InitIative have a right to create this issue, but the City should not ignore that the landowners have property rights. She feels there has to be a better answer to everyone's concerns to an item on the election that has a very good chance of winning. She does not feel the method is right and may end up in court. I I I Cm. Lockhart stated that she disagrees. The number of landowners that are affected by this could not change a vote in them selves. Those people have same rights to communicate with the residents of Dublin who will be voting. They have same rights and freedom to use the press to communicate with the community. I Ms. Cronin stated the constitution is more important and more basic. The individual constitutional rights have been subjected by a method of a vote that is rigged. I Cm. Lockhart said that the landowners could not make the difference in an election. She stated that she does think the landowners are being shut out. She encourages the landowners to continue to state their opinions and get them on record. The decision will rest with voters of Dublin. They are not talking about affecting land outside the city limits of Dublin; that land does not have guaranteed development rights within the City of Dublin. I 3 I I I I Ms. Cronin said the State Legislature passes a resolution based on the actions of Livermore who took in land and said let us annex and you get the development. Then Livermore said no, sorry. Cm. Lockhart said that is Livermore and this is Dublin. I Ms. Cronin stated that when that happened it went back to the State Legislature and the ground rules for the sphere of influence restated that if in a sphere of influence the city or entity must provide you services if and when annexation could be done. Some responsibilities are attached to a sphere of influence. If Dublin feels like they do not want to adhere to their responsibilities, then the land should be released from this sphere. I Cm. Lockhart stated that is the next issue on the agenda. I I Mr. Burton stated that a resolution could be changed with another resolution approved by City Council. He asked what is the justification of 30 years versus 20 years. Mr. King stated that the East Plan projects that it will take 30 years to build out so additional housing is not needed in the west. I Mr. Bewley stated that 30 years is common in most initiatives. Mr. Burton stated that is more than a generation. I Mr. Bewley stated that in 10 years there could be a different philosophy. He stated they are not trying to shut down development. I Mr. Burton stated it could be changed in the future by City Council. I Mr. Anderson stated that the citizens would get a right to vote. That premise was based on the fact that the citizens are bright enough and involved enough to make a good vote. If the same citizens decide that a year after this is put in to affect, and they do not want it, the same citizens can vote it out. Dave Burton stated the resolution could be changed by another vote of the people. I Dr. Maureen Haddad sta~4 that the ULL would add an extra step before development occurs. She stated there are gorgeous pockets in the hills that have a potential for development. This will provide for safer project planning. She stated that if they build homes up in the hills she would buy one. The City Council, and City Planning will slow the process down. I Mr. Bewley stated that there is too much development in the west. I Mr. Fields stated that the Constitution of the United States of America, is a Republic and not a Democracy; it is not a majority plus one. A development, any development with a good plan will not happen with those kinds of conditions. I Mr. King stated that the developers have a 50% track record in Dublin. He felt that it is not unfair because Dublin lost the one in the west and won the one in the east. I Cm. Lockhart stated those were both voted on by the people. I Mr. Fields stated that the owner of the property has the rights, not the property. He stated he has the right to do what he wishes with his property, provided that he does not infringe on someone else's rights. He has the right and the liberty to do it. Mr. Bewley stated that once land is developed it is gone. A developer can come in the future and probably put a comprehensive plan there. It is an extra barrier that is protecting people. The rights of the I 4 I I I I landowners is not being taken away, but the rights also have to do with the people outside the property. It is about the rights of people that are impacted by development. I Mr. King stated that the landowners seem to be afraid of the voters and convinced the voters will veto their plans. The way he sees it is a developer can write a check for $50,000 and put out a public relations campaign that will run right over this issue. He stated that he is not sympathetic with the landowners and all their whining. It comes down to developer money versus the quality of life in Dublin. The landowners keep stating this will take something away from them and all any of the landowners have right now is the right to ask Dublin to annex. He asked if any of the landowners have a right to get a yes answer to be annexed. I I Mr. Fields stated that he takes offense to the statement of them whining and that they are not whining. Mr. Bewley stated he agrees with Mr. Fields that they are not whining. I Mr. Fields asked how Dublin plans to keep the area as open space. I Mr. King stated that the Initiative they were promoting had a clause in it that the City would support an effort to fmd public or private money to buy development rights. That plan received no support from the landowners. He made the same speech at four different meetings. Mr. Fields stated that the Mayor said at the last meeting the City would look at buying development rights. I Mr. Bewley asked if the ULL would prevent that type of dialogue from going on. I Cm. Lockhart said that the Mayor has discussed buying development rights and seeing what money is out there. Those issues are not dead however, they are not part of this particular document. A person in the audience stated that she thought the landowners did not have any development rights. You are saying there is a program to buy development rights. I Cm. Lockhart there is no guaranteed development rights. Right now the land is zoned agriculturally zoned land that is rural residential. I Mr. King said, he should have said the right to seek development rights. Mr. Bewley said the right to seek a use and the right to be granted a use are two different issues. I Cm. Lockhart said the meeting should move on to the Sphere of Influence issue. They have heard from ranchers outside the city and they would like to be removed from Dublin's Sphere of Influence. She asked how the committee feels about the City applying to Lafco to remove the landowners from Dublin's Sphere of Influence. I Mr. King said he has no objection. I Mr. Anderson stated he has no objection. I Mr. Bewley said it is fme with him if the landowners want to leave however, the issue should be looked at. If in Dublin's Sphere of Influence, they can ask for a proposal. Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Peabody what would happen after released from Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence and they decide they want to propose development to the City of Dublin. I Mr. Peabody said that once they leave Dublin they could not propose anything to Dublin. Dublin is prohibited from annexing any property that is not within Dublin's Sphere ofInfluence. They would have to I 5 I I I I go to county. Dublin would have to apply with Lafco for the property to come back to Dublin's Sphere of Influence and Lafco would have to approve it. Mr. Fields read a letter for the record: I I To the Dublin Ridgelands Voter's Voice Initiative, The citizens for Dublin property rights was organized in November of 1998 as a non-profit group to represent the interests of landowners affected by the Dublin Ridgelands Voters' Voice Initiative (DRVVI). We have provided several statementsfor the record as this issue has progressed We have askedfor the creation of an Advisory Committee to assist Dublin planners, elected officials and others in understanding where our concerns lie. We have tried to attend each and every meeting of the Initiative Committee and interacted when allowed at the conclusion of each session. As requested of us at the January 4, 1999 sub-committee meeting, I present documentation to support the devaluation of our land. I We, too, would really like to have a win-win situation, but we have been unsuccessful in reaching any sort of meaningful compromise that would remove the need for the initiative. The following landowners, Bartling, Fields, Davilla, Ferguson, Manuel Machado, Nielsen Partnership, and Weideman formally request that the City of Dublin's "Sphere of Influence" be removed from the Western Extended Planning Area. I I I LAFCO information defines a "Sphere of Influence" as the "probable ultimate physical boundary" of a local government agency. As part of the City of Dublin's designated Sphere of Influence, we were expecting that our land could be used for certain purposes and that the city would be detrimental to our property rights. The proposal for an Urban Limit Line changes those stated expectations that our land could be incorporated into the City of Dublin. I The potential value of our land, could be greatly diminished both by the ULL and the DRVVI To quote the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. " Respectfully Submitted, Russ Fields, Vice President, Citizens for Property Rights. Mr. Fields stated that he has a map of the area, which shows the owners. I I Cm. Lockhart stated that the report to City Council would recommend applying to Lafco to request removing the landowners from the Sphere of Influence. I Ms. Nielsen read a letter addressed to Vice Mayor Lockhart, Ms. Howard, Mr. Bewley, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. King for the record: I In consideration of the placement of your proposed urban limit line, we respectfully submit the following evidence and documentation to support the 200 acres owned by the Nielsen Family to be included within the boundaries: I 1. The Nielsen property was being developed with Alameda County, at the time the City of Dublin . incorporated It was intended that the Nielsen property was to be in the Dublin City limits. When the City boundaries were actually defined, not only was the undeveloped Nielsen property not within the City limits but to the best of Mr. Nielsen's recollection also parts of the development were omitted City records would verify these annexations to remedy the immediate problem of the portions of the development being excluded. It was assumed the remaining undeveloped Nielsen property would eventually be included as well. 2. DSRSD records will confirm that Mr. Nielsen was required to participate in the funding of Black Reservoir. 3. Black Reservoir was designed to have larger capacity for future development. (see figure 6 6-2, map of West Side Water Master Plan) I II il ! II I ! 6 r I I ...... JJIIIIf1 I 4. Both Black Reservoir and a City sewer line are on the Nielsen property. There are no other city tanks or sewer lines outside of Dublin's City limits. 5. Since 1960, Zone 7 taxes have been paid on this land Zone 7 is a tax for the water import system to serve future use. 6. The sewer lines are of a a.apacity to handle future development. 7. This land adjacent to the City limits has no agriculture value. It is bordered by residential developments on three sides. 8. The feed capacity for cattle grazing on this land is one unit per 10 acres. This 200 acres can support only 20 units ( a unit being one steer or a cow/calj). The volume of acreage is not there to make the numbers work to even pay the taxes. Cattle grazing is a means of weed abatement and fire control, not profit. 9. Jfwe were to pursue a housing plan on this 200 acres, our goal would be to develop 1/5 of the land and designate 4/5 to open space! (see article "Residents Favor Sustainable Development Strategies" Bay Area Poll, Dec. 1998). . I I I I In conclusion Black Reservoir serves the City of Dublin and the 200 acres it sits on should also be inside the City limits, just as the founding council of the City of Dublin intended I In the placement of the urban growth limit line that the City of Dublin is considering, excluding the Nielsen property from within that boundary is not justified, not fair. Sincerely submitted on behalf of the Nielsen Family, Roxanne Nielsen. Ms. Nielsen read another letter for the record addressed to the City Council: I As you are aware, 1 was a member of the Dublin Municipal Advisory Committee (DMAC), on the Committee to Incorporation Committee for the City of Dublin and served on the first City Council from the very beginning until my retirement in 1992. I was a party to the LAFCO hearings on the original boundaries and scope of the new city. With that in mind, I would like to comment on what was intended I I We had intended all of the area known as "Dublin" to be included in the City, as well as some of the adjacent property. The Nielsen property was considered to be part of Dublin, but when the City limit lines were configured for the election, the Nielsen property was not included (as well as, part of the area under development in the western hills area). Some corrections have been made since then, but the entire Nielsen property has not been included, as intended I am hopeful that you will correct this error. The Nielsens were asked to participate in the costs for the water tank on the western hills which serves Dublin because they were considered to be a part of Dublin. I I I am sure that the original City Council Members will verify this understanding and support the request to include the Nielsen property within the City limits. Sincerely, Linda Jeffery Sailors, Former Mayor and City Councilmember. I She continued to read ano~er letter addressed to Chairman Lockhart and Committee Members: I This letter is to let you know what I remember, concerning the Nielsen property, both before and after thelncorporation of Dublin. I The Nielsens have always been great supports of the Incorporation of Dublin and worked on it during the days before incorporation. It was always believed that the suggested City boundary included the Nielsen property. I At Nielsen property has been developed in stages over the years. The water system that feeds the houses of the last stage of development is on Nielsen's property and the site for the tank and easement for the pipe was negotiated and sizedfor the next development that would extendfrom Brittany Lane. The market forces changed and the Brittany Lane extension was postponed I 7 I I I " I I was on the Dublin Municipal Advisory Committee (DUMAC) that worked with LAFCO as well as the original City Council that intended the Nielsen's property to be included in the City of Dublin. Jf an Urban Limit Line is to be established, it should include the Nielsen's property that adjoins the present City limits because that is what was intended by the organizers of the City and it is the only fair thing to do. Very Sincerely, Dave Burton, Former Vice Mayor and Councilmember. I I Ms. Nielsen referred to pictures of the Nielsen property after she read letters from former City Councilmembers. She stated that DSRSD records would confIrm that Mr. Nielsen was required to participate in the funding of the reservoir. The black reservoir and City sewer line are on the Nielsen's property. Since 1960 Zone 7 taxes have been paid on this land and the sewer lines are of capacity to handle future development. This land is adjacent to the City limits; has no agricultural value and is bordered by residential development on three sides. If the land were developed, their goal would be to develop 1/5 of the land and designate 4/5 to open space. She concluded that black reservoir serves the City of Dublin and the 200 acres it sits on should also be inside the City limits. In placement of the ULL; excluding the Nielsen property from within that boundary is not fair. I I Mr. King asked if she is suggesting that the City set aside 1/5 of their property for development. i I Ms. Nielsen responded no, which is not what she is suggesting. She said that if the Nielsen's were to pursue a development that could be the scope of the capacity. The availability ofland would not be high density. Mr. King asked if she was suggesting the City to carve out an exception for the Nielsen family. I Ms. Nielsen stated absolutely, because there are City facilities on their land. It was the intention of the City Council to begin with. I Mr. King told Ms. Nielsen that she is an excellent leader. He stated that she should use her energies to a greater advantage if they could work together to approach some private funding to buy her development rights. He stated that she is wasting a lot of leadership ability to fIght something that is inevitable. I Ms. Nielsen told Mr. King that he already said an election would never be possible. It is inevitable and they value their land. I Mr. King said it is inevitable that the voters will decide. Mr. Anderson asked why the Nielsen's waited 17 years. He said that the evidence says this should be in the inside of the City. I Ms. Nielsen said she resents that the burden of proof lies on the Nielsens. I Mr. Anderson said the logical question is why wait 17 years to ask for the property to be in the City limits. All the evidence states this should be on the inside of the City from the time it was incorporated. I Mr. Nielsen, stated that a portion of the 200 acres is in the City limits. When the City was incorporated it went thfough so much turmoil on trying to decide where the City boundaries were going to be. He stated that they were under a dead line to get the City incorporated. There was no sense at that time to muddy up the water with making a complete new survey to get the rest of the property in. It was not the intention to hinder the forming of the City. There are three roads, a sewer line, and a water tank, which was accomplished because it was always intended that property was to be in the city. To answer the question of why 17 years is because 17 years in the span of development of a city is not a long time. They were not in any hurry to develop but now there is a need for housing in there. He said that someone made a comment about those hills not being fIt for develop, but those hills compare to the Danville hills, Lafayette, Orinda which are all beautiful for development. I I Mr. Bewley stated that the hills are more diffIcult to develop than flat lands. I I I II I 8 I I I Mr. Anderson asked why the land was not annexed during the time the letter writers were in offIce (former City Council members). I Dave Burton said that Pleasanton was potentially going to annex the Dublin area because Dublin was in their Sphere of Influence. That was the gun the City of Dublin was under. When Dublin was incorporated they took the DSRSD boundary for the City limits. The thought that it was part of the deal and Bud was also working with the City. When they drew the boundary lines it turned out that it was not accurate. They had a lot of discussions when there were deciding the second subdivision above Silvergate. It was proposed to add on a section at a time. Bud was getting proposals for development and they did not always pan out. The market changed a lot of people lost money on houses and Hansen Hill went through three different buyers. When the pipeline and tank was put in, the church was out of the City limits and they had to put in a temporary water tank until Hansen Hill was hooked up. Bud Nielsen was involved with the sewer line with Hansen Hill. He said that he is representing the Nielsens because he believes they have the right to develop. He said the reason the Nielsens have this issue is because of this Initiative. He said that usually the developer would come with project and ask to be annexed. I I I Cm. Lockhart said when a City is being formed there is no money to get it going; it is all done by volunteers. Alameda County will not give you a cent until you become a City. I Mr. Burton said there are three outlets to Nielsen property. I Mr. Bewley said there are the two Brittany Lane extensions and the one off of Hansen. When cities are formed there is a structure that defmes limits and sets up a game plan. The top layer of the game plan in terms of a legal document is the General Plan. The citizens rely on what is written in the General Plan but unfortunately there are inconsistencies in the Dublin General Plan. In 1992, the Eden Canyon plan marked the Nielsen's land as non-developable. I Mr. Burton stated it was marked as open space. I Mr. Bewley stated it was marked as resource protection, which is, designated permanent open space and may not be considered for development in the future. I Mr. Fields said it states "may not" be considered for development; it does not state the land is not developable. I Mr. Bewley stated that in 1997 the City Council put up a 740-foot height restriction limit. There are a lot of mixed messages coming around. He said that the a councilmember who designated the area as resource protection area, Linda Jeffrey's stated there would not be development in the front facing hills. Mr. Nielsen said that was not necessarily true. I Mr. Burton stated that Ms. Jeffrey's has written a letter supporting the Nielsens and that Mr. Bewley is going by memory. I A citizen stated that he wants to clarify one thing; Mr. Bewley stated the land is non-developable, but what he read stated the land wa.s designated as open space. The reality of the 200 acres that belongs to the Nielsens belongs in the city limits. The Nielsen family contributed to building the City and the 200 acres deserve the attention from the City to be reviewed. I Mr. Bewley asked ifhe was referring to the 200 acres as being developed. I The citizen stated that the 200 acres should be put inside the ULL. Cm. Lockhart stated that there is no development, there is no approved development, and if they were inside the ULL they woukl still have to go through the entire process for development. Since the water I 9 I I I " I tower and the lines are already there, with the evidence and the understanding they thought they had with the council at the time, they are asking the City Council if it would prudent to include them in the ULL. She would like to get feedback from the proponents for the report to Council. I Mr. King said they are not in the position to bargain. The position of their supporters is they are going ahead with the Voters' Voice Initiative with a traffIc element, unless the City wants to step in and adopt a ULL along the existing City limit line. What are being discussed tonight are secret promises that were made 20 years ago. I Mr. Burton stated they are not secret promises, it was public. Mr. King asked if there was a vote to allow for the Nielsen's to develop this property. I Mr. Burton stated it was the understanding of the City Council. Mr. King stated that this is a violation of the Brown Act. I Cm. Lockhart stated that the Nielsen's land would be subject to vote if the Council approved something and the citizens did not approve of it. I Mr. Bewley stated that they want this to be a public process for people to vote on. He stated that he feels the citizens of Dublin should be trusted. I Mr. Burton stated it is only fair to consider the Nielsen's property to be included in the ULL. If it is not put in the City he will go to the Council. I A citizen stated that the proponents are talking about the trust of the people, what about the trust of the City Council and the planning system the City has now. I Mr. Anderson said the sy&tem is really whether the City Council or the Planning Commission is amenable to the people, when that fails there is a referendum. A referendum is an indication of failure, not a success. Ms. Nielsen stated that she felt Eden Canyon was a pretty good development, and the citizens voted down a good plan. In that plan her land was to be open space. I Cm. Lockhart said she wants to make a comment and the big difference of opinion, whether development is good, whether bad, ultimately, the City Council meeting on February 16th the Council will be faced with tough decisions. All the material will go into a report with a copy of all the letters, maps, and she would like the citizens to make comments at the meeting. It is important that other three City Council members hear what the owners have to say. She stated that the City is seriously looking at the issue and trying to accommodate the needs of everyone. I I Mr. Burton asked if the Council would make a decision on the issue in one night. I Cm. Lockhart stated that there are four issues that it will boil down to; the support of an Urban Limit Line resolution to go on the ballot; to release people outside the Urban Limit Line from Dublin's Sphere of Influence; should the Nielsen's property be included inside Dublin's boundary; and will there be a moratorium on development until the election period. I Mr. Bewley asked if the landowners outside the City limits did not want the opportunity to be voted into Dublin. I A citizen stated that the landowners have a bad taste in their mouth with the City of Dublin. The thought the City was committed to them and they bailed on them. I 10 I I I I Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Peabody what factors does a Planning staff member take into consideration on determining the location of an Urban Limit Line. I Mr. Peabody said staff is usually not asked to consider a ULL. In some cities it may be a physical characteristic, changes in topography, or streambeds, but most of the time in other cities it is usually a political decision. I A citizen said if agreed to by a property line, may not be a wise place to put that limit line. In regards to the Nielsen property may need to be looked at from a geographic standpoint. Mr. Peabody stated that it'still ends up a political decision. I Mr. King stated that they started an Initiative process, which in part was started because ofthe possibility of the Nielsen's developing their property. The Initiative will draw the line where it IS now, and they will back off on that if the City wants to adopt an ULL that accomplishes the same thing. I Cm. Lockhart commented that when the report is ready, staff would mail it out to the interested parties. Mr. Peabody said that it would be a summary report and leave all attachment and letters out. I Ms. Faubion said that they could prepare a resolution for consideration for the February 16th meeting. Cm. Lockhart said do not take a lot of time planning something. I Tom Ford, stated that there has been tremendous publicity for the western area. He said that he disagrees with the people who are not aware of what is going on up there. The water and sewer line is not under control of the City, there are under DSRSD. I A citizen asked where the sewer line currently exists. I Mr. Nielsen said on the west side. Mr. Peabody said the sewer line is for the Hansen development and was constructed for Hansen Ranch. I Mr. Nielsen asked who wrote the draft ULL resolution. Mr. Peabody stated that the City's attorney, Kit Faubion wrote the resolution. I Cm. Lockhart stated that it started as an Initiative and the City Attorney turned it into an ULL. She stated that it is a resolution to become an Initiative if it is adopted by the City Council. She asked Ms. Faubion if she has any comments regarding the moratorium. I Ms. Faubion stated she would like to do some research on it. The proper procedure is to do an Urgency Ordinance or an Interim Ordinance. It can be a policy decision for Council to make. I Cm. Lockhart stated that it could be a recommendation in the staff report. Cm. Lockhart thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the meeting at 9:10. I I I 11 II I