HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 RidgelndVoterVoiceInitiative
...
'"
CITY CLERK
File # D~~[{j-[1][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\ \J;' 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 Committee 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 thoroughly discussed. As a result ofthose
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. ---.L1
As indicated in the attached letter, the proponents are requesting that the City Council initiate General
Plan Studies to address concerns as related below:
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.
.
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 commended 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
.
.
.
Novennber18,1998
RECEIVED
;\!!/'J 1 ,\ 1998
CITY Uk""" UUdLIN
Mr. Richard Ambrose,
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose,
Subject: Request for Amendment of the Traffic and Circulation Element of the Dublin
GeI'leral Plan and for adoption of a Development Elevation Cap for West Dublin
As a oo-author of the Dublin Ridgeland Voters Voice Initiative and on behalf of the other oo-authors Mr.
John Anderson and Mr. Morgan King, we wish to thank the Dublin City Council and Staff for their
guidance and assistance during the Subcommittee meetings this past month. We are thankful for the
opportunity to have a dialogue with the City in the context of a public hearing with an opportunity for any
interested member of the public to comment on the subject matter of our initiative.
In exploring the content of our draft of the Initiative we encountered some problem areas that we
thought would make better sense to be considered by the Council in the form of Request for a General
Plan Amendment. This will allow for better planning, studies and resources on specific issues
contained in our initiative than can be given in our subcommittee hearings. The results of these studies
and proposals and possible changes in the DUblin General Plan will then be used as a basis for our
treatment of these issues in our initiative.
There are two specific problem areas that are best addressed by an amendment to the General Plan:
1. We are requesting an amendment to the Dublin General plan to a maximum of
500 ADT for residential streets west of San Ramon Road with additional
guiding policy to consider degree of slope and frontal access of homes on
streets as additional factors to reduce the ADT to a number below the ADT of
500 and any further changes as may be necessary for residential collectors.
2. We are requesting a General Plan Amendment to establish a Development
Elevation Cap for West Dublin.
Background
1. Section 5, Land Use and Circulation: Circulation and Scenic Highways element
We understand that this element was last amended on June 17, 1997 in Resolution 77-97. Our
Dublin Voters Voice Initiative draft of November 9, 1998 addresses this element with the foRowing
language:
That such proposed development does not add, except to a nominal extent, to Ir.1ffic 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
A ttachment A
. Page 2
November 18, 1998
level shall be approved only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional
fBklng of private lands.
.
This is currently proposed to be an amendment of Section 2.1.4: Western Extended Planning Area
exclusive of the Schafer Ranch Project. Further consideration is needed because the above
language may be too vague and is more propeny an amendment of the Circulation and Scenic
Highways Element. The above paragraph was included as part of our original initiative language
due to the strong concern we and many other residents of West Dublin have expressed over the
past ten years concerning future development proposals for this area. The impact of new
subdivision developments on traffic flows on existing residential streets in hillside neighborhoods
has been the subject contentious public debate on repeated occasions; yet, no study has ever
been made to our knowledge addressing this issue to provide a solution to this problem.
It is clear that traffic flows on residential streets in hillside developments suffer additional impact
due to the effect of gravity and degree of slope. No guiding policy exists in our General Plan to
address this issue. For example, a preliminary examination of the General Plans for Pleasanton
and San Ramon, communities north and south of Dublin, reveals that they severely restrict the
allowable traffic flows on residential streets when compared to Dublin. The Design ADT (Average
Daily Traffic) for residential streets in the Dublin General Plan is 1500; The ADT for Residential
Streets in Pleasanton and San Ramon is only 500. We believe that their standard is more
appropriate and consistent with proper planning..
To determine the traffic & circulation limits for streets in the hills. We request the following items be
considered in the study findings:
TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION:
. Traffic studies done by professionals in the discipline
. Inter-relationships of:
. Grade
. Curvature
. Line of sight
. Length of curve, roadway, & approach to intersections
. Tangent component of roadway prior to an intersection
. Roadway width
. Expected Average Daily Trips on roadway under study
. Super-eleavtion angle
. Safety issues
. Impact of frontage access
. Current General Plan Guiding Polices
. Definitions of various types of roadways and their physical characteristics including
designed traffic capacity
.
It should be noted that our Initiative Subcommittee is limited to the issues concerning West Dublin.
2. Elevation Cap for West Dublin. Section 3.1 Open Space for Preservation of
Natural Resources and for Public Health and Safety. Western Extended Planning
Area
There is a Development Elevation Cap of 770 feet in the Primary Planning Area and Extended
Planning Area for East Dublin adopted on July 7, 1998. Currently there is nothing for West Dublin.
There was a proposal made by the Council in last June, for a 740 foot cap in the West Dublin area
and the West Extended Planning Area.
Our Dublin Voters Voice Initiative draft of November 9, 1998 addresses this element with the
following language to amend Section 3.1 Guiding Policies- Western Extended Planning Area:
.
2
.
.
.
. Page 3
November 18, 1998
4. No General Plan Amendment in the affected area shall provide for or
contemplate roads, utilities, development or improvement above the level of
740 feet
We are still considering a standard at 670 feet consistent with the Alameda County General plan
for the Pleasanton Ridgeline. We believe that an inter-regional approach is appropriate in
considering the proper elevation standard.
Three major factors influenced our reasoning for a height cap for the Westem Dublin Planning
Area. First is the Dublin City proposal for a Development Elevation Cap made last June. Second
is the Pleasanton Ridge Urban Growth Boundary Limit, and third is the Alameda County General
Plan 670 foot limit for the Pleasanton ridge. Currently, the Alameda County General Plan defines
the Western Extended Planning Areas as outside its Urban Growth Boundary Limit and not
desirable or suitable for residential development at any height. In our opinion, a Development Cap
is appropriate for this area. Again, the scope of our initiative and the subcommittee is limited to the
Western Dublin Planning Area.
We request the following items be considered in the study findings:
BUILDING HEIGHT CAP:
. General Plan Guiding Policies
. Height cap in Pleasanton & San Ramon westem hills
. Alameda Country Plan for western hills in Pleasanton and Dublin
. Alameda County Plan policies inferring cooperation with Contra Costa County in
establishing a regional plan for the western hills of Pleasanton, Dublin, & San Ramon
. Current grades of Dublin western hills
. Geological and scenic ramifications
Respectfully,
~~
David Bewley ~
cc: Mr. Guy Houston, Mayor
Mrs. Lisbeth Howard, Councilmember
Mrs. Janet Lockhart, Council member
Mrs. Claudia McCormick, Councilmember
Mr. George Zika, Councilmember
3