HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 WDubExtPlanOpenSpace CITY CLERK
File #420-20
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 6, 2001
SUBJECT:
Review of Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Open Space
Implementation Report
Report Prepared by Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Report on Open Space Preservation Options in the Western
Planning Area, June 2000
2. Implementation Report, Western Dublin Extended Planning
Area, October 2001
3. City Council Minutes, June 20, 2000
RECOMMENDATION~..~ /w.,~.iew and comment on Implementation Report. Take no action
,.,- ~,,,{,t,- until after public workshop in December and January
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time
DESCRIPTION: A Study identifying Open Space Preservation options for the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area was presented to the City Council on June 20, 2000. The City Council on
October 17, 2000, approved the preparation of an Open Space Implementation Plan for the Western
Dublin Extended Planning Area. This plan was to:
· Identify specific recommendations for the City Council to consider in preserving Open Space in
this area
· Look at options, costs for preserving and possible funding
· Return with a report to be reviewed in two public workshops
In addition, the City Council directed that this Implementation Report focus on the eastern portion of the
Western Extended Planning Area from the ridgeline described in the Open Space Preservation Study
eastward to the City limits (Nielson, Milestone Partnership and John Machado Properties - 767+ acres).
This report covered the following tasks: · Determined realistic open space options
· Evaluated specific physical environmental and land use potential of the affected parcels
g:wdublin ex plan area. doc
COPIES TO:
EPS, Inc.
Project File
ITEM NO.
· Utilized geotechnical and appraisal consultants
Analyzed suitability of the affected property for development and open space uses
· Created two specific options based on a limited development/open space presentation approach
and direct acquisition of all the properties
· Compiled specific development costs and acquisition costs based on appraisals and land use
suitability
· Identification of a proposed action plan
ANALYSIS
The report concluded that the Nielson, Milestone and Machado properties are comprised of rural
agricultural lands that are dominated by steep topographic features and limited vehicular access. Because
of the rolling to steep topography of the properties, the current Agricultural Designation on the County's
General Plan, the requirements that any General Plan change adopted by the City Council on these
properties will require voter approval (Measure M) and the lack of infrastructure, urban residential
development is considered highly speculative for these properties and is discounted by the market. A
review of comparable land sales suggest that the value associated with subject properties together is likely
to be in the range $3 to $7 million.
Two specific options were evaluated: (1) An Acquisition Option and (2) a Limited Development Option.
For Option 1, the report concluded that either the City could acquire the affected properties or some other
entity such as the East Bay Regional Park District based on conducted appraisal reports.
Option 2 suggested that either a 59 lot residential (concept A) or 6 lot residential (concept B) may be ·
possible on the Nielson properties although no development of the Milestone property seems feasible
given topographic and environmental constraints. The Machado property has limited access as well,
which could be acquired for open space acquisition/easements. Given the limited development potential
of the Milestone/Machado properties, it would be possible to obtain easements on the entire eastern
portion of the study area. It is important to recognize that economic conditions have changed since the
appraisals and development potential analysis was done in June 2001. Land values and development
costs, as well as residual land values presented in this report may have dropped substantially. Further
explanation will be presented by Staff and the Consultant on this subject at the City Council meeting.
Specific funding sources that were covered included a dedication fee on easement rights, City resources,
East Bay Regional Park District funding, grants, open space acquisition fees and open Space assessment or
specific maintenance taxes.
Finally, the report outlines an Action Plan that given policy direction from the City Council has the
following possible directions:
· If the City Council is receptive to initiate General Plan Amendments to alloTM limited development
· f options in order to secure open space fee/easements in the affected properties, determine the
acceptability of limited development
· Explore the feasibility of a Dublin Hills Regional park with the East Bay Regional Park District
· Establish funding open space acquisition and begin acquisition efforts
· Take no action at this time
2
CONCLUSION
Staff proposed to conduct two public workshops on the Implementation Report in December 2001 and
January 2002 to obtain public comment. Copies of this staff report have been mailed to those parties who
have participated in earlier 'discussions about Open Space in the Western Extended Planning Areas. When
these workshops are complete, Staff will return to the City Council with recommended specific actions.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and comment on Implementation Report. Take no action at this time.
DRA_FT REPORT
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS FOR THE WESTERN
DUBLIN EXTENDED pLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Economic & Plarm/ng Systems, Inc.
Revised
June 2000
EPS #9232
rri
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND t'°URPOSE OF STUDY ........................................................ : ........... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Goals of Western Dublin Open Space Preservation Straiegy .................................
Organization of Report f ............................................................................................... 2
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 2
Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 4
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW ..... '. ...................................................................... 5
History of Western Dublin Extended Planning Area .............................................. 5
Development Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................ 13
Description of Open Space and Agriculittral Resources .......................................
Land Values in Study Area ....................................................................................... 16
III.
Open Space Preservation Techniques ...................................................................... 17
Outright Fee AcqUisition ................................................................................ ~ .......... 22
Open Space / Agricultural Funding Sources ............... ~ ......................................... 23
Grants / Other Government Sources ...................................................................... 29
Private Sources ........................ .' ........................ : .................. : ....................................... 30
IV.
WESTERN DUBLIN.OPEN SPACE t'°RESERVATION STRATEGY ..................................... 33.
tmplementafion Framework .............................~..: .................................................... 31
Development Contraints and Open Space Resources by Subarea ...................... 32
PreServation Strategy Matrix .................................................. ~ ........................... :,. .... 34
V. LEGAL VALIDATION OF I:[ECOMMENDATIONS ......... , ................................................. 37
Appendix A: Landowners in ~/qe Western Dublin E)5~ended Planning Area
Open Space Preservation Options for the western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June I2, 2000
I. 'INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
On February 1.6, !999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General Plan
Amendment StUdy for those properties located within the City of Dublin sphere of influence
lying west of the existing City limits and tO 'Submit a measure to the voters adopting an: Urban
Limit Line (ULI) in the Western Extended Ping Area.~ The proposed ULI would be located
along the existing city limits; lands west of the'LrLI would be 'designated Rural
Residential/Ag-ricutturel. If Dublin voters approve the LrLI initiative in November 2000, the
development in' the'Western Extended Planning Area woul.d be limited by the Rural
Residential/AgricultUral desig-nation to one unit per 100 gross acres for the next30 years if the
property is annexed to the City unless changed by the voters of Dublin.2 The intent of the ULI
is to protect. the natural resources' and to restrict, further development in the western hills;
thereby guiding future development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where
urban services can be provided in a more efficient manner.
The City CoUncil requested that, as part of the General Plan Amendment StUdy, a Western
Dublin ~ Space Prese~wati°n Study.be conducted 'in order to .c°n~ider options f°r
permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for compensating landowners
who could potentially be affected by the proposed ULI. Thus, the purpose of th/s stUdy is not
to establish or evaluate the proposed public policy but to provide a framework for
' implementing the ULI and related policies, if approved by voters in.re November.2000
election. The open space preservation strate~es offered in t. his report will be presented by City
staff to the Dublin City Council for their consideration and possible .implementation.
GOALS OF WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
This study identifies and evaluates appropriate and feasible open space preservation strate~es
for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area (herein the Study Area). As defined by City
staff, the open space strategy should achieve the following goals:
· Develop'feasible open space preservation mechanisms that can equitably share the cost of
permanent preservation of the western hills.
· Preserve environmentally sensitive areas-for example, slopes over 30 percent slope,
landslide areas, visually sensitive areas such as hillsides and ridgetops, wetlands, and
wildlife habitat areas.
Resolution No. 25-99 and No. 24-99 adopted February 16, t99.9..
City of Dublin, Resolution No. 24-99, February 16, t999.
I
£Z~2~tZ~c
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Iune 12, 2000
Create regional trail linkages along Skyline Ridge that run north-south across the Study
Area along Divide Ridge on the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and create other
lateral trail linkages to local recreation resources where appropriate.
Create opportunities for completing the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve as
proposed by the ]East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and for providing a major
recreational resource for current and future residents of the City and the Tri-Valley.
Protect vieWsheds by retaining present agric~/ltural character on the hillsides and ridgetops
visible from 1-580 and parts of the City of Dublin.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter I describes the purpose and goals of the
study and presents findings and recomn2endations. Chapter II describes the Study Area's
history, development opportunities and constraints, open space, and agricultural values and
presents a-summary of comparable land values. Chapter II/describes a range of open space
preservation options and gives examples of Where they have been used successfully elsewhere.
Chapter IV presents a proposed open space preservation sh-ategy for the Study Area and ·
es~mates the potential costs associated with these strategies.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted above, th.is report describes a'range of open space preservation optiOns for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning A.rea and evaluates how these options could be applied.
Because of the Study Ar.e.a's unique characteristics, it has been divided into h¥o sub-areas: an
Eastern Zone cbmtSrisiff~; the~Astem portion of Re Study Axea adjhcent'to f. he existing City
limit; and a Western Zone comprising the area lying east of Skyline Ridge. An area generally ·
visible from 1-580 'transects both of these zones. The following section, outlines a set of
recommendations for these sub-areas.
EASTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
Objectives of open space preservation in the Eastern Zone include protecting the ridges and
hillsides visible from Re existing eastern Dublin neighborhoods, protecting ridge tops and
steep slopes from development, and completing the EBRPD's proposed Dublin Open Space
Regional Preserve and the regional f:rait linkages in the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
9132rptI.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options.for the Western Dub[in Extended Ptanning Area
furze 12, 2000
Open Space Strategies
The recommended strategies include an internal Transfer of Development Credit (TDC)
program, outright fee acquisition of about 150 acres for the EBRPD Dublin Hills Open Space
Regional Preserve, and acquisition'of trail easements to complete the regional trail linkages
described in the EBRPD's.1997 Master Plan. The TDC pr6gram would apply to all properties
within the Zone and would prohibit development on slopes greater than 30 percent and on
ridgetops. (sender areas).. Limited residential devel6pment would.be allowed on the canyon
floors below.the 770-foot elevationIine (receiver areas), provided thai the building sites
avoided steep slopes ,and landslide areas and employed design standards to minimize visual
impact on adjacent neighborhoods.3 In return for the residential development,.landowners
would be required to dedicate pet-manent conservation easements on all areas over the 770door
elevation line, as well as trail easements to provide linkages to the regional-trail on Skyline
Ridge.
Cost A/location and Funding
The cost of preserving the ridgetops and steep slopes would be born primarily by the
landowners that elect to participate in the TDC program; comparison would be provided '
through the additional development opportunities. ~The Dublin Plills Open Space Regional
Preserve would benefit ali residents in the Tri-Valley region as well as existing and future ·
residents of the City of Dublin. For purposes of analysis it is Proposed that the approximately
$900,000 cost of acquiring land for the Regional Preserve be allocated 50 Percent to regional
residents, 25 percenfto existing Publiri residents, and 25 percent to new development in
Dublin. To complete the EBRPD trail linkage, trail easements will need to be acquired for
$1,500. The cost dis~ribntion will be shared in a way similar to the Regional Preserve. In
actuality, other factors may affect cost allocation, including availability of funding and the .
interests of participants. The re~onal funding would most likely come from existing EBRPD
funds plus State funds, such as Proposition 12 bond proceeds. Local funding could be raised
through a combination of development fees and City sources. The regional trail easements
could be funded in a manner and allocation similar to the Regional Preserve.
WESTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
The objectives of open space preservation in the Western Zone are to protect the ridgetops arid
steep slopes, maintain the rural character of the area, complete the regional trail linkages in the
Calaveras Ridge Trail, and protect the view-sheds visible from t-580 and pkrts of the City of
Dublin.
3 Assumes that the Resolution No. 1t4-98, Approval of PA 98-029 Development Elevation Cap at or below 77046ot
for the Eastezm Extended Planning as stated in the City of Dublin General Plan Revised July 7,1998, applies to the
Eastern Zone Preservation Strategy.
3
?-32rptl.doc
Draft Report
. . Open. Space Preservation Options,for.the Weste~z Dublin Exte~ded Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Open Space Strategies
Since the Western Zone cannot be served with City services,w!thout significant investment in
infrastructure, it is proposed that this Zone be removed from the City's Sphere of Influence and
that the base agricultural dish-ict zoning be retained by Alameda County. Landowners w/si'ring
to develop their properties wilt be able to apply for permiim from the County; however, they
will be.restr/cted to the base Alameda County .zoning of a minimum parcel size of ~100 acres.
Trail easements should be acquired'v~here possible to complete the. regional trail linkages-
described in.the EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan for the Calaveras Ridge Trail. ACquisitions of land
for expansion of the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve could occur as funds and
w/Iling sellers allow.
Cost Allocation and Ymn~g
Under this approach, the City would have no cost burdens. The Ci~ could, however,
cooperate w/th the County and EBRPD towards achieving common objectives.
NEXT STEPS
~!. Complete public.review, legal evaluation, and comments.
2. Finalize report and recommendations.
3. Pursue funding mechanisms.
4
~.232rpi2.doc
' '~ Draft Report
.Open.Space l°reservation Options.for the Western Dublin EXtended ?Ianning Area
furze 12, 2000
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW
The Western ~g.t..'ended Planning A.rea (the Study Area) is located On the western edge of the
City of D'fib~'~ gorthem Alameda County between the communities of DubIin, San Ramon,
and Castr0~ Valley, 'The Study Area is inside the'City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence .(SO1) but
outside city Emits. It consists of approximately3,100 acres of rangeland with a series of~dges
and canyons, including a number of rural residential units. Interstate 580 creates the southern
boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra Costa County tine Sets .the northern
boundary,,Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the DUblin city limits are on the east. A row
of PG&E power lines cuts through the central part of the project site in a northeast-southwest
direction (see Figure II-l).
Most of the project site is privately owned--with the exception of about 160 acres owned by the
East ]5ay Regional Park District (EBRPD)-- and is zoned by the County of Alameda as an
Agricultural District which sets a mim'.m, nm parcel size of 100 acres.4 Four of the properties,
comprising about 537 acres, are under Williamson Act contracts, which means that property
taxes, are based on agricultural rather than market value,s The largest parcel is 598 acres, and
the smallest is less than a fourth-acre. There are 15 separate landowners, and about 67 percent
of the land is held by four owners (~ee Table 11,1). Schaefer Ranch, now owned by Shea
Homes, is outside the Study Area because this property has already been annexed to the City of
Dublin and is committed for future development (see Figure ii,2). Appendix A includes a
detaited listing of ali the landowners in the Study Area.
HISTORY OF WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING A_REA
Planning efforts in Western Dublin began in 1989 in response tO proposals for development in
the area. In keeping with the General Plan requirements, the City of Dublin prepared and
approved a specific pla~, ~ environmental impact report (EIR), and a general plan 'amendment
for'the area. The Western Dublin Specific Plan proposed several residential tracts on727 acres
surrounded by open space, with minor acreage for commercial and public uses.6 A total of
3,260 residential units were proposed, of which 1,850 units are single family and 1,410 units are
multi-family: At buildout, the area would be expected to house an estimated 8,383 people.'
4 Alameda County General Zoning - Chapter t7.06 Agricultural Districts.
s The WilIiamson Act (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.) provides for landowners to voluntarily place their
property' ~'~' a~cultural preserve under contracts that are automah.'cally renewed each year', for rolling 10-year
periods, unless the Owner or the County gives notice of non-renewal.
6 Environmental Impact Report ]Draft EIR with Revisions for Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Pian
Amendment, May, 1992. i-12:13, i-24. '" '
5
9232rp11.doc
Figure Il-
iWestem Dublin Extended Plat¥ '?g Area
Regional Context
Pawar ,Lines
Cont~ Costa
County
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
County Boundary
Lin~
County
0 2 4
Miles
·[ Western Dublin E.~enfled Planning Area
.-
h:~232dublV~aps~g_ l~_ 'h wor
Table'll.'l ,
BUmlilai~Y by Property Owner iii the Weslerl-~ Dublh'l Extended Plmmlny Area
Wes[ Dublin Open Space Preservatloll Stral. egy'
Property .. Acres
Owner Total %olTotal.
Assessed Values
Land
Improvements Tolal
Davllla Eden Canyon Family Partne/ea
Machado Manuel J
Nielsen Ranch Padnershlp
Nielsen Harold T and Alice, Robert
Cronln Heights Milestone Partnership
East Bay Regional Park District
Ma¢l'mdo John G
Wledemann Jellrey O &' Nancy Ntr
Bartling, Lemoyne
Loveland, Ray
Eastwood, Joseph
Vanvoorhls Thomas
Mort'Is Cordelia/Ir
Davilla'Anthony H & Fields Russell A
Dublin San Ramon Services District
1,228,42 39,6%
392.83 12.7%
· 248.00 13.0%
207.43 6.7%
175.81 5.7%
15g.00 6.1%
1,47.03 4.7%
144;25 4.7%
gg.gg 3.2%
g2.2g 3.0%
8g.g2 2,9%
I]2,t 1 2.6%
22.95 O.7%
10.75 0.3%
0.51 0,0%
Total 3,~01.2g 100%
'$33,~54
$423,1~'63
$286~232
$703;000-
$o
$280 205
$12 509
$334 1378
$291 476.
$199 9t9
$76 948
$37692
$10 246
$2 462
$4,015,362
i;-$§5;g00 $1,4!~,078
Se $423,163
$0 $2118,232
$0 $703,000
$0 $0
$0 $280,205
$0 $12,509
$50,000 $3134,137~
$1~,o00 $310,476
$0- $1gg,glg
$0 $76,9413
$25,330 $63,028
$0 $10,246-
$0 $2,402
$221,900 $4;237,322
Sources: First American Real Estate Solutions; City ct Dublin Planning Department
Economic& Planning Systems, Inc.
Eco~mm[c ,.~ Plam]~'ng Systems,
H:lg232dubfida ~a Vare$.
Alanmda
Cvttn~y.
Bartllng &
Eastwood ill
Figure 11-2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
Manuel Machado
Davilla Eden Canyon
Family Pallnetshlp
Nielsen
Parlnemh
Madmdo
Schaeh
Bay' Regl._._..____.~o~]al Parks Land to lie Acquired I- u8o
Western Dublin Extended Plann!n~ehado Properly Already Acquired
~'¢o~mnl/~ & Plann/ng $),s~ems, bio.
h:lg232dut
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation .Options for the Western Dublin Extended ?lanning Area
· . June IZ 2000
The Specific Plan included a 12-acre country club and associated fadlities, community facilities,
and a pedestrian-oriented Village Center. Employment'at the three commerdal centers and
country club facilities was estimated at 200. Public facilities included an elementary school, fire
station, reservoir, and a Park-and-ride lot located on 338 acres. The Plan set aside 2,178 acres
for open space, which included an 18-hole golf course on 175 acres, internal and Perimeter
private open space within and around the project neighborhoods, a system of neighborhood
parks, and the Hollis Canyon Linear Park
In July 1992, the Dublin City Coundl voted in'favor of the Western Dublin Specific Plan and a
General Plan Amendment that would permit residential and commercial uses in the Western
Dublin Area (Resolution No. 89-92). Due to ~owing concerns about the environmental
consequences of the proposed development in the Western .Dublin Area, Measure A--a
citizen's, initiative-was placed on the ballot in January 1993 to-approve .or.deny the City
Council Resolution No. 89-92 that would adopt a General Plan Amendment and the Western
Dublin SPecific Plan. Measure A received a majority of ~'No" votes, effectively preventing the
adoption of the Specific Plan and'forestMting urban development in western Dublin.
The City Council directed City staff to work on the Urban Opportunity Area-C~neral Plan
Amendment as a high priority in Fiscal Year 1997/98. In April 1998, the Dublin Planning
Commission held public hearings regarding a resolution that would recommend the City
Council to adopt the'PA 98,029 Urban Oplvorbamity.Area General Plan Amendment. The
Proposed Urban Opportunity Areas (UOA) represented a.long-term commitment to manage
g-rowth Within the City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas; it
identified where development isexpected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years.. The UOA
boundary within the Western Extended Planning Area.is the 770-foot elevation line. This
boundary was chosen because development beyond this point would result in the expansion of
water service pressure zones, except for already approved projects; would increase reservoir
sizes beyond what has been already constructed and approved; or would impact visual quality,
biolo~, geology, traffic and circulation, and areas which have slopes over 30 percent.7
The UOA General Plan Amendment was adopted in 'the summer of 1998 for the Eastern
Extended Planning Area; however, .it was not adopted for the Western Extended Planing Area
due to concerns about allowing any development in the Area. Shortly after the UOA debate, a
few residents of DubLin proposed a'land use initiative for the purposes of controlling ~owth
within the Western Extended Planning Area..: A committee of tWo City Council members,
planning staff, legal counsel, and initiative proponents was established to discuss the proposed
Lrfit/ative; the results of the committee's work were presented to the Dublin City Council in the
fall of 1998.
In February 1999, the Dublin City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area The purpose of the Study is to consider establishing
an urban limit line along the western dry boundary- pending .the vote on the Urban Limit Line
7 Agenda Statement City Council Meeting May 7.9,1998 - Public Hearing:. PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area
General Plan Amendment, by Carol R. Ciretli, Senior Planner. '
9
9252rpH.doc
i :: Draft 'Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
june 12, 2000
measure-- and to consider ~appropriate land use desio~nations and policies related to
development in the Western Extended Planning Area. The Study is to be completed before the
November 2000 election: A moratorium on. all general plan amendments for the area has been
adopte.d and will be effec~ve until approval of the general plan amendments for the area.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study, the City Council dir~ted Planning staff to
conduct an open space preservation study for the Western Extended Planning Area to
determine the most feasible open space acquisition and. preservation program that could be
accomplished in the area.~ EIX3 was h.ired in November 1999 to complete this open space
preservation study.-
CURRENT PLANNING AND. ZONING ...........................
The Study Area is in unincorporated Alameda County and within the City of Dublin's Sphere
of Influence (SOl) and is therefore zoned by Alameda County. In ad.dition, the S~ady Area is
included in the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and in the City of Dublin's long-range planning
documents.
Alameda County General Ordinance Code
According to the _4~Iameda County genmtal .ordinance code, ail agricultural land, inciading the
. properties in the.Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, is designated as an agricuI~aral
dis~ict to (1) promote, implementation of general plan land use proposals for agriculture and
other non-urban uses, and to (2) conserve and protect existing agriculture in places where more
intensive development 'is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. Every use in. an
"A' district shall be on a building site having an area notiess than one hundred acres)
City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7, 1998
In Land Use and Circulation: Parks and Open Space Recreation, the guiding policies for open space
preservation are as follows:
1. Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and nah~_ral creeks as open space for their
natural resource value;' and
2. Maintain slOpes predominantly over 30 percent as permanent open .space for public health
and safety.
8 Western Dublin Open Space Study - Request for Proposal by Carol R. Cirelli. Senior Planner, City of Dublin on -'
October 6, 1999.
9 Alameda County General Ordinance Code Title 17. ' '
10
~r~ft Report
Open Space preservation Opti°ns for the Western OuMin Extended PIanning Area
June I2, 2000
The Dublin General Plan als0 contains a number of specific'policies for the Western Dublin
Ex~ended Planning Area, including open space preservation'of natural resources for public
he~ith and safety, open space for outdoor recreation, and erosion and siltation control30
Open Space Preservation of Natural Resources. Development generally shall be confined to
areas where slopes are under 30'percent as part of the overall, cluster development concept on
approved.development plans. Wiff~n projects proposing Clustered development and ancillary
fadtities inthe Western Extended Planning Area, land alteration on slopes over 30 percent may
be considered where the following conditions are present.
· Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
· Proposed land .alteration would, be necessary to achieve abasic public needi such as
housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities.
Long-term visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby
comm~-lities.
Ex/sting large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended. Planning Area
shall be protected where possible. Grassland sites shall be considered for development in
preference to native shrub and woodland areas.
Open Space for Outdoor Recreation. The om-riding policies for open space of outdoor recreation
in the Western Extended Planning Area will (1) provide a north-south trail link across the
Planning Area, as par~ of the re~onal trail network; ~d '(2) create a local trail network which
links Iar'ge areas of permanent open space, while providing convenient access from nearby
residential areas. The plan will (3) maximize visual exposure to open space and provide
multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open space; and (4)
provide active recreation facilities to serve neighborhood residents.
Erosion and Siltation Control. The guiding policies of erosion and siltation control are to
maintain nai/zral hydrologic systems by containing any net mcreas.e o runoff onsite or with
approved offSite measures and to regulate g-rading and development on steep slopes, with
special concern for pOtential problems of erosion and siltation.
Comity of Alameda'- East Cou.nty Area Plan
The purpose of the East County Area Plan is to present a clear statement of the County's intent
concerning future development and resource conservation wiffdn East County to the year 2010.
The East County encompasses 418 square miles of eastern Alameda County and includes the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pieasanton, and a portion of Piayward, as well as surrounding
10
Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment, pp. 7,9, 15. '
11
92~2rptl.doc
Draft R~ort
Open Space ?reservation Options for the Western Dub[in Extended Harming Area
June 12, 2000
unincorporated areas.. ECAP contains a number of goals and policies for open. Space and
agriculfure and states several Policies pertaining to the West Dublin Hills as follow..~
Policv 69: The County shall work cooperatively wi.th the cities of Pleasanton and I-IayWard, the
CasCo Valley community, ~e East,. Bay Re~onal Park District, and iando .wn. ers in order to
retain Pleasanton ~'c~gelands as permanent open space and reserve a regional trail corridor
connecting SunoI with the West Dublin Hills. Accordingly, the County shall oppose City
sphere of influence e~pansions and, .armexafions outside the Urban Growth Boundary. in this
area for purposes of urban development.
Pollcv 70: The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublin for
'ag-ric~lfural or open space uses to serve as a community separator and to reserve a re~onal frail
East County Area Plan.
P0ticv 71: The County shall recognize West Dublin as a valuable open space' buffer separating
the c~mmunity of Castro Valley from the East County planning area. The County shall
encourage the City of Dublin to retain fl'ds area as open space to be consistent with the County's
designation of this area as ."Large Parcel Agriculfure.'
GENERAL PLAN AMEN'D~' & PROPOSED INITIATrVES
The Western Exten'ded Planning Area is subject to at least three proposed changes in regulatory
policy, which if approved by voters could si~cantly affect de~el0pman~t opportunities and
future land use decisions in the Study Area. The three proposed policy changes are listed and
described below.
1. City of Dublin Proposed Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area.
2. The Save Ao..oriculture and Open Space Land initiative.
3. ~"he Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative.
City of Dublin Proposed Urban T.imit !.~rte in the WeStern Extended Planning Area
On November 7, 2000, voters will dete~a-dne whether to adopt an urbafi.limit line in the
Western Extended Planning A.rea, with such a line located along the current city limit line.
Lands west of the Urban Limit Line would be designated as Rural Residen~ial/Agriculfure, and
the location of the Urban Limit Line and the Rural.Residential/Ag~:iculture !and use
designation would be effective for a period of 30 years, unless changed by the Voters of Dublin.
The Save Agriculture and Open. SPace Land Irfftia/cive
The Save Agriculture and Open SPace Land Initiative seeks to encourage local government
organizations to work with the residents of Alameda County, inner city revitalization projects,
~. East County Area Plan, A Portion of the Alameda County General Plan, Volume 1 Goals, Policies, and Programs,
May 5,1994, Alameda County Planning Department, pp. 17. ·"
12
9~.232rptl.doc
Open Space Preservation Options/or the Western Dublin Exterzded Planning Area
· June 72, 2000
communib/organizations, environmental groups, ~ransit agencies, housing developers, and
park districts to ensUre that Alameda County retains its quality of life. ~Provisions of the
initiative indud~ the fOllowing:
A. Establishing a 30-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that Will protect, most of Alameda
County's remaining agricultural and other open space lands. ~y development that is
consistent with exi:s~/ng zoning would be allowed in the protected area outside the UGB.
Any other development within this protected area must be aPProved by a CountyWide
public'vote.
B. Slowing down future residential growth in the East County area, including the three
incorporated cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, a small portion of Hayward, and
the Castro Valley and Paldmares canyonlands, to a level.that the environment can sustain
in the long term.
C. Seeking to focus development of public facilit:ies, uffiities, and other infras~cruch~re in the
unincorporated East County area to be consistent with the reduced level of growth allOWed
by ffxis initiative. ' -
Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative
The TriiValley BuSiness Council is preparing a T. ri~Valley open sp~ce ird~iative as an alternative
to the Save Ag'riculhZre and Open. Space Land Initiative. 'The Tri-valtey Vision. ~010 ~.~ia~ive
proposes to establish.an urban growthboundary line based on the City's General Plan. areas.
PIoweVer, derails regarding the.~.ording of ~tis Initiative :are unknown at this Point- It is the
inlention of the Tri-Val~ey Business Council' to place the irdtiative on the November 2000 ballot.
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
C1,i'¥.Ot~ tDUBT ,tNGElxlERAL PLAN ADOPTED FEBRUARY t~i;-'t985, .AND REVISED
UJLY 7, t998
The City of Dublin General Plan requires 'erosion control plans for any proposed development
in the Western Extended Planning Area. In general, areas of steep slopes (more than 30
percent) should'be resfMcted to permanent open space, as part of an overall cluster
development concept on approved-plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall
require substan~dal miti'gation which has considerable benefit to the commurdty.TM
A. Maintain slopes predominantlY over 30 percent as per~-~anent open space, one of the
guiding Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area is to regulate grading and'
development on steep slopes with special concern for potential problems of erosion .and
Siltatior~ An implementation policy would be to rest'ici areas of steep slopes (more than
City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7,1998, p. 15. ' "'
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation 'Options for the Western ~ubtin Extended ?lanning Area
June 12, 2000
30 percent) to permanent open space, as part of an overall duster development concept on
approved plans." Any deve!ppment in otherwise restricted areas shall require substantial
mitigation which has considerable benefit to the commurdty, in keeping with the standards
of General Plan Policy 3.I.E. ~
Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space. Most of
the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning Area is concentrated in the Western
Extended Planning Area. In adctition to California live oaks, other species such as laurel
are a vi~ml part of ~his plant community. Ti:ds woodland has important visual and
biological qualifies. Implemenffng policy would be to require the preservation of oak
woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and
developed, the policy would permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of
the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered.d'~rou§h the project review
process.~4
DESCRIPTION OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE
Hay production, cattle grazing, and other ranching operations are the primary existing land
uses within the.Western Dublin project site. The hills and valleys of the project site are typical
of rangeland in the area.~S' The gassy slopes and riparian woodlands of the project site ·show
evidence of continuous ~azing, Cattle trails have left terraces on the steep grassy slopes.· A
Portion of the extended planning area is under the Williamson Act.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Guiding policies for open space for outdoor recreation is to expand park areas to serve new
development and maintain .and improve'facilities at existing schools. As 4t relates to theStudy
Area, an implementing policy would be to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or
'equestrian trails within designated open space areak by restricting structures on'the hillsides?
Another g~dding policy is to create a local trail.network which links large areas of permanmt
open space, while providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Lastly, the poliCy
calls to maximize visual exposure of open space and to .provide multiple local physical access
points to increase public enjoyment of open space by promoting !and dedication or reservation.
It would also provide improvements for a ridgeline regional trail and other trail links?
~ Schaafer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment March 1996, p. 15.
~4 !bid.
~s Env~_ronment~ Impact Report Draft EIR with Revisions for Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
Amendment, Report 5 Volume I, May 1992. P. 3-21.
~6 City of Dublin General Ptar~, Revised July 7,1998, p. 3-2:3-3
~7 City of Dublin General Plan, RevisedJuly 7,1998, Part 2, p.-9:
2 4 9~2rptl.doc
" ~ Draf~ Report
Open.Space PreServation Options for the'Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 22, 2000
Linka§e to LOcal Open Space Resources
According ~0 the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, it is the intent of the City of Dublin
to balance open space goals with housing and recreational needs in {he Western ]Extended
Planning Area38 An open space corridor on the main ridgeline woul. dbe preserved with a
regional tr~ ex, fending across the site. Key ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other
important ~eatures would be protected.
E~t Bay Regional P~k District
Calaveras 'Ridge Trail
Cities, counties~ and several park dis~icts, including the Eas. t Bay Re~onal Parks District
(EBRpD), are engaged in a cooperative effort tO plan and impl.ement a "regional trail system"
for the' San Francisco Bay Area. The 1997 EBRFD Mas~er PI,an shows the proposed Pleasanton
Ridge t° Las Trampas (Section 3C) segment of the calaveras Ridge Trail, traversing the Shady
Area39 This' segTnent of the Calaveras Ridge Trail is proposed to extend from a sta~ng area
close to the 1-580/Schaefer Road 'interchange, nor~ through Schaefer Ranch and into the Study
Area, along Skyline Ridge, joining the Alameda/Contra Costa County border along Divide
Ridge, and then con~_nuing over to Wiedemann Hill and onto' the Bishop Ranch Open Space
Regional Preserve. The Calaveras Ridge Trail is planned ~o ulffmately link the SunoI .
Wilderness to the south to the Las Trampas Wilderness '~o the north and then,traverse through
the existing Pleasan~on Ridge Regional Park and. Bishop Ranch Open Space Re~onal Preserve
and the P~t°posed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.
Dublin Hills Open Space Rexona] Preserve
The EBRFD Master Plan also sta~es that access to a re~onaI'trail link will be from "s~a~m.ng
units" located at frequent intervals along the trail. The EBRPD provides guidelines to plan for
areas along'a trail link that will be used for staging purposes. The Mas~er Plan also identifies a
portion of ~he Study Area for a proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve. The
Mas~er Plan defines a Regional Preserve as an area with outstanding natural or cultural features
that are protected for their intrinsic value as well as for the enjoyment and education of the
.public. The essential feature of a Regional Preserve may be open space, wilderness, scenic
beauty, flora, fauna, or archaeoto~cal, historic, or geological resources.
An Open Space Preserve will generally consist of at least 200 acres of undeveloped open space
land wiff~in or bordering an Urban area. 'An Open Space Preserve may be-used for agriculture
or for passive recreational activities tha~ do no~ require substantial facilities or improvements.2°
The EBRPD has received a ll6-acre dedication from the Kaufmann & Broad project in the
California Highlands and expects to receive another dedication of 106 acres as part .of the
Schaefer Ranch development project. The Schaefer Ranch project will also cons~:ruct and
dedicate a staging area for the Dublin Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Tr,aiI at Donlan
~s. Schaefer Ranch General P~n Amendment March 1996, p. 3. as described in ~he City of Dublin General Flaru
~9 Master Plan 1997 East Bay Regional Park District, Figure 5 Re~onal parkland and Trail Map, page 74.
20 Master Plan 1997 East Bay Re~onal Park District, pages 4043.
9232~tl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
furze IZ 2000
Point. These significant open space dedications to the south of. the Study Area are expected .to
provide not only a staging area for the proposed link in the Calaveras Ridge Trail but will also
establish the initial phase of the proposed new Dublin Hills Open Space Re~onal Preserve.m
In December 1998, the EBRPD purchased 160 acres on the. Skyline Ridge towards the northern
edge of the Study Area. The EBRPD is land banking the proper6f until such'time that the
Calaveras Ridge Trail can be constructed and/or plans for the proposed Dublin Hills Open
Space Re~onal Preserve can be implemented. The proposed trail alignment passes directly
through the center of the EBRPD land-banked property. A 147-acre privately owned parcel
separates the EBRPD parcel in the north of the Study Area from the dedicated open space and
stag-ing area on the Schaefer Ranch property to the south. The next EBRPD ownership is at
Wiedemarm Hill., which is .directly northwest of the Study Area just over the Alameda/Contra
Costa' County border. The 70-acre Wiedemann Hill proper~ was dedicated ~p ff~ EBRPD as
part of the Wiedemarm Ranch development project and is linked directly to the Bishop Ranch
Re~onal Open Space Preserve via dedicated trail easements.n Therefore, a portion of the Study
Area forms a'potentiatty important link in the Calaveras Ridge Trail and the proposed Dublin
Hills Open Space Re~onal Preserve.
LAND VALUES IN STUDY AREA
According to the Alameda County Assessors Office, agricultural land sales for purposes of
ag:ricutture have been scarce in the Dublin area. Historically, agricultural g-razing land in this
part of the County has sold in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 per acre.m
The most recent acquisition in the Study Area was a 160-acre parcel acquired in December 1998
for approximately $3,100 per acre by the East Bay Re,oriel Park District~-4 This parcel has
limited access, visually sensitive areas, and some slopes over 30 percent. Other acquisitions in
the area have been in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per acre according to.a local realtor,m
m and m Telephone conversation with Steven Fiala, Trails Coordinator, East Bay Regional Park District on February
16, 2000.
~ Telephone conversation with Sue Jerdik, Alameda County Assessor's Office January 6, 2000.
2~ Telephone conversation with Suzanne Lusk, East Bay Regional Park District, on January 31, 2000.
-~ Telephone conversation with Henry Bettencourt, a local.realtor on January, 17, 2000.
16
,' Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
tune !2, 2000
III. OPEN SPACE lVRESERVATION OPTIONS
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES
The CA.'Vd of Dublin has three basic options in preserving open space within the Study Area:
reg-ulation; (2) compensatory regulation; (3) and outright acquisition, as described below.
t~GULATION
Land use regulati.on,'including general plan land .use desig-nations and policies, zoning, and
subdivision regulaeions, are generally Simple to administer and'do not
burden on local government since the cost of conservation falls on the affected landowners.
Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ)/Agri .cmltural Large Lot Zoning
Zoning is a form of local government land use control. Agricultural Protection Zoning (_A_PZ) is
designed to stabilize the agricultural land base by designating areas where farming or ranching
is the primary land use and by discouraging other land uses in the area. APZ ordinances, also
known as agricul~ral, large lot zoning, restrict the density of residential development in
agricultural zones. The maximum densities in APZs can range from as small as one residential
unit per 20 acre's to as large as one unit per 640 acres. As discussed above, all the land in the
Shady Area is zoned in Alameda CoUnty's Agricultural District, which allows one unit per 100
acres.
APZ areas work best where there is a strong agricultural economy and an incentive to remain
in agricul~-are. Agricu.l~n'al large tot zoning has worked well in Yolo County, which has prime
soils and a strong agricultural economic base; it has also worked well in parts of Marin Count.
However, A_PZ areas are not so effective where there are urban' development pressures and 'low
rehxrns on agziculVaxal investments.
Agricultural large lot zoning may be s,~fficient to preserve open space where there are well-
documented physical constraints to development, such as steep slopes, unstable soils, and
erosion hazards. Such regulations may allow rural residential development in the canyons
while prohibiting development on steep hillsides, land slide areas, and visual, buffer zones. The
main advantage to using regulatory methods to protect the steep hills and ridge lines is.that-
Lhey require no public fimding. The main disadvantages are that reomalalSon offers no monetary
compensation to landowners, and regulation may not be permanent, as future governments can
amend zoning laws and.general plan designations.
17
9232rptl.doc
; Draft Report
Open Space pi'eserVation Options for the we-stem Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
COMPENSATORY REGULATION
Due to the limitations of traditional land use regulation and the cost of direct acquisition, a
number of innovatiVe conservation implementation techniques have been developed Over the
years, which can be referred to collectively as "compensatory reg-alation techniques.'26
Generally, these techniques fall somewhere between standard land use regulation and outright
acquisition programs. A few 0f the more commonly used techniques are described below:
· . Dedications and Exactions
· Development Agreements
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Transferable Development Credits
· Mitigation Banking
Dedication.s and Exactions
Dedications and exactions are levied on developers by either cities or counties for the privilege
of developing land in the jurisdiction. Dedications and exactions differ from impact fees in that
they typically are negotiated on a project-by-project basis,'generaltY during development of the
tentative subdivision map. Exactions differ from dedications in that they typically involve .cash
payments for offsite improvements.
Open space lands (in addition to the standard park dedication requirements) can be required as
dedications by the landowners as part of a specific plan. The cost of the dedication is borne by
the development and must be within the overall cost burden that can be supported by project
values when all other development costs are considered. The City of Dublin and the EBRFD
have successfully negotiated and secured over 100 acres of Open space for staging areas and
trails as p .axt, to the Schaefer Ranch and the California Highlands development projects.
However, si~. ce the prgposed General Plan Amendment and the ULI initiatives make the
probability of another specific plan being adopted in the.Western Hills very unlikely, there is
probably little opp6rturdty for future major dedications and/or exactions of.open space. There
may, however, be opportunities for trail easement dedications as part of limited scale rural
residential developments.
Dedications of trail easements could be required as part of any future development approval or
subdivision processes. The advantages of acquiring land or easements via dedication are, of
course, that they require no public funding other than development and operation of the trail
system. The major disadvantage, as an open space.preservation tool; is that there is no
guarantee that key pieces outside the urban development area needed 'to complete trail
linkages, for example, will be dedicated in a timely manner to Produce a complete trail System.
2~ This discussion is 'extracted from ar~ article "Implementation Techniques and Strategies for Conservation Plans" by
Madelyn Glickfield, Sortia Jacques, Walter Kieser and Todd Olson in Land Use & Environment Forum Vol. 4, No.
1/Winter 1995. '"
18
S~2rptI.doc
· . Draft Report
· Open Space Preservation Options/or the Western Dubtin Extended -Planning Area
june 12, 2000
While recent court decisions have limited unrelated or arbitrary dedication requirements, local
agendes are still free to require dedications and exactions that provide a connectio.n or "nexus"
beb~veen the development and the dedication. '
Development Agreements
A development agreement offers a means to overcome the "nexus". requirement of dedications
and exactions. As a contract between the jurisdiction and a developer, there is more flexibility
in imposing dedications and exactions where no strong nexus can be shown. Development
agreements between public agendes and developers provide developers with assurances that
the land use reg~alations for a project will not be changed in the future; they specify the
commitments of both the public and private sector parties to financing, impact mitigation,.
phasing, an~d other elements of the development program. Since. major' urban'development is
uniikely in the Western' I~IiI1s area~ de~etopm~f' agr~emenf~~ ~ay:not bea itseful 'open Space
preservation tooI.
Pazchase of Development Rights
~ government or private non-profit land trust can establish a conservation program to acquire
perpe~uaI conservation easements (also known as the purchase.°f development rights, or'PDR)
that restrict or pro,bit future development or subdivision of land. These legal agreements are
created between Private landowners (grantors) and qua. lifted land h'usts, conservation
organizations, or government agencies (grantees). The grantors may receive Federal eState tax
benefits and/or income tax ber~efits as a reSUl~ vf 'donaffng all, or a portion of, the value of the
easement. Grantees are responsible for mordtoring arid enforcing the terms of the easement.
Land protected by conservation easements remains on the tax rolls and is priVately owned.and
m~aged. All conserVation easements are legally binding on future landowners. Conservation
easements on agricultural land are specifically designed to protect farmlm~d, and grantors Can
conffn6e to use the' land for agricultural purposes,'restrict public access, and ~ve, sell, or
transfer their property (subject to the terms' Of the easement). The grantee .pays ~e grantor the
difference between the value of the land for agriculture and the value of the land for its
"highest and best use," which is generally res{denti~l or commercial development.27 ~.
PDR prog-rams are most successf-ml where there is a strong agriCUlhzral base and am incentive
for farmers ~o continue investing in agricultu_re and passing the farm or ranching ,operation
onto the next genera~cion. In Matin County for ex'ample, the Matin Agricult-araI Land Trust
(MALT) has, by using PDR, protected over 26,000 acres on 40 separate farms, with a combined
acquisition cost of $17.4 million since its inception in 1980.~ The combination of strong
agricultural large lot zoning, a viable dairy indust:ry, and financial commitment from the
Couniy enabled the PDR program to be successful.
= This seddon excerpted in part from "Saving Americmm Farmland: What Works" by the' American Farmland Trust,
1997.
2~ Telephone conversa~on with Lisa Bush at MALT om l=ebrumr~'li, 2000.
19
9232rptl.doc
; 'Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
In Sonoma County, hhe Sonoma County Agriculmra] Preservation and Open Space District has
protected over 27,500 acres, at a cost'of $51.5 million since its inception in 1.990.29 The Sonoma
County FDR program was successful due. to strong General Plan Policies for agricultural
protection, a th_riving and diverse agricultural economy including dairy and wine grapes, and a
0.25 percent county sales tax that generates over $12.5 mi]tion armualiy for the PDR program.
Agricultural conservation easements may have limited applicability in the Dublin Study Area
except for those landowners who wish to remain in ranching .a!!. d/or desire to wi!l their !and to
the next generation and thereby avoid the family estate tax. Other. types of easements may be
appropriate in the Study Area, such as scenic easements and 'trail access easements. Scenic
conservation easements may be used to preserve key ridge, lines and buffer zones. Access
easements may be used to acquire land for trails. If the land can' remain in private hands, and if .
there is an unde.rlying economic nsc, a conservat~ on easement may be .the most appropriate
conservation implementation tool.
Tra_2sfer of Development Credits Program (TDC)
A TDC program is another form of compensatory regulation that attempts to preserve a
particular resource (sending area) by directing development to specific locations which can
support increased densities (receiving area). Development credits are assigned to all properties
in the sending area. Developers in the receiving areas:are enco~.ur, aged to purchase TDCs in
order to receive a "density bonus" allowing them to develop at higher densities than the base
zoning would allow. Perpetual conservation easements are placed on the lands in the sending
area when a TDC is ~old,
While there are many examples of communities with TDC programs in their OPen Space
Elements, there are few examples of successful TDC programs 'that have resultedin a
significant resource protection effort. The problem with many TDC programs is that while it is
relatively easy to find w~lling'buyers of TDCs if f. he base zoning is set appropriately and ff there
is sufficient market demand, often there is a shortage of willing TDC sellers.
Frequently, TDCs are the least developable and therefore the least threatened parcels in the
sending areas; they are sold first while the most threatened lands (often those with the most
sigrdficant open space resource value) retain their development credits and remain
unprotected. This can result in a frag-rnented non-contiguous open space resource area
~terspersed with scattered development A targeted acquisition program, which follows a list
of acquisition priorities based on resource value 'and the degree of development, threat, would
more likely resul~ in a comprehensive and successful open space protection program.
.Another problem with TDC programs is that they are cumbersome to administer. In the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, a TDC program would have little chance of success
without a Memorandum of Understanding CMOU), or equivalent agreement, between the City
and the County. The MOU would have to reinforce the. base zoning in the sending area and
Telephone conversation with Maria Cippriani, Sonoma Coup. ty Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
on February 15, 2000.
20
Draft Report
Open Spade Preservation OPtions for the Western DubIin Extended Planning Area
june 12, 2000
ensure that both jurisdiCtions'.General Plans are compatible and consistent with an open
space/resource protection program.
South Livermore Valley Area Plan
'In the South LiVermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in Alar~eda County, a number of open
space/agricultural preservation and enhancement policies have been successfully implemented
and include a TDc program. The purpose of the SLVAP was to preserve existing vineyards
and wineries, enhanC~ the recognition and image of the area aS an important premium wine- '
producing re~on,.create incentives for investment and expansion of vineyards and other
· cultivated agriculture, and preserve the area's unique rural, scenic, and historic qualities. On~
component of the program allows for an onsi~ce TDC whereby landowners with 100-acre zoning
parcels can create up to five 20,acre parcels by agreeing to plant and cultivate 90 percent of the
parcel With Vfneyard~'~r '0Lher 'perenni~i 'c~6iV~'SUci{"a~' ~i{{~'-'or~ardsi· ~y ~an bi~ a i
perpetual Conservation easement over the parcel, restricting the building site to a 2-acre
envelope for one house or one winery. Approximately 46 newly planted and protected 20-acre
parcels have been created since the Plan's adoption in 1993.
In a second program in the South Livermore Area and within the SLVAP, property owners
seeking increased density ir/a designated area-negotiated TDCs from property owners in a
designated donor area. It has been reported that the development credits have sold for
approximately $60,000 tO $70,000 each? .
The South Livermore Area Plan/'DC program has been successful so far due to a combination
Of factors, including premium prices for rural residential estates in the scenic Livermore Valley,
the high value of Vineyards, the tradition of viticulture in the area, and the presence of the
Wente family, who has supported the program and offered vine prUving, har~.esting services, ';~
and technical advice. It will be a challenge to re-create the same market conditions in the West
Dublin Hills, unless there is a core group of landowners interested in establishing viticulture or
an equally valuable perennial crop in the Study Area.
On-Site TDC In Western Dublin Hills
An onsite TDC program could be considered in certain areas of the Western Dublin I-{ills if
there are some parcels that have the capacity to support additional development (receiver
areas), which if they meet certain criteria could be granted development permits in return for
dedicating permanent conservation easements over adjoining hillsides, ridgetops, and other
sensitive areas (sender areas). For an onsite TDC program to work it must show that the'
receiver areas can support the urban infrastm~cture without major environmental or visual
impacts, and furthermore, that the c.o. st of extending.City services to these areas is financially
feasible.
~0 "Options for Funding the Acquisition-of Open Space and Agricultural Land In Contra Costa County" prepared by
the Community Development Department 0ohn Kopcl-dk) fo~..th.e June 14, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors
Finance Committee.
21·
.o2$2rptLdoc
Open Space Preservation. Options,for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
. M2~i~afion Banks~
Mitigation banks are becoming one of the tools Used to meet endangered spedes mitigation
requirements. Mitigation banks are established by surveying resources md consulting with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicer the California Department.:of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Azmy
Corps of Engineers if wetlands are involved. After a ~eries of consultations, hhe regulating
agencies determine the types of habitat and endangered species mitigation that the bank can
support and the number and density of credits available for sale. Generally, Re land in'the
mitigation bankS must be-protected with a perpetual conservation easement granted to one, or
more, regulating agencies, and an endowment fund created for long-term habitat and species
monitoring.'
Once a mitigation hank has been. established and has received Permits from the re~a!ating
agencies, developers seeking mitigation for the Same type of habitat/species Preserved bythe
bank may purchase Credits at a.mutually negotiated price. The reg-ulating agencies prefer the
development requiring mitigation to be close to the mitigation bank, but some banks have been
atlbwed to mitigate for projects up to forty miles away and sometimes in a different county.
Mitigati°n banks have the advantage of protecting natural resources with private development-
related funds without the need to impose impact fees. Public agencies in the constm~on
business, e.g., Caltrans, sometimes need to purchase mitigation bank credits to n~tig~tefor
transportation projects. Mitigation banks can compensate landowners who, due to the
presence of endangered species on their properties, are unable to secure development permits.
The major disadvantages of mitigation banks are that they can take years of negotiation to
establish, and obtaining, agency permits can be a very time-cons~g process. Furthermore,'
even after receiving the right to.sell credits, the mitigation bank owner is vulnerable to Changes
in regulating agencypolicies and to real estate cycles. Another disadvantage of mitigation
banks &om the environmental perspective is the'uncertainty regarding the ability to preserVe a
unique habitat in the long term when it is isolated on a relatively small and unconnected piece
of property
OUTFIGHT FEE ACQUISITION
Direct acquisition is relatively simple t0 implement compared to some of the compensatory
regulation techniques described above. Willing seller acquisition programs have the advantage
of compensating affected landowners but the disadvantage of being expensive to the public, as
.the cost of conservation falls on the government. Financial prudence requires that the City
should attempt to achieve as.many open space objectives as possible using the regulatory
methods described ab6ve. However, some especially sig'nif-icant pieces of land may need
permanent protection. Also, strategic links in the regional trail system may need to be acquired
in order to complete the trails proposed in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan.
m Ibid.
22'
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for tb/e Western Dubtin EXtended Planning Area
rune 12, 2000
Fee acquisitions should be considered where more intense public use is required, such as for
stavMng areas and trailheads. Fee or easement acquisition, in willing Seller programs, must also
be .considered when regulation alone may. fail to protect the resource due to its proximity to
existing or planned future development, and when there kre no si~nificant physical or
economic constraints to development.
OPEN SPACE / AGRICULTURA FUNDING SOURCES
CITY GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES
Cities. can only le~7 .general faxes-specifically authorized by the state le~SI'ahn'e, such as
transient occupancy tax and property transfer tax. The resulting revenues will accrue to a
City's General Fund and thus compete with other programs for available dollars.
Const~ction Tax
A construction tax is a form of excise tax that is levied on new construction. The tax rate can be
based on a variety of measures as determined in the enabling te~slation, such as total square
footage or construction value, and can be levied on both residential and commercial
development. Enactx-n .ep~{ requires a t~vo-thirds vote ff the tax revenues are dedicated to a
spedal use.
Property Taxes .
In 1986, voters approved an amendment to Article XIIIA to permit property tax rate increases .-~
b~-a two-thirdS voter approval, but only to support general obligation bonds.-The major
problem with a general obligation bond is that the revenues can only be used for one-time
development or land acquisition costs and'not for maintenance or operations. However, a .
bond measure supporting open space/agricultttral acquisitions could be placed before Dublin
voters if sufficient voter support for an open space/ag-ricukural preservation bond measure
could be'raised..
ASSESSMENTS
Assessments are charges levied against real properly by cities and counties to finance the
construction or maintenance of public improvements. The passage of Proposition 218 requires
a majority voter approval among landowners within an assessment district.
Assessments must be levied in proportion to the direct benefit conferred upon the property,
and the benefit to the assessed property must be greater than the benefit received by the public
at large. As stated in Proposition 218, "no assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which
exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Once
a special assessment district is formed, the ]ocat authority may issue bonds'secured by the
23
R2$2rptI.dot
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for ~he Western Dublin Ext~ded Planning Area
lune 12, 2000
assessments. Assessments differ from impact fees in part because they may be levied on
exis~g development as well .as new development. The complicated procedural requirements
for ,establishing valid special assessment districts, combined with the need for a public vote,
make this an unattractive and administratively burdensome method of open space/ag-ricuttUral
preservation financing.
MELLO-ROOS CFD
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District ((ZFD) tax is a charge levied on properties in a
district to pay for public facilities that benefit district properties. Mello-Roos taxes can be used
for a greater range of projects and services tl~an assessments, including parks, schools, police,
and fire.services,. Unlike. general obligation bonds, Mello~Roos special tax revenues canalso.be
used for maintenance 'activities and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Approval. of a Melto-Roos district requires an election of two-thirds of the reg-istered voters in
the desig-nated area. However, the major/ty of Mello-Roos districts to date have been formed
under a provision, which permits district formation by the owners of two,thirds of the land ff
the district contains less than 12 voters.
The flexibility of a Mello-Roos CBT), in tha~ it can be used for both capital and operating '
expenses, makes this mechanism the most attractive option for open space/agi-icultural
preservation financing in the post ·Proposition 218 environment. It is relatively strai~hfforward
to establish and it can be used for a variety of services and facilities. For example, a CFD tax of
about $25 per household per year for the entire City of Dublin could raise about $200,000
annually on a pay-as-you-go basis for oPen space/agricultural land acquisition costs.3-~
iMPACT FEES
Impact fees are charges levied upon new development bY local governments to fund facility or
service requirements. Impact fees are commonly levied for facility improvements such as
parks, open space, roads, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and schools. Impact or
in-lieu fees may also be used for environmental mitigation under CEQA. Development
~-npacts, such as the loss of agricultural land aS documented during the environmental review
· process, may be partially mitigated by a -'
Based on 8~367 residential households in the City of Dublin'as of January 1, !999.
24
£~2~tI.d~
Draft Report
Open Space .Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
.June 12, 2000
variety of methods, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Impact/in-lieu fees are generally
charged on a one-time basis when the building permit or the certificate of occupancy is issued.
When a City institutes new fees for a park, open sp~e, or any other purpose, there must be a
consistent and logical link befween the standards of service established in the General Plan and
the projects being required to pay the fees. Fees that do not exceed the reasonable cost of
providing the.facilities.can be levied without a public vote. If the fees are not properly linked to
act-ual new faciiit~es required, they may be judged to be special taxes. Hence, impact fees
require that the enacting agency establish a formula within the enabling legislation, which
equates the new development with the need for expanded facilities.
Impact fees have a number of limitations as a financing technique, including:
- Impact fee receipts may not meet the timing need of the improvements. In addition, fees
may vary dramatically depending on the level of development and as such should not be
the sole source of revenue for debt payments on bonds.
- Impact fees increase the equity required which may, in iUrn, cause an increase in housing or
commercial prices, a reduction in land value, or result in a project not being financially
feasible.
The. City of Dublin plans .for about 14,000 new dwelling un/ts and 14.8 million new commercial
square feet between now and buildout in-2020.m Approximately 5,000 units have already been
approved. An open space in-lieu'fee of $1,000 t~r residential unit' for new development .in the
City, for example, could raise several million dollars for open space acquisitions in the Western
Dublin Hills ff the preservation of Western Dublin open space is deemed to be of cifywide
benefit through the City's General Plan.
General Funds
The City of Dublin could allocate a portion of any budget surpluses or unall0cated funds to
acquisition of fee interests or conservation easements in the Study Area. These funds could be
used as the local match often required by competitive statewide grant programs.~ The
advantage of using general funds is that it requires no voter approval; the disadvantage is that
these bands will have competing demands and cannot be a dedicated long-term funding source.
The City can also contribute towards an open space acquisition program by dedicating sta_ff
time and resources towards writing grant proposals and coordinating with conservation
organizatSons/agencies such as the EBRPD.
REGIONAL
Countywide or Tri-Valley Sales Tax
33 Projected housing units and commercial square feet based or~:.Land Available/or Development in Dublin, lacs/mile
/rom Carol Ch'ell/, Senior Planner, Dublin COmmunity Development Depm'hnent on February 14, 2000.
.o232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open SpaCe Preservation Opti°n$ for the WeStern DUbliiZ EXtended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Alameda County voters could suppori open space preservati°n by approving a'sales tax
increase for a regional conservation program as residents of Sonoma County have done. It is
estimated that if the current sales tax rate of 8.25 percent were increased by ~A cent, this could
raise about $46.3 million in annual revenueS? These/muds could be used for conservation
projectS all over the County, and Dublin could compete for a share of'these funds for
acquisitions in the Western Hills. Strong voter support and an excellent educational and
promotional campaign would be required to secure the necessary two-thirds vote.
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
The East Bay Regional park District has a'Iimited nUmber of' funds available for acquisit/ons of
fee or trail easementS in the Study Area; however, they are elig-i'ble for direct funding for the
Statewide conservation, bond because proposition 12 was approved bs; voters in March 2000.
The EBRPD can als° compete for 'statewide grants from resource agencies and from lvr/vate
foundations (see discussion of Proposition 12 below).
Tipping Fee Alameda County Waste Management
Starting January 1, 2001, ail entities disposing waste into the Altamont landf/ll could potentially
pay $1.25 per ton to mitigate Altamont's expansion. Final adoption of the $1.25 per ton fee is
scheduled March 2, 2000. Approximately $0.75 of $1.25 will be used for open space acquisition.
Of the $0;75 about 80 percent will be dedicated to the Eastern Area (region Undefined) and 20
percent dedicated to the Westem'Area.{region undefined). Annual revenues from tipping fees
are expected to be about$1.87 m~ltion, of.which approximately $3..12 million could be available
for open space acqui, sition.~S Distribution of revenue collected for open space acquisition is
unknown but will be based on the decisions by an advisory committee consisting of a
representative from Livermore, Pleasanton, and the Sierra Club. Half of the remaining $0.50 fee
will fund the City of Livermore's Performing Arts Center, while the other $0.25 will fund
recycling and diversion educational program and job training.36
~ "Agricultura/Enhancement and Open Space Conservation in the Tr/-Valley - A Research Report" by Bill
Eisenstein/or the Tri-Valley Business Council, August 1999, page 3Z
~ Based on Alameda County Waste Management District's revenue of $27,000 to $29,000 per quarter from the $0.075
per ton tax rate according to R0n Gee of ~e Alameda County. ~g E~epartm ,cut, F~bruary 14, 2000.
~ Telephone conversation with Ron Gee, Alameda County Planning DePm~hu,ent Feb. 3/2000,
26
9232rl~t I.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
STATE
The last park bond act approved by voters in California was .the 1988 Proposition 70 Wildli'fe,
Coastal, and Park Land Conservation, which funded $776 million for conservation and
recreation acquisitions and improvements..With Proposition 70 funds alt' expended, California
voters were asked to approve another park and open space bond on the March 2000 ballot.
Proposition.12 - the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2000 contains $826.:5 million for local and regional parks.. Since approval of this
bond measure bY voters in March, the EBRPD and/or the City may apply for ~ants for .the
protection of key resources in the Western Dublin Hills. Proposition 12 specificalIy contains the
following funds that could potentially be used for acquisition of fee interests and/or trail
easements in the Study Area for the proposed Dublin Hills .Open Space Regional Preserve and
for portions'of the Calaveras Ridge Trail:
· Per capita pants to EBRPD - $9 million
· Roberti-Z'berg Harris ~ants to EBRPD for acquisition and development of local Parks and
recreational lands and facilities - $5.4 million
· Coastal Conservancy San FrancisCo Bay Area Conservancy - $55 million
· Competitive Statewide g-rants - $266 million
· California Department of Parks and Recreation ~ants to local agendes for non-motorized
trails - $10 million
· Unallocated funds Statewide - $7.5 million
· California oak woodlands - $5 million
FEDERAL
The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The.~.and &.Water Conservation FU~d.' .(.L.W..CE..).is a.F~der~ source ..that is funded by outer-
continental shelf lease revenues and royalties. Its bands are allocated throug~ four Federal
agencies: the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service;
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A portion of the National Park Service funds are then
distributed to states, which are then allocated to local jurisdieri°ns (counties, ciries, and park
and recreation districts). The "stateside" allocation of the LWCF has not been funded since
1995. . ..-
Prior to t995, the National Park Service g-rants were designated for the acquisition,
development, or rehabilitation of neighborhood, community, or regional parks, or facilities
supporting outdoor recreation activities. Past g-rants have been as high as $5.5 million bur have
averaged, approximately $70,000. No more than 50 percent of a project could be federally
financed, although exceptions were sometimes made. Local governments would seek funding
from their state government, administered through
27
£232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation OptiOns for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 22, 2000
the state's comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Although the Fund often earns more than
$900 million annually from leases and royalties, in recent years CongreSs has diverted a
substantial portion of this.funding to deficit reduction and other programs.
However, after years of resistance, Congress voted to allocate $465 million for FY 2000, of
which $40 million is made available for state matching grant money, which state and local
govermnents can then use to protect land and create or improve recreational opportunities
locally. The EBRPD and the City of. Dublin could apply for the State matching grants through
the LW .CF; however, 'competition for these funds will be intense.
Urban Parks & Recreation RecoVery Act
The Urban Parks & Recreation Recovery Act (LrpAR/<) was created in the 1960s as an urban
"arm" of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)~' 'Lik'e"the LW~"~~"}ia's received
no appropriations in the past several years. When fully funded, UPARR had, at the national
level, approximately $100 million annually to allocate directly to local jurisdictions for
provision and rehabilitation of community parks in the urban core, especially in tow income
communities. Congress voted to allocate $2 million for UPARR in FY 2000. Competition for
these funds will be intense, and Dublin may be too suburban and too well-off to 'qualify.
Better America Bonds
Another component of the t-~l~nton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative includes a
proposed new financing authority called Better America Bonds (BABs), which are tax-exempt
bonds that h. md environmental enhancement projects. This bonding authority 'would be
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and would be allocated
through an annual competition open to state and local governments. The bonding authority
would be limited to $1.9 billion annually for five years, beginning in 2000. Holders o£ ~/ne 15-
year bonds would' receive F'ederal income tax credits.
The Belier Arne_r. ka Bonds program is in~en.ded to assist local governments assume the massive
financial burdens of major environmental projects which have widely diffused public benefits.
Funding would go to projects in four program areas: (1) restoration of urban Parks; (2) clean up
of abandoned industrial sites in the urban core; (3) acquisition of permanent easements on
suburban open space; and (4) protection of wetlands and nat-ural flood zones.
Qualifying. purpdses for BABs would include:
· Acquisition of land for open space, wetlands, public parks, or greenways to be owned by
an issuer or a 50t(c)(3) entity. (Acquisition of land and facilities would only be eli~ble if
they were available for use by members of the general public.)
· Acquisition of permanent easements to protect land from development.
· Consh-uction of visitor facilities, such as campgrounds and hiking/biking trails, in
connection with acquired land or other open space.
28
Draft Report
Ope~ Space pres~a:~n~ons for ~.,W....es~em Dublin ~.:~ .tended Ptanning~Area
June 12, 2000
Re~ediatio~..Of,~.~?~a. ~ce ~a!t~r ::ffualj.ty..,;.control erosion, q~.~r .em~diat? for. toxic
Environmerital.assessment. an.cl remectiation of lvroPe~ o~ned by State, or.local
government due to abandonment by'the prior owner,..~/or ~e purp~s.es of establishing
public open space.
The Better America Bonds proposal is currently before Congress as p~-°f ~:,~ton
Administration's proposed budget Applications would be reviewed by the EPA in
conjunction with the Community Empowerment Board and in consultation with other Fedef~aI
agendes. Issuers of the bonds must have a reasonable expectation that 95 percent of the
proceeds ~at the P~0je~t or
propert} vr :6~en sp~e f~:: ~ :i~S~' ~":.Y'ear~.
Transp0r~aCion. Equit'Y 'Adt f0~?:the .2~.,st Cent' (TEAJ21) '
The t~t~rm0;~al ~r~6e Transportation E~ai~ements ~ A) was reauthorized in ~998 as
TEA-21, with expansion of many existing "Enhancements" project categories and addition of
several new ones. TEA-2t is the Federal government's comprehensive,.transp0 ,,r~tion ffun ~din. g
package. The potential for urban parks trading in this context is generally limited to' bicYcle
and pedest~-ian, traits~and pr~je~ that direcfly.~ga~e the impac~ of: a .tr-anspC~a..tion~related
to DubS:in as$O~ation.~ithany i!~58ff,~pr0~ement ~jects~
The Recreational Trails Program, the most relevant funding area, funds up to 80 percent of
project costs on a wide range of motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Funds are
administered by the Calffo~a Department of Parks and Recreation, which in 1998 had $4.2
million to disburse ($2.9 for non-motorized trails and $1.3 million for motorized trails). The
maximum grant to date has been about $400,000, while most grants average about $140,000.
Future grant proposal deadlines will be October 1st each year for the next four years. The
EBRPD and/or the City of Dublin could apply for flmds to help complete the Western Dublin
Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
GRANTS/OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES
-PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
There are a variety of grant programs and other funding sources for open space/agricultural
acquisition. Certain 'foundations offer funds for purchasing conservation easements on
agricultural land. The Packard Foundation, for example, offers grants for agricultural
preservation under their Conservation Program's Transactions Grants. The Conservation
Pro,am has an emphasis on acquisitions of agricultural land over 1'00 acres in size in
undeveloped or rapidly developing areas. The new five-year Conserving California's
Landscapes Initiative designates $175 million over a five-year period for acquisitions, in :f°Ur
regions. ~'§toricalty;"Che Foundation has Concen~a~ed:its charitable'giving to. acquisitions · ·
5'" . ':" "~ ~ ,'' ' ~ i~'.'- ',. ' ' '.'"' ~
9232r~tT.do¢
· Dra~ Report
Open Space Preser°ation Opffons for the Western DUblin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
along the Central Coast and' in the Sierra repons. The Foundation's geOgraphic interests are
expected to expand in future years and could potentially include parts of Alameda Couni'y.
Other foundations that have given funding for land conservation are the Hewlett, Irvine,
Wallace Genetic, and Heller C~aritable Foundafions?
PRIVATE SOURCES
GIFTS
Individuals and'corporations can make gifts of fee and less-than-fee interests/or open
space/agricultural protection. Typically, ~fts are made o£ the fee interest or development
rights. ~le this' m~y'or'may not be a prime motiVati'~g'i0rce~' SUbstantial ~ax advantages may
accrue ~o those who make such gifts. Sales at less than market value..(bargain sales) can also
offer these advan.tages. Gifts can be received by both public and private nonprofit agencies.
DONATIONS AND GRA_N/S
The City ei.ther independently or working in concert with a land trust can solicit donations and
grants Irom pr/vate individUals and corporations. A/though such grants and donations may
not generate large sums, a program to solicit donations and grants wiI] be valuable to create
public awareness and involvement in open space/agricultural land protection.
"Agricultural Enhancement and Open Space Conservation 'm..the Tri-~Valley - A Research Report ' by Bill
Eisenstein for the Sierra Business Council, August 1999, page 45-49.
30
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options.for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
IV. WESIE DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION FR_AMEWORK.,
As described in the previous.chapter there are a variety o£ open space preservation techniques
and'banding sources used to pres~erve open space and agricultural lands in California. It is
'important to match the tool to the problem, as described in some of the case studies, as not ali
techniques are appropr/ate for all situations. Funding sources for acquisition of easements or
fee ownership should be matched to the resource to be.protected and the benefit area of the
protected resource. D/fferent funding options apply to the various beneficiaries of open space
preservation.
· New DeveloVment. New development that creates demand for open space resources and
impacts existing open space may be charged a fee for open .sPace mitigation. Therefore,
new development in the City could be charged..a development impact fee for open space
and trail acquisitions. However, it is important that the fee not jeopardize the financial
feasibility of future development projects, and that if'meet the legal requirement for a
'~nexus" - i.e., that there be a supportable relationship between the'impact and the level of
the fee. '
· Ci _.tywide. To the extent that the whole City of Dublin benefits from the protect/on of their
viewSof the Western Hills and can enjoy access, to the area through a trail system, a.
Citywide funding source could be created, such as an open space and trail., acquisition bond
measure or a Citywide parcel tax. These measures would reqv3re the Support of Dublin
voters,
Re~onal. For lands with regional. significance, such as trails that can link existing and
future regional parks with City parks, matching funds could be sought from're~onal
agencies, such as the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). Funding for regional
part/cipa~ion may come from voter-approved bond issues or other agency funding sources.
Based on preliminary research on land values in the area, it is estimated that property vatue~
may range from $2~500.in more remote areas to $10,000 for gram'.ng land close to the City of
Dublin. If all 3,100 acres in the Study Area were acquired outrighL this could cost in the range
of $7.8 mill/on to $31 million. It:is not realistic to consider acq~Sition of.the entire Study Area,
as not ali property owners will want to. sell, and this magrdtude of fi.rods, ak' least at the higher
end of the range/is not likely to be raised. Therefore, some combination of land Use reg~lhtion,
compensatory regulation, and acquisition will be required.
31
Draft Report
OPen Space.Preservation OPtions for the Western Dublin Ex~ended Planning Area
june 12, 2000
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS _M D OPEN SPACE RESOURCES BY
SUBAREA
The land in the Study' Area can be described according to the degree of physical constraints to
development, such as existing rural residential uses or steep slopes, and the resource values for
recreation, scenic view shed, or community-separator and greenbelt. Based on these criteria
there are two significant.subareas within the Study Area: (1) the area located between the
Dublin City limits and Skyl'me Ridge (the Eastern Zone); and (2) the area located between Eden
Canyon Road and Skyline Ridge (the Western Zone) as shown in Figure IV-1. The
development constraints and open space resources are described below for each subarea.
EAS~RN ZONE
There are approximately 937 acres in the Eastern Zone..This zone is boUnded on the west by a
major north-south scenic ridge, known as Skyline Ridge, on the east by the Dublin City limits,
on the north by Divide Ridge along the Alameda/Contra Costa CoUnty line, and on the south ·
by Plansen Ranch, EBRPD open space, and Schaefer RanCh. The area is dominated by Skyline
Ridge, which runs &om Donlan Point in the south and Divide Ridge in the nOrth, and has
elevations up !o 1,300 ~eet and two 1,000door foothills dose. to the. Dublin City limits. In
between' the ridge and the l'dIIs are areas of woodland and coastal scrub, and a significan,t
portion has slopes over 30 percent. Most of this Zone is used for cattle grazing and ranching
operations.
According to maps p.r..epared for the Western Dublin Specific Plan, there are pockets of deep-
seated landslides .that run in a northwestern direction stretching/rom an areh somewhere south
of Brittany'Lane towards Skyline Ridge. A portion of the area just south of Brittany Lane is
belowthe 770-/oot elevation line and could theoretically be developed ff City services were
extended fi:om the City limits and development was sited to avoid the landslide areas and the
slopes exceeding 30 percent? The Eastern Zone, while having sigrd~-icant constraints to
development, .is also the most accessible area with at least three. Dublin City .streets that stub
into iL
The proposed alignment for the Western Dublin Hills seg-ment of the Calaveras Regional Trail
traverses the spine of Skyline Ridge in the Eastern Zone. Therefore, the Eastern Zone, which
includes the EBRPD property, offers the greatest opportuni.ties .for creating regional recreational
resources and linkages to existing local and regional parks. The Eastern Zone also serves as a
community separator between Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley, and if preserved would
create a permanent greenbelt on the western edge of the City. This area is most visible from the
western Dublin neighborhoods and would be most affected if a portion of the Eastern Zone
Were developed.
~ ~surnes the-770-foot elevation cap in the Eastern Extended Planning _&rea CPA 98-029) applies to the twO
subareas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
32
9252rpt2.doc
Appendix A
Lnndowtlare Itl lite Woataru Dublhl t:.xlondad Plnnnh.lg Aron
Weal Dublh! Open 8pace Plaoalvntlotl 8(t'ntegy
No. API~ Ownar Name
I:~mllhtg, Lemayno.
fimtllng. Lmuo~a
Cronhl Heights Mile~tone Pm~ershlp
Dnvllla ~llllOny H &'~el~ Russell A
On~lla fido. OB.yon'Finally Pail.o/aa
Unvllla Eden au.yon Family
Davllla Eden Canyon Famll~ Pmln~l~a
Uavllla Eden ~an~on ffmnlly Pm~mlaa
Davllla Eden O~nvon Family Pmlnelea
Davltla Eden Canyon FmnliF Pmln~lea
Dublin Snn Rsmon ~e~Icea Dlshlcl
Es~l Bay Roglonal ~mk Dbhlcl
Eael Day ~egl~nl Pink Dbldcl
East Bay Re~onnl Pink Dlshlct
East Bay HaOle.el Park Dlshlct
Easlw~d. Joseph
Eas~ood, Joseph
Eae~, Joseph
Eastwo~, Joseph
EBslw~, doeoph
Loveland,
Lavelend, Ray
Laveland, Ray
Loveland, Roy --'
Madmda John
Medtada dohn~
Me~mdo J~a~ g ' '
Mncllado Joh.
Madmdo Jd~n
Madmdo Manual J
Madmdo Manuel J
Meals Catdell~r
Nielsen Harold T and Nlcei Robed
Nlatsen Harold T and ~lc~, Robed
Hlelsen Harold T and Alice, Robml
Nielsen Rand~ pmlnemldp
Nielsen Rand~ paflne~sldp
Nleben Rand~ Pmlnmshlp ,
Nielsen Randl Padnmshlp '
Nielsen Rand~ Pmhtelshlp
Vanv~dd91homes
~edomonn J~lhey
Wlademann Jelhey O & Nancy ~r
(I) 34.83
10.75
597.00
30.00
t oo.oo
247.20
147.O4
4o~38
o.51
69.0o
14.~
(t) o~.~e
(I} 0.41
0;t g
(I) ~.15
(I) sl.4~
4~
20;03
72;03
~2~05
6.~6
106.16
I~.~
1~4.29
1~.~
Total ~.lOl.P.g
.l
galen ..~ 9alas Pllee/
Uela ' Price Aefe
Land glUg Talal
Pro
Pro 1065
lO/04/09
12/o4/01
· 08/21194
o0rJl/94
09/21/94
00/21/94
00/21/94
06/21/94 '
07119/65
12/15/98
12/18/90
12/19/98
12/15/90
Pro 1988
Plo 1988
12/10/90
Plo 1969
12/1(:~90
Pie 1988
Pie 1996
02/22/0:~
0~03
0~93
0~83
o~83
o~63
o~83
O~Olt89
o~gg $277,4~
0~06/99
0B~Bf95
00~0/86 $270~6~,
0O~U/9~
00~8/85 $270~6~
05/01/97
0~9/94
0~9/94
$0
So
5o
-50
$o
So
So
$o
$o
$o
SO
So
, $0
$o
· $0
So
So
STOa
$700
S~08
$1,304
51,904
$l,304
$o
$o
$144,403
$100,395
$703,000.
$10,~46
5839,992
$81,204
5213,441
$:Z77,78 I
$111,200
$31,880
82,462
5o
$o
S 153,537
$912
$390
$ I
$41,So8
$5,230 '
$195,732
826;592
$125,B~
$7,025
$40,980
$8.202'
$27,292
837,692
524,910
$2611411
$ 1,905
$87,982
$39,822
$224,443
523;94~
581,974
$70,048
$ I 1,603
So46
$0 $144,483
$50,000 $240;309
SO $703,000
$0 $10,240
$9 I,:~67 $737,259
$0 $81,2O4
84,108 $2!7,949
$425 $270,2oe
So
$o $o
. ~o
~o $o
$0 5912
$0 $399
· $o S;1
$o
,So
$o
$i8,~' $ZI3~?32
$o ~40,66o
$0 ~$6,202
831,724 ~5~,970
$0 $24,016
$0 $261',4tl
$O
S0
$0
$0 $2~4,443
$o $70,g48
$0 811,663
$0 $e4e
$4,OI8,30:? $221,9G0 $4',.237,322
Wllllemson
Yes{
Yes
Yea
Bldg.
9qft.
2,262
2,230
701
1,359
1,299
Yenr
1924
{ I) Pmcels split In Igg9 acco[ding 1o the Alameda County A~sessor. -:
Sources: First/~flerlean I:laal Estale Golu0ons: City al Debit. Planning DepaHmenl: ~afnoda Coutdy Assessm~ allies;
Economlo & Plminlng 9yslem9, Ina, - · ~ . ~
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
· W F~TERN ZONE
There are approximately 2,164 acres in the Western Zone, which is bounded on the west by
Eden Canyon Road, on the east by Sk-71ine Ridge, on the north by Divide Ridge and the
Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and on the south bY'Schaefer Ranch and the 1-580
Corridor. Divide Ridge, with elevations up to 1,600 feet, forms a scerfic backdrop to the Study
Area frc~m which one can see views of Tassajara Valley and Mount Diablo to the east and views
of the Western Dublin Hills and Pieasanton Ridge to the west and south.
The Western Zone is characterized by the roiling Palomares Hills and woodland and coastal
scrub in Eden Canyon, border~.ng on the 1-580 corridor, and in a central core area. Eden Creek
runs at the bosom of Eden Canyon. Oa~ Ridge, wl-dch has elevations up to 1,000 feet, runs
north-south fr°m the' i-$80 cOrridOr 'to Div/de ~dge arid f0rms the eastern sid'e o'f: Eden Canyon.'
There are afew existing rural residential properties in the southwest comer of this Zone. The
remainder of the Western Zone has steep slopes over 30 percent, several deep-seated
landslides, patches of woodland and coastal scrub, and a few canyons under the 770door
elevation line. A sib:mfficant port/on of this Zone is used for cattle g-razing and ranchin'g
operations.. Approximately .537 acres, conSisting of two separate ownerships, are under
Williamson Act contracts.
The Western Zone has limited access to City services, except potentiallY for those properties
bordering on Schaefer Ranch, which is the City limit on the southern boundary of the Zone.
The Western Zone is or/ented more towards Castro Valley than towards Dublin, since schoots
and other urban services are provided by the unincorporated commurrity of Castro Valley..
While access could be gained f~om Eden Canyon Road, there is unincorporated .land on either
side, and therefore extension o..f backbone infrastructure would be expensive and inefficient_
PRESERVATION STRATEGY MATRIX
The open space preservation goals identified for the Study Area by the City can be
implemented through application of reg'ulatory and acquisition techniques. While many
variations of such a prog-ram are po~ssible, a conceptual knplementation strategy has been
developed for each of the three subareas by resource type. This strategy can serve as a basis for
developing and implementing a preserva, tion prog-ram for the W. estem Dublin Extended
Planning Area. A narrative summary of the recommendations was presented in Chapter
Table I-V-1 provides a detailed description of the strategy, linldng specific' preservation options
discussed in this report to the unique open space resources found in each of the sub-areas, as
described above.
3~
9~2rptI.doe
Table IV-1
Open Space PreServatlott Stralegles mid Cost. Alloe~tlou aud Funding
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Study ~,
5pace ~trategy
hnplementallon Strategy
Assumed Flnmrchrg All Dublin
Cost Meollenlsm Resldenis
Distribution o! Costs
New Dublin
Developmenl
Cll~vlde
Regional/
Other
Eastern Zone
Ridge Topes & Slopes >30%
Canyon Floors below 770 (eel (1)'
Regional Open Space Presewe
Internal 'i'ransler el Developnmlfl
Credit (TDO) Program
Prohibit developmen[ on slopes >30%,
& ridge tops (sender areas) maintain base
zoning ti.e,, minimum lot size 10o acres),
Require dedleallon el conservation easements
over areas above 770 elevation line.
Requite dedication el trail easements to link
wllh regional trail on Skylhm Ridge.
Allow limited resldenilal development
(assuming a mia. lot size of 0.25 acres)
below 770 loot elevation line providing building
silos avoid creep Slopes & landslide
areas {receiver areas). Employ de,sign
standards to limit visual Impact on adjacent
neighborhoods,
Fee ac. qulsltlen el 150 acres to complete
EBRPD's proposed Regional Preserve In the
Western Dublin I-fills Opel] ~ pace
150
$0
Sgoo,ooo (2)
Dedication for
Increased Denslly
Bonus.
nla
TDO n/a n/a Wa
25% 50%
$225,0g0 $450,000
Grants/State Bonds/ 25%
Local special lax/ $225,000
In-lieu developer lees
Regional Trails
Visual Buffer
Acquire trail easemenfs to completi~
.regional trail linkages as described
In the EBRPD leg7 Master Plan,
Protect views hem Skylh, m Ridge by prey ding
adequate buffers.
$1,soo (3)
$0
Grants/Glare Bonds/ 25%
Local!special lax/ $375
In-lieu developer lees
25% 50%
$375 $760
n/a Wa
I ~:t~232Eubflddtnt~fralolTy. xhj
Table IV-1
Open Space Preservation Strategies.mid Cost Allocation and Funding
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Study '
Subarea/Opell
8pace Strategy
hlll~iem~t~latlon Gtrategy
A~te
A99tlllmd'
Fhmnclng
Mechalllsm
Distribution o! Cost9
All Dublin New Dublin Regional/
Residents Development Olhar
Cltywlde
Westsrli Zoll'a
Total Cost: Pareontag~
Ramovs Imm city Sphere ol Influence (SOl)
SD
n/a n/a
loo%
25% 25% 50%
Total Cost; Alnount ·
$g01,.500
$225,375 $22§,375 $450,750 ·
1) Assumes Ihs elavallon ~ep Irt the Ess=mn Zone a. nd Weslem Zone Is 770-1'eel, shnllat lo the elevation sap (PA g8-029, Rosolullon ! t4-ga) In the Easlern Exlended Planning A{aa.
2) Assumes an average land ecs= et about 8,000 per acre.
9) Assumes a 20-too! wide access easement totaling 1.S acres will be aequli-ed lot Ihs EBRPD ~eglonal trolls lot S t,O00 pm eom.
City al Dublin, East I~ay Regional Park Dlshlct [EBRPD), EConomla & Planrdftg Systems° Ina.
.L~tra lg{/},.xl! .
· Draft Report
Open Space P~'eservation Options for ~e Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
]urte 12, 2000
V. LEGAL VALIDATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The preservation strategy presented in this report must be thorougI-dy investigated by the City
Attorney as to' its. legality. Should the City. Council decide to pursue open space preservation in
the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, any specific approach will be evaluated in detail.
37
9232rpt1.doc
- 'Economic .& .. :.
Planning Systems
Public Finance
Real Estate Economics
Regional Economics
Land Use Policy
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
October 10, 2001
EPS 10274
ATTACHMENT~,2~
RECEIVED
OCT 1 ! Z001
DUBUN PLANI~
BERKELEY SACRAMENTO
2501 Ninth Street. Suite 200 phone: 510-841-9190 "~%? phoue: 916-649-8010
Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 fax: 510-841-9208 fax: 916.649-2070
www.epsys.com
DENVER
phone: 303-575-81 !2
t~x: 303~623-1294
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
II:
III.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Background .................................................................................................................... 1
ACQUISITION OPTION .................................................................................................... 5
LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OPTION .................................................................................. 9
IV. FUNDING SOURCES ........................................................................ : .............................. 17
V. ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................... 22
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
PAGE
Table 1 Development Cost Estimates for Concept A ....................................................... 14
Table 2 Development Cost Estimates for Concept B ......................................................... 15
Table 3 Residual Value Analysis for Concepts A and B ................................................... 16
Figure 1: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Regional Context ........................ 3
Figure 2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area ........................................................ 4
Figure 3: Concept "A" Land Plan .................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Concept "B' Land Plan ..................................................................................... 13
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
I. INTRODUCTION
This Implementation Report provides the City of Dublin with findings and an action
plan related to open space preservation in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
(Extended Planning Area). Following review of an earlier report rifled Open Space
Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area (May 2000) and the
subsequent passage of Measure "M," a growth control initiative that requires voter
approval for future annexations and development in the Extended Planning Area, the
City Council directed staff to study options for creating permanent open space in the
eastern portion of the Area.
Specifically, two options were set forth for further study: 1) public acquisition of
targeted properties to create permanent open space (Acquisition Option); and 2)
permitting partial development in selected portions of the Extended Planning Area in
exchange for open space easements elsewhere in the Area (Limited Development
Option). The action plan also addresses open space funding and other aspects of
implementation.
BACKGROUND
The Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is an unincorporated area lying
immediately west of the existing City limits and bounded by the communities of
Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley. Because this area, extending westward to Eden
Canyon Road, is within the City's "Sphere of Influence" as designated by the Alameda
Local Agency Formation Commission, it is an area that could be annexed by the City.
Over the past 20 years portions of the area have been considered for development. For
example, Schaefer Ranch was annexed to the City during the 1990's and development
approvals were granted at that time. Development of Schaefer Ranch has been delayed,
however, by Federal regulatory requirements associated with threatened and
end.angered species.
The Extended Planning Area consists of approximately 3,100 acres of rangeland with a
series of ridges and canyons, including a number of rural residential units. Interstate
580 creates the southern boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line sets the northern boundary, Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the
Dublin City limits are on the east. The regional setting of the Extended Planning Area is
shown in Figure 1.
On February 16, 1999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General
Plan Amendment Study of those properties within the City of Dublin sphere of
influence lying west of the existing City limits, and also to submit a measure to the
voters for adoption of an Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the Extended Planning Area.
1
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
Dublin voters approved the measure in November of 2000, creating a ULL along the
City limits and designating lands west of the ULL as Rural Residential/Agriculture in
the Dublin General Plan. This land use designation limits new development to one unit
per 100 gross acres for the next 30 years if the property is annexed to the City, unless
voters approve a variance from this regulation. The intent of the ULL is to protect
natural resources in this area, and to restrict further development in the western hills, by
directing future development to other areas of Dublin that are less constrained and
where urban services can be provided in a more efficient manner.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study initiated in 1999, the City Council also
requested that an open space preservation study be conducted in order to consider
options for permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for
compensating landowners who could potentially be affected by the proposed ULL.
The resulting Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning
Area (Options Report) contained open space preservation strategies that were presented
in a series of public meetings, and were ultimately presented to and received by the
Dublin City Council in June of 2000.
EPS was subsequently retained to prepare this Implementation Report to examine
options for acquiring, or otherwise preserving, targeted open space within the Extended
Planning Area. As per City Council direction, this Report focuses upon a portion of the
Extended Planning Area generally lying west of the major ridgeline. Figure 2 indicates
the location and ownerships comprising this Study Area in the context of the broader
Extended Planning Area. Most of this Study Area is privately owned-with the
exception of about 160 acres owned by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) --
and is zoned by the County of Alameda as "Agricultural" which sets a minimum parcel
size of 100 acres. Four large ownerships make up the Study Area including properties
owned by the Nielsen family, John Machado, and the Milestone Partnership.
2
Implementation Report
.Figure 1:
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Regional. Context
Contra Costa
County
Syoawore V~ Open Spac
Re ional Trail
county Boundary
Line
PG&E
Power Lines
I* 580
Alameda
County
0 2 4
Miles
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
h:~9232dubltmaps~fig-II-1.wor
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
3
Figure 2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Alameda
C, out'~ty
Contra '~
County
Davilla/Fields
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
Wiedemann
Bartling & Davilla Canyon
Eastwood III ip
Sch
M(
1-
580
Regional Parks Land to be Acquired
eted Acquisition Properties~_~.__. * Machado Property Already Acquired
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Miles
h:110274dublmapsVig_ll_2, wor
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
II. ACQUISITION OPTION
This report provides additional detail and precision to topics discussed in the original
Options Report. This research and analysis is based on the two options selected by the
City Council (Acquisition and Limited Development), and includes a real estate
appraisal, geotechnical development feasibility, and funding analysis.
As a part of the earlier Report, a general estimate of land values, based on comparable
land sales in the area was made. For this Implementation Report, a formal appraisal
was commissioned to improve the confidence in the land value estimates. The appraisal
was conducted by Roland H. Burchard & Associates, a firm with extensive experience in
appraising rural lands in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY
Appraisals were conducted on the Nielsen Ranch and Cronin Heights properties to
ascertain the fair market value and highest and best use of each property. A similar
analysis was attempted for the John Machado properties; however, access was not
granted by the owner to perform this evaluation. A supporting Technical Report titled
Appraisals Dublin Hills Land (June 2001) has been prepared, which shows the detailed
assumptions and land comparables that informed the appraisals.
The properties studied as part of this analysis are located within the City of Dublin's
Sphere of 'Influence in the northern portion of central Alameda County. The area is
comprised of rural agricultural lands adjacent to residential development. The subject
properties are located within a semi-rural agricultural neighborhood that is dominated
by steep topography and offers limited vehicular access. In general, these properties
have reasonable appeal for either agricultural use or "ranchette" subdivisions, but have
no appeal for speculative urban development in the near future.
Because of the roiling to steep topography of the properties, the current General Plan,
"Measure M," and zoning, and the lack of infrastructure, urban residential
development is considered highly speculative for these properties, and is discounted by
the market. The reason the urban residential development is considered highly
speculatiVe is because the properties are outside both the city limits and the ULL.
Urban deYelopment of any of the properties would require annexation into the City of
Dublin, a General Plan Amendment, environmental impact reports, and a voter
referendUm approving the development plan. In addition, public infrastructure
including roads, water, sewer, and electricity would need to be provided.
5
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
APPRAISAL METHODS
The fair market value estimates reported in this analysis are based upon comparable
land sales of properties in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties between 1998 and 2001.
A review of other agricultural and ranchette'sales in the Tri Valley area indicate average
to good demand overall since January 2000, with a slow down in the time since January
2001. Each of the eight comparable land sales studied was also agriculturally zoned
property with dirt road access and partial or no utilities. Comparable land sales range
from roughly $3,200 per acre for parcels with poor access and steep topography to
$15,000 per acre for sites in expensive equestrian estate areas with good access and
gently roiling topography. The only comparable sale which took place within the same
neighborhood as the subject properties sets the low end of the price range at $3,200 per
acre, reflecting the limited access, remote location, and steep topography of that
property.
The highest and best use 'of each property is defined as the most profitable likely use to
which a site could be put, or that use of the land which may reasonably be expected to
produce the greatest net return to the land over a given period of time. Evaluating the
highest and best use of a property requires consideration of current zoning, the General
Plan for the property and area, future planning aspects, the character of surrounding
development, site constraints, and market characteristics including supply and demand
for varying property uses.
PROPERTY SUMMARY
Nielsen Ranch Property
This property is comprised of six assessor parcels owned by the Nielsen Ranch
Partnership, et al. Located adjacent to existing residential subdivisions within the City,
the Nielsen Ranch property is situated along the western side of the City limits and
south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. It is within unincorporated Alameda
County and within Dublin's Sphere of Influence. The portion of the property that
extends into Contra Costa County was not included in the appraisal.
The Nielsen Ranch property consists of 444 acres of land with rolling to steep
topography ranging in elevation from 600 along the southeast edge to nearly 1,500 feet
at the northerly end. The ridges and steep canyons produce a number of slopes over 30
percent grade. Access to the property is provided from the end of Brittany Drive and
Brittany Lane, as well as Martin Canyon Road, which offers limited access to both the
north and south ends of the property (See Figure 2).
Currently used for cattle grazing, the property is zoned by the County for agricultural
use with a minimum lot size of 100 acres. Uses permitted by this zoning designation
include a range of agricultural uses as well as a single home site. In light of its zoning
designation and current market conditions, the highest and best use of the subject
Implementagon Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
property is for agricultural or ranchette use, with a potential of legal lots for four home
sites. Continuation of its current use as a ranch, including cattle grazing and other
agricultural uses, falls within the parameters of the highest and best use.
Cronin Heights Property
Owned by the Cronin Heights Milestone Partnership, this property is located adjacent
to existing open space, and is situated along the northwest side of the Dublin City
Limits and south/southwest of the Nielsen Ranch and Alameda/Contra Costa COunty
line (See Figure 2). The property consists of 176 acres of agricultural land that ranges in
elevation from 600 to 1,000 feet and features a series of ridges and steep canyons, with
many slopes exceeding 30 percent grade. Currently used for cattle grazing, the property
is accessed via an easement across the Nielsen Ranch property that connects to Martin
Canyon Road.
The property is zoned by the County for agricultural use, which limits building sites to
lots of 100 acres or more. In addition to a range of agricultural uses, a single family
home would also be permitted under the zoning designation. Given the uses permitted
by zoning as well as market conditions, the highest and best use of this property is for a
single home site or for continued use as a ranch, including cattle grazing and other
agricultural uses.
John Machado Property
The John Machado property consists of five individual assessor parcels located within
the unincorporated area of Dublin's Sphere of Influence in Alameda County
immediately north of Schaefer Ranch and south of existing East Bay Regional Park
Districts open space and the Cronin Heights property (See Figure 2). The property
consists of 147 acres of land with rolling to steep topography and elevations ranging
from 800 to approximately 1,100 feet. There are also a series of ridges and steep
canyons, with many sloped areas over 30 percent grade.
The Machado property is zoned for agricultural use, and has been utilized for
agricultural purposes only. The County's agricultural zoning carries a 100-acre
minimum lot size requirement, and permits a range of agricultural uses, as well as
single home sites, since the property is in excess of 100 acres. Given this zoning
designation and current market conditions, the highest and best use of this property is
for agricultural or ranchette use. Its continued use as a ranch with cattle grazing fits in
well with the highest and best use. Because access to the property was not granted by
the owner, no appraisal was completed for the Machado property. The East Bay
Regional Park District has conducted an appraisal of this property for potential
acquisition for the Regional Trail.
Land Value Summary
A review of comparable land sales, which varied in size from 58 to 400 acres, suggest
that that per acre costs for the subject properties could range in price from $3,145 to
Implementaffon Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
$14,675. The average price per acre of comparable land sales is $8,485; however, both
the steep topography and limited access of the subject properties likely render these
properties less valuable. In total, the value associated with all 860 acres of the Nielsen
Ranch, Cronin Heights, and Machado properties is likely to be in the range of $3 to $7
million.
8
lmplementaffon Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
III. LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
The potential for allowing some development in the Extended Planning Area was'
included in the earlier Report and identified for further study by the City Council. The
key issue for estimating the target properties' development potential is the geotechnical
physical limitations of the area, given its hilly and generally steep topography and its
history of unstable soils and landsliding. Accordingly, a review of development
potential for subject properties within the Study Area was conducted by Berlogar
Geotechnical Consultants, a firm with extensive engineering experience in the Tri-
Valley area. A supporting Technical Report rifled Geotechnical and Topographic Evaluation
Cronin and Nielsen Properties Martin Canyon Dublin, California (July 2001) has been
prepared and attached as Appendix 1.
It should be noted that development in this area would require a range of institutional
actions by the City including annexation, a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation and adjust the Urban Limit Line, and voter approval. These
limitations have cast a substantial cloud on the development potential and were a factor
in the valuation of the properties.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUMMARY
The development potential of the three targeted properties within the Study Area is
mixed. The geotechnical analysis suggests that of the two properties considered, only
the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property is suitable for development given
geotechnical, topographical, and other environmental constraints. Development of the
Cronin Heights property does not appear to be feasible.
Two development concepts have been prepared, Concept A (see Figure 3), a 59-Iot
subdivision located on the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property immediately
west of existing development in Dublin, and Concept B (see Figure 4), a 6-1arge lot
subdivision located in the same general area. Providing backbone infrastructure and
utilities to developable portions of the Nielsen Ranch property is estimated to cost
approximately $75,000 per lot assuming 59 very low density residential lots, and
$100,000 per lot assuming 6 estate lots. These costs are not likely to make residential
development infeasible on this portion of the Nielsen Ranch property, and in fact are
well within industry norms.
The location that appears feasible for development is the bentral portion of the Nielsen
Ranch property. Landslide mapping indicates that the south-facing slope along the
southern margin of the Nielsen property is generally not suitable for development,
while the central portion of the property appears to be geotechnically suitable for
development. Meanwhile, the northern portion of the Nielsen Ranch property offers
limited development potential due to geotechnical, topographic, and possible wetland
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin EXtended Planning Area
October 31; 2001
considerations. The most feasible access to these properties would be proceeding
westward from the current endpoint of Brittany Lane.
Development on most of the Cronin property appears to be infeasible due to large-scale
landsliding and limited access potential. Those portions of the property for which
access could be provided through the Nielsen Ranch property are unsuitable for
development due to large-scale landsliding. The only portion of the Cronin property
that does appear to be suitable for development would require access to be created from
the west. However, there does not appear to be significant potential for access from the
west again due to large-scale landsliding, so the Cronin property does not have
Significant development potential given its current constraints. The Machado property
is also under consideration for possible, acquisition by the East Bay Regional Park
District.
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical Assessment
As noted above, the Study Area is generally known to have geotechnical limitations
related to steep slopes, unstable soils, and landslide potential, as identified in the
Berlog~r Geotechnical Report. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants applied standard
methods to perform its geotechnical assessment including performing aerial
photographic interpretation, reviewing historical documents (earlier geotechnical
studies prepared in the Study Area), and visiting the subject properties in a walking
tour.
Development Cost Estimates
Berlogar also prepared conceptual land plans for the Nielsen property assuming that the
full development potential of this property was utilized for either very low density or
estate residential development. Site development cost estimates were also prepared
using a standard engineering technique involving the application of current "unit costs"
for infrastructure and site improvement items to quantities related to the land plans. As
shown in Table 1, an estimated $5 million in site-related access and other improvements
would be required for Concept A, a 59-unit subdivision located on the central portion of
the Nielsen Ranch property. Table 2 shows detailed estimates totaling approximately
$680,000 in site-related access and other improvements for Concept B, a 6-unit large lot
subdivision also located on the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property.
Land Value Estimates
A generalized estimate of land value can be obtained by deducting site development-
related costs from an estimate of retail prices for the home sites created. This "residual
value analysis" is shown in Table 3, which shows the residual value for both Concept A
and Concept B. Retail values for these lots reflect estimates of current market conditions
for such properties. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a general sense of
development-related values. Again it is important to note that these values assume a
General Plan Amendment and voter approval of a development plan. Actual
10
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
development costs, timing, and market prices will determine actual values. The cost
and income information shown in Table 3 indicates that the residual value of the
property may reach between $6 and $7 million for Concept A, reflecting high costs per
unit in relation to total sales prices for the 59-unit subdivision. Meanwhile, the residual
value for Concept B is estimated to fall in the range of $4 to $5 million, reflecting the
lower site costs and significantly higher prices associated with the 6-unit large lot
subdivision.
11
Implementation Report
Figure 3:
Concept "A" Land Plan
r~Cf 507,5)
RECEIVED
OCT' 1 5 Z00!
DUBLIN PLANNING
CONCEPT "A" LAND PLAN
NEILSEN PROPERTY
MARTIN CANYON
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
FOR
ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC,
RECEIVED
OCT ]. 5 Z001
DUBLIN PLANNING
Figure 4: Concept "B" Land Plan
CONCEPT "B" LAND PLAN'
NEILSEN PROPERTY
MARTIN CANYON
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
FOR
I:::O, CiNCIMII~. ANI3 PI ANNINC4 RYRTt:=MR ]N~.
tact 5073)
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
Table 1
Development Cost Estimates for Concept A
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan; EPS #10274
Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
Grading
Clear & Grub LS 1 $30,000
Slopes CY 333,405 $4
Erosion Control LS 1 $75,000
Subtotal
Paving
Fine Grading SF 223,550 $0
3" AC over 8" AB, Assumed SF 223,550 $4
Subtotal
Concrete
6: Curb and Gutter LF 10,340 $13
4" Concrete SF 25,850 $4
Private Drive: Curb and Gutter LF 1,260 $11
Subtotal
Storm Drain
Catch Basins EA 17 $3,500
18" RCP LF 4,850 $40
Subtotal
Sanitary Sewer
Manholes EA 45 $3,500
8" SS LF 5,800 $30
4" Lateral EA 59 $550
Subtotal
Water System
8" PVD LF 5,800 $40
Water MetedLateral EA 59 $10,000
Hydrants EA 12 $3,500
Subtotal
Total Costs
Other Cost
Design and Engineering Fees (10% of Total Costs
Contingency (15% of Total Costs
TOTAL FOR ALL 59 LOTS.
TOTAL PER LOT'
$30,000
$1,333,620
$75,000
$1,438,620
$67,065
$782,425
$849,490
$134,420
$103,400
$13,860
$251,680
$59,500
$194,000
$253,500
$157,500
$174,000
$32,450
$363,950
$232,000
$590,000
$42,000
$864,000
$4,021,240
$402,124
$603,186
$5,026,550
$85,196
(1) Cost figures am estimated based upon conceptual site plan.
(2) Estimate excludes traffic control, signing and striping, landscape and all other consultants and public agency fees.
3) Cost estimate does not include new water tank for higher pressure zones.
14
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
Table 2
Development Cost Estimates for Concept B
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan; EPS #10274
Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
Grading
Clear & Grub LS 1 $20,000 $20,000
Slopes CY 14,600 $5 $73,000
Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000 $30,000
Subtotal $123,000
Paving
Fine Grading SF 71,100 $0 $21,330
3" AC over 8" AB, Assumed SF 71,100 $4 $248,850
Subtotal $270,180
Concrete
6: Curb and Gutter LF 4,740 $11 $52,140
Subtotal $52,140
Storm Drain
Catch Basins EA 2,250 $40 $90,000
18" RCP LF 4 $2,500 $10,000
Subtotal $100,000
Total Costs $545,320
Other Cost
Design and Engineering Fees (10% of Total Costs)
Contingency (15% of Total Costs)
TOTAL FOR ALL 6 LOTS
TOTAL PERLOT
$54;532
$81,798
$681,650
$113,608
(1) Cost figures are estimated based upon conceptual site plan.
(2) Estimate excludes traffic control, signing and striping, landscape and all other consultants and public agency fees.
(3) Assumed use of individual water wells
Source: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
15
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
Table 3
Residual Value Analysis for Concepts A anb B
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area Action Plan; EPS #10274
Item Per Lot Total
Concept A
Net Sales Return (1) $300,000 $17,700,000
Development Cost (2) -$85,196 -$5,026,550
Residual land Value $214,804 $12,673,450
Concept B
Net Sales Return (1) $800,000 $4,800,000
Development Costs (3) -$113,608 -$681,650
Residual Land Value $686,392 $4,118,350
.(1) Assumes that closing and carrying costs, and other soft costs will total 20 percent of total sales
price, estimated at $375,000 per lot for Concept A and $1,000,000 per lot for Concept B.
(2) See Table I for detailed cost breakdown.
(3) See Table 2 for detailed cost breakdown.
Source: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
16
Impleraentation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
IV. FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for open space preservation is a function of what outcome is desired and how
this outcome is pursued. If the City Council determines that the objective is to preserve
as much open space without spending City or outside agency funds, some development
could be permitted (subject to Planning approvals and voter approval) and the
remaining open space could be acquired either in fee or as open space/conservation
easements. Conversely, if the decision is to acquire all of the properties, a broader open
space program might involve other agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District;
grants, city resources and other state, federal and local revenue programs. The
following funding sources originally described in the Options Report, are placed in the
order that they could be implemented aS funding requirements increase.
Resolving the topic of funding sources depends upon what the desired outcome is and
how this outcome is.pursued. For example, if some development is permitted as
described above, funding requirements would be lowered. Also, it will be important to
determine whether the land (or easement) acquisitions within the Study Area are
unique or part of a broader open space program that might involve other parts of the
City. The following funding sources, originally described in the Options Report, are
placed in the order that they could be implemented as funding requirements increase.
DEDICATION OF FEE OR EASEMENT
The logic of the limited development option is that remaining open space on the Nielsen
Properties would be dedicated to the City, or other agency either in fee or as an
easement. Such a dedication would lower or eliminate acquisition costs on the
Milestone and possibly Machado Properties and can thus be considered a funding
source. Considering rough parity of the potential value created by Development
Concept A and the fair market appraisals, it should be possible to obtain easements on
the entire eastern portion of the Study Area. This would reduce or eliminate acquisition
costs.
CITY GENERAL FUND RESERVES
The City of Dublin could allocate a portion of any budget surpluses or unallocated
funds to acquisition of fee interests or conservation easements in the Study Area. These
funds could be used as the local match often required by competitive statewide grant
progeams. The advantage of using General Funds is that it requires no voter approval;
the disadvantage is that these funds will have competing demands and cannot be a
dedicated long-term funding source. The City can also contribute towards an open
space acquisition program by dedicating staff time and resources towards writing grant
proposals and coordinating with conservation organizations/agencies such as the
EBRPD.
17
Implementation Report
ImPlementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FUNDING
The EBRPD officially has limited funds available for acquisitions of land or trail
easements in the Study Area; however, there are some funds remaining in their Measure
AA bond program, originally allocated to other portions of the District that could be
reallocated to the. Dublin area if a promising and broadly beneficial regional park were
to be created. The EBRPD is also eligible for direct funding from the statewide
conservation bond approved by voters as Proposition 12 in March 2000. The EBRPD
can also compete for Statewide grants from resource agencies and from private
foundations.
A Regional Trail bisecting the Study Area is identified in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan
(see Figure 1). The EBRPD has recently made substantial land acquisitions in the Study
Area as part of its efforts to establish this Regional Trail, and is continuing its land and
easement acquisition efforts. Given the EBRPD's recent acquisitions and the regional
benefits of creating a regional park in this area, opportunities exist for the City and the
EBRPD to partner in various ways, including merging funding sources for acquisition
and establishing funding for improvements and maintenance. Such a partnership could
also enhance the possibility of attracting other outside grant funding.
It is possible that the EBRPD acquisitions, alo'ng with the properties addressed in this
Implementation Report that are located upon or adjacent to the ridgeline, could be
combined to create a nearly 2,000-acre Regional Park, similar to Briones or Las Trampas.
This Park would have lateral access through western Dublin at existing or additional
trail heads and staging areas. The City has already improved a trail in Martin Canyon
that approaches the Study Area. Continuing access from the south and north would be
provided by the Regional Trail.
GRANTS
Proposition 12
Proposition 12 -- the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, .and Coastal
Protection Bond Act of 2000 contains $826.5 million for local and regional parks.
The EBRPD and/or the City may apply for State of California grants for the protection
of key open space resources in the Study Area. Proposition 12 specifically contains the
following funds that could potentially be used for acquisition of fee interests and/or
trail easements in the Study Area for a proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional
Preserve and for portions of the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Trail:
· Per capita grants to EBRPD - $9 million
· Roberti-Z'berg Harris grants to EBRPD for acquisition and development of local
parks and recreational lands and facilities - $5.4 million
· CoaStal Conservancy San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy - $55 million
· Competitive Statewide grants - $266 million
18
lmpletnentation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
· California Department of Parks and Recreation grants to local agencies for non-
motorized trails - $10 million
· Unallocated funds Statewide - $7.5 million
· California Oak Woodlands - $5 million
Tipping Fee Alameda County Waste Management
As of January 1, 2001, municipalities disposing waste into the Altamont Landfill are
required to pay $1.25 per ton to mitigate Altamont's expansion. Approximately $0.75 of
this fee is intended for open space acquisition, including 80 percent to be dedicated to
acquisition of land in Livermore and 20 percent to be dedicated to acquisition of land in
Dublin and Pleasanton.
Annual revenues from tipping fees can be expected to total $1.86 million, based on the
amount .of waste deposited at the landfill in 2000, and approximately $1.12 million of
this revenue will be available for open space acquisition. Distribution of revenue
earmarked for open space acquisition was to be determined by an Open Space Account
Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from the cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton, Alameda County, and the Sierra Club. Dublin is not a voting member of the
committee; however, the portion of revenue dedicated to Dublin and Pleasanton may be
split between these two jurisdictions according to tentative agreements with the City of
Pleasanton and Alameda County. Consequently, approximately $112,000 could be
available for open space acquisitions in the City of Dublin each year.
At this time however, the Advisory Committee has not yet met in part because little fee
revenue has been collected. Some cities, including Hayward and Oakland, have
contested paying the fee, and these disputes may not be resolved until their existing
agreements with their waste haulers expire in a few years. The City of San Francisco
has recently agreed to pay the fee, and once significant revenues accrue, the Advisory
Committee will meet to distribute them.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancements Act (ISTEA) was reauthorized in
1998 as TEA-21, with expansion of many existing "Enhancements" project categories
and the addition of several new ones. TEA-21 is the Federal government's
comprehensive transportation funding package. The potential for urban parks funding
in this context is generally limited to bicycle and pedestrian trails and projects that
directly mitigate the impacts of a transportation-related improvement, above and
beyond what would normally be required. Funds could be available to Dublin in
association with any 1-580 improvement projects.
The Recreational Trails Program, as a part of ISTEA, funds up to 80 percent of project
costs on a wide range of motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Funds are
administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which in 1998 had
$4.2 million to disburse ($2.9 for non-motorized trails and $1.3 million for motorized
trails). The maximum grant to date has been about $400,000, while most grants average
about $140,000. Future grant proposal deadlines will be October 1st each year for the
19
Implementaffon Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
next four years. The EBRPD and/or the City of Dublin could apply for funds to help
complete the Western Dublin Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION FEE
Impact fees are charges levied upon new development by local governments to fund
facility improvements. Impact fees are commonly levied for facility improvements such
as parks, open space, roads, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and schools.
Impact or in-lieu fees may also be used for environmental mitigation under CEQA.
Development impacts, such as the loss of agricultural land as documented during the
environmental review process, may be partially mitigated by a variety of methods,
including the payment of mitigation fees. Mitigation fees are generally charged on a
one-time basis when the building permit or the certificate of occupancy is issued.
The City of Dublin plans for about 12,000 new dwelling units and 12 million new
commercial square feet between now and buildout in 2020. Approximately 5,000 units
have already been approved.
OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT OR SPECIAL MAINTENANCE TAXES
If the City of Dublin seeks a source of funding for open space acquisition and/or related
open space maintenance and armual operating costs, it may need to establish an
assessment or special tax for this purpose. While a tax requires support of two-thirds of
the voters, and a minority property owner protest a popular package and an affordable
assessment or tax can promote the likelihood of passage. An assessment or special tax
of $25 per household per year for the entire City of Dublin would raise about $200,000
annually for open space land acquisition costs (see mello-roos CFD below as an
example).
Special Assessment
Assessments are charges levied against real property by cities and counties to finance
the construction or maintenance of public improvements. There are a number of
different types of assessment districts that may be appropriate for open space
maintenance. As an example, new development that has dedicated open space to the
EBRPD is required in some areas to join a maintenance district, which was created by
the EBRPD to assure a stable source of maintenance funding for dedicated open space.
Mello-Roos CFD
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) tax is a charge levied on properties in
a district to pay for public facilities that benefit district properties. Mello-Roos taxes can
be used for a greater range of projects and services than assessments, including parks,
20
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
schools, police, and fire services. Unlike general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos special
tax revenues can also be used for maintenance activities and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Approval of a Mello-Roos district requires an election of two-thirds of the registered
voters in the designated area. However, the majority of Mello-Roos districts to date
have been formed under a provision that permits diStrict formation by the owners of
two-thirds of the land if the district contains less than 12 voters.
.The flexibility of a Mello-Roos CFD, is that it can be used for both capital and operating
expenses, making this mechanism the most attractive option for open space/agricultural
preservation financing in the post Proposition 218 environment. It is relatively
straightforward to establish and it can be used for a variety of services and facilities.
21
Implementaffon Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
V. ACTION PLAN
The findings on this Implementation Report, later pubhc workshops scheduled before
final action by the City Council will lead to an action plan. Once the City Council has
given final direction, detailed recommendations including possible financial plans will
be prepared.
Is the City Council receptive to initiate future General Plan Amendments that
would allow limited development options in order to secure open space
fee/easements on a majority of the affected properties?
A threshold questions is whether limited development, either as described in Concept A
(59 units) or Concept B (6 units) is acceptable given any policy concerns, administrative
tasks and Voter approvals that may be involved. A key policy concern will be visual
impacts. While the central portion of the Nielsen Ranch property appears to be
geotechnically sound, it is largely visible from off site locations. The smaller project,
Concept B, would have an easier time concealing development, but it may also be
visible. Administratively, the effort to approve development in this area may require
substantial costs not shown in the site-related cost estimates including additional
planning, enginee.ring, and environmental analysis and the costs of processing the
application, including annexation, General Plan amendment, and the ballot measure
required to amend the General Plan land use designation and location of the Urban
Limit Line.
2. Explore po'tential for creation of Dublin Hills Regional Park.
As noted above, the EBRPD is establishing a regional trail on the ridgehne that bisects
the Study Area and has consequently made several land and easement acquisitions to
further this objective (Figure 2). The regional trail will ultimately connect the
Pleasanton Ridge area to the Las Trampas area lying to the north of the Study area.
Adding the land that lies to the east of this area, which comprises the Study Area
discussed in this Implementation Report, would create a large and permanent open.
space area or regional park similar to Briones or Las Trampas. The park would take
advantage of trail improvements and other open space created by the City on its
western boundary.
There are a number of ways the City and the EBRPD could cooperate to create such a
park, including shared acquisition and funding, joint apphcation for State grants, and
cooperative improvement and maintenance. The City should seek a cooperative effort
with the EBRPD to study the possibility of creating a regional park or open space area
within the Study Area. Various options for cooperatively acquiring property and
providing for improvements (access, staging areas, etc.,) and maintenance should be
22
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
explored. If the basic concept appears to have merit and support by elected
representatives of the City and the EBRPD, a Memorandum of Understanding should be
developed that would guide the cooperative effort to create the regional park. This
regional park could be consistent with the varying approaches to securing and funding
open space discussed in this Report.
3. Establish Funding for Open Space Acquisition
As discussed above, the City has a number of funding sources available, both existing
and those that would require voter approval. Funding the acquisition could occur using
existing City funds through a partnership with the East Bay Regional Parks District,
obtaining grants, or through creating new funding sources in Dublin such as
development impact fees and assessments or special taxes for open space. Depending
upon the City's overall goals, funding targets and related actions can be initiated. If
funding requirements are limited to acquisition of a few properties it may by sufficient
to rely upon existing funds and grants. If a broader acquisition effort is desired, the new
funding sources would need to be pursued. The City should select the preferred
funding approach from among the options presented and initiate the effort needed to
establish the funding source.
4. Begin Acquisition Efforts
As discussed in this Report and the prior Options Report, there are a number of ways in
which the City could acquire the properties in the Study Area. Specifically, the City
could purchase individual properties outright for fair market value from willing sellers,
it could form a partnership with the EBRPD to make such acquisitions as presented in
Action Step #2, or it could obtain conservation easements from landowners whereupon
ranching operations could continue.
Direct acquisition from willing sellers is relatively simple to implement compared to the
limited development concepts described above. Willing seller acquisition programs
have the advantage of compensating affected landowners at fair market value, although
doing so may be expensive for the City.
If the Limited Development Option discussed above proves unacceptable, the City
could begin discussions with property owners of land in the Study Area regarding City
acquisition. These discussions can define property owner interests and preferences in
order for a transaction and offer to be structured.
5. Take no action
Given the present designation of the subject properties as Agriculture under the County
General Plan, and the mandate of "Measure M' which requires voter approval of any
23
Implementation Report
Implementation Report
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
October 31, 2001
General Plan Amendment for this area prior to annexation and subsequent
development, another approach would be to take n__Eo action and let the existing ranching
operations continue. No public open space would be acquired or preserved, but
agricultural activities would continue for an indefinite period.
24
lmplementah'on Report
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimouS
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. tt5 - 00
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND
DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
At 8:07 p.m., Mayor HouSton announced that new business items number 8.1 and 8.2
would be considered next.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS
IN THE WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
8:18 p.m. 7.1 (420-20)
Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that the City Council requested that a Western Dublin Open Space Preservation Study be
conducted prior to or as part of the General Plan Amendment Study to consider options
for permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for compensating
landowners who could potentially be affected by the open space preservation in the
Western Extended Planning Area. The study that has been prepared prOvides a
framework for implementing the initiative and related policies, if approved by voters in
the November 2000 election.
Mr. Walter Kieser, Managing Principal of Economic and Planning Systems, talked about
-the report. They've worked on this assignment since early this year. He spoke about how
they approached this study. He also talked about various funding techniques.
Eastern Zone:
· Exact methods for preservation.
· If some development would be considered in the Eastern Zone, what areas, densities
and locations for development would be considered.
· Analysis of the impact of any development in regards to the Initiative, if passed.
· Details on land costs, specific trail linkages.
· Complete financial proposals.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 262
ATTACHMENT
Western Zone:
· Specific definition of areas included in a possible Sphere of Influence change.
· The LAFCO procedure for removal of areas within the present City Sphere of
Influence.
· Any financial implications.
The Staff Report discussed various areas, including: Goals of the Open Space Preservation
Strategy; Description of the Study Area; Planning Context; Study Effort; Preservation
Techniques Considered; Findings; Funding; Preservation Strategy; Future Open Space
Preservation Program; Eastern Zone; and Western Zone.
Mr. Peabody recommended that the City Council review and discuss the Open Space
recommendations for the Western and Eastern Zones and provide direction on whether
the City should pursue a program of preserving Open Spacein the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area. In addition, it was recommended that the Council direct Staff to
prepare an Open Space Preservation Program, including possible Sphere of Influence
changes, and complete the study by January 2OO1. The City Manager would be
authorized to prepare'a budget transfer from the Open Space Budget Reserve and return
to the City Council for approval.
Staff would complete this program by January 2001 and report to the City Council.
Costs associated Would be developed at the time of a budget transfer and could be taken
from the Open Space Budget Reserve, which was established during FY 1999~2000.
Mr. Peabody remarked on the relationship of open space and what the City CounCil
directed Staff to do. We are in the midst of a study as directed. Any such action related
to open space would be folded into the work going on. The issue of open space can be
somewhat divorced from the initiative. The Council can decide whether they want to be
in the open space business. He asked the City Council to look at the recommendations as
stated by Mr. Kieser to split the area into two parts. The most fundamental question is
whether the City wants to preserve open space and if so, Staff recommended that they
consider a couple of options. What about removing the area to the west from our SOI
and instruct Staff to prepare a very specific implementation program with detail and
come back with facts, figures and all the other things to allow a meaningful decision on
this issue.
Cm. Zika complimented both Mr. Kieser and Mr. peabody on an excellent report. One of
the strategies is regional open space and to preserve 150 acres on the eastern side of the
ridge. Does this run along the trail?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 263
Mr. Peabody stated this would be a program that would work with EBRPD to complete
the area along the trail. The strip has not yet been acquired by EBRPD.
Mayor Houston clarified that tonight, assuming they want to go forward with an open
space plan, Staff would come back with facts and figures and data. They will give their
druthers on how to proceed.
At 8:40 p,m., Mayor Houston called for a short reCess. The meeting resumed at
8:48 p.m., with all Councilmembers present.
(Copies of a faxed letter from Marjorie kaBar, I 1707 Juarez Lane, was distributed to the
Council. She stated she supports the purchase of land and/or easements in the western hills.
She does not support further development beyond that currently approved for the area.)
David Glenn, 10 Tehano Canyon Road, Pleasanton, stated he has a mailing address here
in Dublin on Regional Street. For 15 years, the people of Pleasanton have made a
concerted effort to work and preserve open space in Pleasanton. That effort has
translated into thousands of acres on the Pleasanton Ridge and they also have other large
areas of open space. He lived in Livermore prior to moving to Pleasanton. Livermore has
established and improved several parks and is now in the process of creating thousands.
of acres of open space.. Dublin is seriously lacking in this area. He strongly urged
support to the levels of Pleasanton and Livermore. This City has been left in the dust.
This is our chance to change that deficiency.
Morgan King, 8348 Creekside Drive, asked for clarification on where the visible
ridgeline would be while standing in the valley. The study mentions 935 acres and he
asked if this is primarily the trail.
Mr. Peabody stated 150 acres would be acquired in conjunction w/th the-trail and this is
the plan for the Dublin Hills Open space. The border of the 935 acres is at the top of the
ridge, l~verything east of the line is approximately the 935 acres.
Mr. King stated the report also mentions that the Scott Machado property has been
acquired. He felt there are some philosophical problems. The report says development
should be considered below the 770' level. If the plan recommends this, this is a
development plan, and not an open space plan. Proposing that houses be in the floor of
the valleys creates problems. This would not be a very desirable plan. Other.than the
recommendation to allow housing on the floor, he stated he likes the idea of developing a
plan as phase one to preserve the 055 acre parcel. We should leave the option open to
acquire the entire area or at least more open space. Pleasanton has apparently preserved
several thousand acres in the hills. He hoped this option would be left open. He also
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 264
suggested that the plan did not adequately elicit public participation. The report points
out that some kinds of access could be done through the stubbed out streets. If it is going
to be a preserved area, he hoped the plan would explore other alternatives for access,
such as maybe acquire access through the Valley Christian Center site or. the Labor
Training Camp at the south end of the City. A little more public input Could clarify these
issues. He urged the City Council to proceed with a Dublin plan for acquisition and
planning of an open space area. It should include a phase one concept of 935 acres. He
stated he would not like to see the City Council get into too many specifics until there has
been more study done on the plan and further options down the road. The funding
options are all logical, feasible and doable.
Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated he is a member of PARC, but he spoke only for himself
as this body had not met and discussed this issue, They support endorsement. With
regard to the measure by the Sierra Club, the.Greenbelt Alliance, 7 former mayors of
Pleasanton and the current mayor of Livermore ail support that vote. There is a lot of
appreciation for what this will do. He does not support the Vision 2010, or ghost
initiative, because he hasn't even seen it.
· This is the third initiative on the same area. The ballot in November would essentially
put the County out of the development business. City centered growth is the goal. He
endorses the Dublin strategies with minor qualifications. If the citizens repeatedly object
or turn down proposals for development, the goal is probably incomplete. The height of
770' is too high. The water tank is about 770' and houses put at that level would not be
good. Pleasanton has a 670' limit and this has added tremendous value to Property
values in Pleasanton. Shea has an option to buy the property at Schaefer Ranch. There
are two critical permits still outstanding. He stated he would like to add Schaefer Ranch
to the open space preserve area. This would be an additional option or endorsement. He
objects to splitting the planning area in two. We're putting part of it under control of the
County. If the Sierra Club initiative passes, it is out of control of both the City and the
County. ThisWould be a lot of bad planning: The split takes 2/3 of the property out of
the initiative, which was formerly voted on by the voters. This is not a voter friendly
situation. He thanked the City Council for the opportunity to speak and stated he hoped
the issue moves forward in an orderly manner. We have done this in an enlightened
informed manner, unlike the other initiatives.
David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane, stated he noted that the yellow highlighted area can
be seen from Pleasanton and due east from I~680, so it is highly visible. His goal is to
urge the City Council to pursue a plan of preserving open space and to remove the white
area out of the SOI and to prepare an open space implementation program by 2001. We
set aside some money last year and hopefully additional funds will be put aside. We've
got the money and it is a necessary option that we do this. He asked that the Council
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE' 26S
consider whether the western portion should remain in our SOl, especially if there is
strong support from the'landowners. During the 1998 hearings, the landowners
expressed a strong desire in leaving. Some have changed their minds. The option is a
viable one to look at. The focus is where it is drawn. He objected and asked that it be
removed as a policy, the 770' and allowing development on the canyon floors. This is
inconsistent with the open space policy. This may not even be relevant to .the eastern
part. He asked that we extend the current moratorium for purposes of the studY. It's
function is to give stability. It makes no sense to have competing projects going on
simultaneously. We should do it systematically and then release the moratorium after the
study. The open space implementation program needs to be done so we would know
what it would entail and what its true feasibility is. This could be an absolute legacy for
Dublin and' its cost could be far less than other, things undertaken. He stated he thought
this beautiful City Hall cost about $26 million to build and this would be far less. This
program could merge beautifully with programs that exist; it is a good thing to study at
this point. Do the study and the implementation program and do a moratorium.
Everybody will be better for it.
Emmett King, 11460 Rothschild Place, thanked the Council and Staff for all the help
given on this project. It shows a lot of work has been done. He stated he hopes we can
continue to give cooperation to it.
Mark Ferguson, 21120 Eden Canyon Road, Castro Valley, recommended to everybody if
you're driving down 580 or 680, don't be looking for. the water tank as this could be
very hazardous. We've worked on this for I 0 years, and it looks like we're trying to kick
them out. He stated he doesn't like the map. The western zone talks about the deep
seated landslides and patches of scrub and a few canyons and this and that. The map
doesn't even show Hollis Canyon. The transfer development credit should be discussed.
Hollis Canyon can be a part of Dublin. It runs right up to Schaefer Ranch. The
viewpoint is non~existent. Nobody can see any houses there. The basis of this whole
thing is viewpoint. They don't want trails because this means people going by. If they
are going to just be left in limbo, they've requested that we just let them go. They have a
lot of agencies to deal with. You can't make it running cattle there. He was told that
Schaefer Ranch mitigated 500' acres and they went over on the Pleasanton side of the
freeway for the red~legged frog. This is a pretty good chunk that would have been left
open space. Now the snake thing is a good tactic to keep it open. Dublin should look at
developing in Hollis Canyon. The park district is in disarray and are going to be asking
for more money to take care of what they have.
Christina Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane, thanked the City Council for holding the study.
Once open space is developed it can't be restored to its original state. Urban sprawl
brings detrimental things to the quality of our community. Open space provides buffers
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 266
and allows nature trails and buffers. She asked that we please preserve open space in the
western hills and please add to the report and study a greater weight given for heritage
tree preservation and endangered species.
Richard Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane, stated he has lived here only 2 years. He came from
England and visited Ireland several times. His first impression on coming here was the
green hills. They are the greatest natural asset that this City has. We should preserve
and keep this asset for a long long time. You can't recover it once it's gone. The second
thing he noticed was how Pleasanton was interspersing open space. You can't drive
more than 2 miles and you run into a park or open space. Ours is a very nice compact
community with a strong sense of community. Urban sprawl will wreck this. He
strongly encouraged the Council to continue with the study. The view shed is the issue.
What you see from the top of Dublin Boulevard is quite different from what you see from
the eastern end. The view shed is the eastern part of the Nielsen land. Canyon floors and
view sheds and the 770' limit is very incongruous and he stated he has a problem with
them all being together. He thanked the City Council for the opportunity to speak and
for the study and recommended pursuing.
Roxanne Nielsen, 11657 Alegre Drive, commented with this open space study, we've
come a long way. We are not trying to realize a solution that will possibly give
everybody what they want. As a landowner they are given some relief that the ballot
measure does not. One of the discrepancies is that the value of the land is quite
expensive and the market value of the land could make it quite prohibitive. She
questioned, in order for citizens to be clear, exactly how many of the 935 acres fall below
the 770' elevation.
Mr. Peabody stated this would be addressed when they do the implementation program.
This needs to be determined.
Ms. Nielsen stated she felt it would be comforting for citizens to know that this amount is
actually very small. Another question was the 20' easement for the trail. She has
problem with easement rather than outright access of the land because of liability issues.
She questioned details on land costs and trail linkage. She asked if the land costs are
going to be negotiated with input from the landowners.
Mr. Kieser stated the land values that we placed in the report are comparable sales that
we were able to determine.
Ms. Nielsen commented that the water tank is at 825'. There are small valleys in the
eastern part that are actually at lower elevations than Brittany Drive. The labor camp
entrance is in Contra Costa County, not at the southern edge as stated earlier. Urban
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 267
sprawl is not necessarily development contiguous to city limits. The initiative has a
detrimental effect on the open space program. If it is a comfort zone to have the
moratorium continue. She suggested that the ballot measure also be put off.
Karen Sweet, 12233 North Flynn Road, Livermore, stated she was representing the Vision
2010 project, a regional planning program. The focus is collaborative planning across
the board. Vision £010 published last fall a document entitled, the Golden Valley. She
read from this document. They recognize the importance of private property rights.
They want the fair market value of land to not be diminished. They encourage increased-
opportunity for agriculture participation and opportunities for families that so desire to
remain on the land. Dublin can take advantage of what is being developed elsewhere in
California. She recommended that we include agricultural expertise during the process.
Develop innovative mechanisms for compensating landowners along the trail. Be aware
that Vision 2010 will establish comprehensive and detailed plan that will preserve open
space and agricultural lands. Consider agriculture as part of our overall plan.
Jeffrey Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive, stated of the 937 acres, Nielsen holds 248 acres and
'207 acres contiguous to Dublin city limits. They have city streets and sewer lines
running to it plus they donated money towards the water tank. They have the capacity to
build 40 to 50 homes. There is a great interest in their property to develop as a cemetery.
Three basic options are regulation, compensatory regulation and acquisition. Cost of
preserving open space would be born by the landowners who participate in the TDC
option. Requiring impact fees is the best.way to proceed. The only access to their land is
through an existing neighborhood. What incentive does a landowner have to participate
in an open space option if the ballot measure would preclude development. He suggested
a moratorium on the ballot measure or at least include compensation to the landowners.
Chung Yeh~ 1580 Oakland Road, #C~ 109, San Jose, representing Milestone stated they
would like to request and work with the City for all development possibilities.
November's ballot is not a solution. They feel they can work with residents and the City
to come up with an acceptable plan.
Lora McCallister, 4700 Bel Roma Rcad~ Livermore, stated she was representing Citizens
for Property Rights in Dubhn and stated she felt the study boils down to eastern zone will
get development and in exchange we have to put the rest of the land in transfer of
development credits. The City will not be footing the bill for trail easements as was
earlier stated; this is not the case. The development would be on the landowners. She felt
the same options provided to the eastern zone should be provided to the western zone.
Infrastructure to the area didn't seem to be a problem initially. She submitted a letter
which she said elaborates on what she said.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 268
Richard Guariente, 8279 Rhoda Avenue, stated he was unaware of the public workshop
so he had not seen the report. He talked about t~te visual area and use of the term view
shed. What does open space mean to you? Everyone has a different value of this. There
is a value in walking the trail and getting away from homes. There may be areas to
develop down in the valleys. He stated he hikes 16 miles on the Pleasanton Ridge. He
urged that we continue with this program of pursuing the open space. Take a look at
where we've drawn the lines. We have to compensate these landowners for their
property. With Federal, State and regional foundations and grants, there are all sorts of
compensation options out there. We've come together a lot during the last couple of
years. He advised that he will retire on Friday and stated he lOOks forWard to getting; into
the hills and seeing some of the beauty in his lifetime. He talked about the Iron Horse
Trail and a woman who walked the length of the trail. We should pursue the open space
and get out and hear the birds sing.
Mark Braezeal, 8700 Southwick Drive, commented that we should work on extended
open space issues and park preservation. Increase more public forum and study for the
people's best interest. The 770' is too high. He is concerned about the red legged frog,
the fox, the coyote, and everything else. He is also concerned that we have City control
and not County control. Visibility is also of concern and the impact. Most of us don't
want to see a lot of homes high up, but rather lower on the ridge. Dublin residents
should come first. This means more open space with rolling hills. We can work with
regional planning and obtain all of this open space if we want to. We should save this
for our future. We may be developing too much, too fast. We must make sure Dublin is
a friendly area that hasa lot of opportunities. Both Vision 2010 and this initiative can be
done. He set up a meeting to discuss these issues when he was running for the County
Board of Supervisors. A lot of details need to be worked out. Don't rush into this too fast.
We should cover all the details. He wished everyone luck, but requested that they do
think about open space for the future.
An unidentified speaker who stated she lives at' 10738 Inspiration Circle, asked questions
about the map and the county lines and the trails. She asked where staging or parking
areas would be at one end or the other of the trails, and where the trailheads would be.
Mayor Houston stated there is one planned at the Schaefer ranch at the southern end.
There is none on the northern end at all.
Cm. Zika stated he felt this would be worked out in the details. There is all kinds of
potential, but -we haven't gotten this far yet.
Shawn Costello, stated he lives in the Arroyo Vista apartments, and that he is in a
wheelchair. This particular course which outlines where everybody gets to walk on is a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 269
totally bad idea because there is no wheelchair access up there. He goes on BART
everyday and sees this hill everyday. He went on the Iron Horse Trail and there are no
outlets for wheelchairs to plug in. He broke down twice and the Fire Department had to
take him home twice. We should make sure we have a three prong outlet in the ground
and have lights up there so wheelchair people can enjoy this. We need to have
wheelchair access through this whole area. He has driven his wheelchair about 7 times
up to the tower in the 16 years he has been here. You don't know when a wheelchair
person is going to move into your area. He suggested what's lacking is lights and plugs
on the existing trail. We need to have a sign for wheelchairs to make sure they have
plenty of juice. Why do we need that whole great big hill area when Camp Parks seems
to be a better idea. This should be the area where you want to get to instead of thousands
of people causing a lot of congestion coming down Dublin Boulevard and a lot on
Dougherty Road as it is. Remember you have a lot of people affected by this and it will be
a lot of gridlock if you take this.
Cm. Zika stated he liked the recommendation of walking before we run and working on
the eastern slope at this time. He would like to see alternatives and doesn't want to limit
it to purchase or trade off with development credits. He stated he doesn't understand
why we can't establish a 770' limit. We should continue the moratorium until we can
look at alternatives for acquiring the open space. Whether any of the initiatives pass, he
would like to see an implementation plan exploring the various ways and funding
sources and even possibly development in the lower areas and stick to the east for now.
He stated .he would favor releasing the landowners on the west side of the ridge. If
Schaefer Ranch ever does become a reality, it was designed to cut off access to those
property owners. The City voted in 1995 and 79% said that they did not want to develop
that area. We should release them from our SOI and let them try at the County level.
Vice Mayor Lockhart asked what happens if the Sierra Club initiative passes, if the Vision
2010 passes, and if the City's initiative passes. Guidance would be needed with regard to
what supersedes what. What controls Dublin land? ~
Ms. Silver stated she has not seen ali the initiatives. One is only in the minds of certain
people and has not yet seen the light of day. It is important to remember that the
proposed ballot measure would establish an Urban Limit Line that would be in effect for
$0 years and would effect the lands to the east of the line and would provide that those
lands would remain agricultural unless a GPA was. processed for some kind of urban
development and that would have to be passed by a vote of the people.
Vice Mayor Lockhart asked if the other initiative would affect that land.
Ms. Silver stated she wasn't sure how that one would affect the land.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 270
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she felt it would be good to know what this means as we
move through the study.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated most definitely, we do want to get into the open space
business. The community looks at this as a necessity, but she is equally concerned that
we do so in a manner that offers fair and equitable benefit to the landowners. Residents
feel this way also. Nobody wants to deprive anyone of a fair and equitable solution. She
stated she felt more Dublin residents need to be involved and suggested we form a task
force to work with staff and the consultants to develop a plan that is fair to ali. It is really
important that the entire community understand what is happening because this will
affect all of us. This can be very cumbersome and time consuming to do this process, but
she would like to see a group consisting of people that have not been involved to date, but
people that will ultimately be paying the b/Il to get their creativity and ideas. She
supports transfer of density credits, particularly around both BART stations and all focus
on preserving land in Dublin in western hills. 'She agreed that we should wait until
November and continue discussions with landowners On the eastern half until they are
removed from our SOI. November will bring new challenges however it comes out.
Continuing the moratorium makes sense. She stated she believes that creativity and
compromise are the keys to keeping open space for future generations.
Cm. McCormick stated she had concerns about the terms being used. She asked if the
consultants have an official interpretation of "open space". When you say development,
you don't have to have rooftops to develop. To her, open space is open space and not for
human use. We need to define the use of that term.
Mr. Kieser stated normally the term open space is subjective but they rely on the General
Plan law that talks about open space for a number of uses. In common usage open space
does have the idea of levels of human use. One form could be preservation or habitat
preservation, which Would be the pure definition. Other people do use the term more
broadly and loosely for human use. Some level of human use would be what would be
contemplated in the future.
Cm. McCormick stated she is still fighting w/th letting the western portion go back to the
County. In some ways this might be better for Dublin. For Dublin's future, it would be
better to let it go. She supports further study of the implementation plan with emphasis
on acquiring land.
Cm. Howard stated she agreed with what Vice Mayor Lockhart said and agreed that the
west side could go to the County.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
· PAGE 271
Mayor Houston also discussed the different uses of open space and definitions. He stated
he liked the idea of working with different agencies with mitigation banks. He preferred
more of an active recreation area. We will look and study the different options. This is
really an open space plan, not an agriculture plan. The agricultural potential for this is
what they are being used for now. In this particular area, we are really talking about an
open space plan and what we're trying to protect. With regard to the SOI issue, he felt
we have to pull the trigger at some time. He would just put it to the property owners
with regard to making a decision. The most important input is from the property
owners. He supports letting them out if that's what they want.
Cm. Zika asked if properties could be selected at random or don't you have to be
contiguous.
Mayor Houston stated he felt another reason it's important regarding use in there, is
development could be at either end of the spectrum and the cost to service the land. He
wants to go forward and this is an opportunity for the City to put their money where
their mouth is. He looks to the General Fund of the City to be working with this in a big
way.
Vice Mayor Lockhart asked for feedback on getting others involved in looking at this
issue.
Mr. Peabody stated we used the approach of having two workshops. When you put a
task force together~ you will really lengthen the process. We have several task forces
going on right now.
Mayor Houston felt it might not be as important in the information gathering process,
but after the options are put together, this becomes critical.
Vice Mayor Lockhart felt when it comes time to look at possible solutions, rather than
have a committee of people with vested interest, she would like to hear from people that
live in the east, people that have just moved here, people that have lived here a long time,
our corporate people, etc. For two years, we've heard from the same people.
Mayor Houston felt that as it gets closer to end of the year it becomes necessary to get the
feedback.
Cm. Zika asked about the 934 acres and if this includes the land the EBRFD has already
purchased.
Mr. Peabody stated yes it does.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUi~IE 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 272
Cm. Zika felt the best we could do would be to limit access to the space. The trail is
going to get developed.
Mayor Houston felt they all want to go forward w/th the preservation option study and
no direction with regard to the SOI. By the time we get the study, we have to know what
we're going to do.
Cm. Zika suggested we limit the study to the eastern slope at this point in time rather
than look at the whole 3,000 acres. The courts may have to decide on the initiatives if
they pass.
Mayor Houston stated the study takes place on the eastern side of the line. The property
owners can either be in the City or not be in the City. We will need to know this by the
first of the year so we can make applications to LAFCO.
Mr. Ambrose clarified that we need to look at acquisition and transfer development and
look'at topography and transfer of densities and development credits. We must look at
the existing EIR and if it gets too nebulous, a lot of other issues come into play.
Vice Mayor Lockhart felt we are developing enough areas in Dublin, so in exchange we
should be able to make this work.
Mr. Ambrose stated we have an eastern Dublin plan with its own EIR and it becomes
difficult to relate one area to another.
Mayor Houston stated he felt all the different ideas are good in'the right situation. Take
the ideas and put numbers and square footage and acres to them. Some will fall off as
not being feasible, and some will rise t° the top.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff will do a report with some type of a sifting process before it
goes to the Council, and will come up with some kind of public process.
Mayor Houston summarized a need to get all the data, attach numbers and get the
community involved.
Cm. Zika asked about the issue of the building moratorium until the study is completed.
Mr. Peabody advised that the moratorium expires on February 12, 2001 and we are
allowed no more extensions.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 273
Ms. Silver stated we could look at a new moratorium, but the current one ends in
February.
Mr. Peabody asked if the Council wanted to use funds set aside last year as the
mechanism for the Cost of this open space study.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff will do a scope of work and come back with costs.
Mr. Ambrose summarized the Council's direction: Wait on any further detachment from
SOI until after November. The Council is interested in hearing from property owners.
The implementation study would focus only on the eastern side at this time. Look at
options, acreage, costs, grant funding, etc., and come back to the City Council with
options for further public participation and comment on the analysis.
On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Vice Mayor Lockhart, and by unanimous vote,
the Council confirmed the above direction.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICES cONTRACT
WITH LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOCIATES (LPeA)
AND PROPOSED FEE ADJUSTMENTS
8:07 p.m. 8.1 (600-30)
Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that the City of Dublin has utilized the firm of Linhart Petersen PoWers Associates (LIMA)
since July 1, 1995 to provide building inspection, plan checking and building code
enforcement. The firm has received numerous positive responses through the City's
Customer Service comment card program over the past year. LPZA's work has been
exemplary and responsive to the City's needs. Customer requests on the phone and over
the counter have been handled quickly and efficiently.
In Fiscal Year 2000~£001, it is projected that 14,850 hours of inspection, plan check and
specialized services will be required. Only those hours required will be billed. If the FY
2000~200I hours of services reach projections, the annual cost of services under this
contract will be $935,500.
Mayor Houston stated he felt they have done an outstanding job over the last few years.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 2?4