HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 OpenSpace w/EPSamendCITY CLERK FILE # 600-30
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17, 2000
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS
Contract Amendment with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to
prepare an Open Space Action Plan for the Western Extended
-Planning Area.
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director
1. Report on Open Space Preservation Options in the Western
Dublin Extended Planning Area.
2. Contract between City and EPS
3. City Council Minutes, June 20, 2000
4. Budget Transfer Form
RECOMMENDATION :~~/1 )
Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract amendment with
Economic & Planning Systems to prepare the report-and
authorize a budget transfer from the~ Open Space Reserve Fund
for Professional Services.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
$57,220 cost to be transferred from the Open Space Reserve Fund to
the Community Development Professional Services fund.
BACKGROUND:
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 directed staff to return with a work
program outlining an Open Space Action Plan that would identify specific recommendations for the City
Council to consider in determining what actions to take in preserving Open Space in this area. In
particular, the City Council asked that this Study look at options, costs for preservation, possible grant
funding, etc. and return with specific options for public comment on these recommendations. Finally, the
Council directed that the Action Plan focus on the eastern portion of the Western Extended Planning Area
from the ridgeline described in the Open' Space Preservation Study westward to the City limits (930 +
acres).
COPIES TO: Open Space Plan Option Mailing list
In-House Distribution
ITEM NO.
WORK PROGRAM:
The Work Program follows the City Council direction of June 20, 2000. Eight tasks are proposed
including detailed physical, biological and economic investigation of parcels located east of the ridge. The
suitability of affected property for any development will be completed. Four specific option plans covering
a Transfer of Development concept, potential acquisition by outside agencies, the use of conservation /
development fights easements and direct acquisition of all or portions of key parcels will be completed.
Priorities will be developed, a City Council workshop will be held and specific cost and funding will be
estimated for each option.
Finally, an Action Plan will be developed and two public workshops held to review the options and gather
public input. A final report will be prepared and submitted to the City Council in late February 2001.
Staff and the Consultant from Economic & Planning Systems will work together to develop the ACtion
Plan. Specific outside Consultant services will include geotechnical evaluations, and appraisal services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to sign the contract amendment and that the City
Council approve the attached budget transfer from the Open Space Reserve Fund for Professional
Services.
DRAFT REPORT
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS FOR THE WESTERN
DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Revised
June 2000
EPS #9232
ATTACHMENT i
-i-2__-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY ....................................................................
Introduction ...................................................................................................................
Goals of Western Dublin Open Space Preservation Strategy ................................. 1
Organization of Report ................................................................................................2
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................2
Next Steps ......................................................................................................................4
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW ............................................................................5
History of Western Dublin Extended Planning Area ..............................................5
Development Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................13
Description of Open Space and Agricultural Resources .......................................14
Land Values in Study Area .......................................................................................16
III.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS .......................................................................17
Open Space Preservation Techniques ......................................................................17
Outright Fee Acquisition ...........................................................................................22
Open Space / Agricultural Funding Sources .........................................................23
Grants / Other Government Sources ......................................................................29
Private Sources ............................................................................................................30
IV.
WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION STRATEGY ..................................... 31
Implementation Framework .....................................................................................31
Development Contraints and Open Space Resources by Subarea ...................... 32
Preservation Strategy Matrix ....................................................................................34
V. LEGAL VALIDATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................37
Appendix A: Landowners in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
On February 16, 1999, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution to initiate a General Plan
Amendment Study for those properties located within the City of Dublin sphere of influence
lying west of the existing City limits and to submit a measure to the voters adopting an Urban
Limit Line (ULI) in the Western Extended Planning Area.~ The proposed ULI would be located
along the existing city limits; lands west of the ULI would be desig-nated Rural
Residential/AgTiculture. If Dublin voters approve the ULI initiative in November 2000, the
development in the Western Extended Planning Area would be limited by the Rural
Residential/Agricultural desig-nation to one unit per 100 gross acres for the next 30 years if the
property is annexed to the City unless changed by the voters of Dublin.2 The intent of the ULI
is to protect the natural resources' and to restrict further development in the western MIls,
thereby guiding future development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where
urban services can be provided in a more efficient manner.
The City Council requested that, as part of the General Plan Amendment Study, a Western
Dublin Open Space Preservation Study be conducted in order to consider options for
permanently preserving certain open space, including methods for compensating landowners
who could potentially be affected by the proposed ULI. Thus, the purpose of this study is not
to establish or evaluate the proposed public policy but to provide a framework for
implementing the ULI and related polides, if approved by voters in the November 2000
election. The open space preservation strategies offered in this report will be presented by City
staff to the Dublin City Council for their consideration and possible implementation.
GOALS OF WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
This study identifies and evaluates appropriate and feasible open space preservation strateg-ies
for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area (herein the Study Area). As defined by City
staff, the open space strategy shoul~ achieve the following goals:
Develop feasible open space preservation mechanisms that can equitably share the cost of
permanent preservation of the western MIls.
Preserve environmentally sensitive areas--for example, slopes over 30 percent slope,
landslide areas, visually sensitive areas such as Milsides and ridgetops, weftands, and
wildlife habitat areas.
Resolution No. 25-99 and No. 24-99 adopted February 16, 199P.
City of Dublin, Resolution No. 24-99, February 16, 1999.
9232rptl .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Create regional trail linkages along Skyline Ridge that run north-south across the Study
Area along Divide Ridge on the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and create other
lateral trail linkages to local recreation resources where appropriate.
Create opportunities for completing the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve as
proposed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and for providing a major
recreational resource for current and future residents of the City and the Tri-Valley.
Protect viewsheds by retaining present agricultural character on the hillsides and ridgetops
visible from 1-580 and parts of the City of Dublin.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter I describes the purpose and goals of the
study and presents findings and recommendations. Chapter II describes the Study Area's
history, development opportunities and constraints, open space, and agricultural values and
presents a summary of comparable land values. Chapter III describes a range of open space
preservation options and gives examples of where they have been used successfully elsewhere.
Chapter IV presents a proposed open space preservation strategy for the Study Area and '
estimates the potential costs associated with these strategies.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted above, this report describes a range of open space preservation options for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area and evaluates how these options could be applied.
Because of the Study Area's unique characteristics, it has been divided into two sub-areas: an
Eastern Zone comprising the eastern portion of the Study Area adjacent to the existing City
limit; and a Western Zone comprising the area lying east of Skyline Ridge. An area generally
visible from 1-580 transects both of these zones. The following section outlines a set of
recommendations for these sub-areas.
EASTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
Objectives of open space preservation in the Eastern Zone include protecting the ridges and
hillsides visible from the existing eastern Dublin neighborhoods, protecting ridge tops and
steep slopes from development, and completing the EBRPD's proposed Dublin Open Space
Regional Preserve and the regional trail linkages in the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
9Z32rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Open Space Strate~es
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 770doot elevation line (receiver areas), provided that the building sites
avoided steep slopes and landslide areas and employed design standards to minimize visual
impact on adjacent neighborhoods.3 In return for the residential development, landowners
would be required to dedicate permanent conservation easements on all areas over the 770-foot
elevation line, as well as trail easements to provide linkages to the regional trail on Skyline
Ridge.
Cost Allocation and Funding
The cost of preserving the ridgetops and steep slopes would be born primarily by the
landowners that elect to participate in the TDC program; comparison would be provided
through the additional development opportunities. The Dublin Hills Open Space Regional
Preserve would benefit all residents in the Tri-Valley region as well as existing and future
residents of the City of Dublin. For purposes of analysis it is proposed that the approximately
$900,000 cost of acquiring land for the Regional Preserve be allocated 50 percent to regional
residents, 25 percent'to existing Dublin residents, and 25 percent to new development in
Dublin. To complete the EBRPD trail linkage, trail easements will need to be acquired for
$1,500. The cost distribution will be shared in a way similar to the Regional Preserve. In
actuality, other factors may affect cost allocation, including availability of funding and the
interests of participants. The regional funding would most likely come from existing EBRPD
funds plus State funds, such as Proposition 12 bond proceeds. Local funding could be raised
through a combination of development fees and City sources. The regional trail easements
could be funded in a manner and allocation similar to the Regional Preserve.
WESTERN ZONE
Open Space Preservation Objectives
The objectives of open space preservation in the Western Zone are to protect the ridgetops 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 1-580 and parts of the City of
Dublin.
3 Assumes that the Resolution No. 114-98, Approval of PA 98-029 Development Elevation Cap at or below 770-foot
for the Eastern Extended Planning as stated in the City of Dublin General Plan Revised July 7, 1998, applies to the
Eastern Zone Preservation Strategy.
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Westenz Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Open Space Strategies
Since the Western Zone cannot be served with City services without significant investment in
infrastructure, it is proposed that this Zone be removed from the City's Sphere of Influence and
that the base agricultural district zoning be retained by Alameda County. Landowners wishing
to develop their prolSerties will be able to apply for permits from the County; however, they
will be restricted to the base Alameda County zoning of a minimum parcel size of 100 acres.
Trail easements should be acquired where possible to complete the regional trail linkages
described in the EBRPD's 1997 Master Plan for the Calaveras Ridge Trail. Acquisitions of land
for expansion of the Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve could occur as funds and
willing sellers allow.
Cost Allocation and Funding
Under this approach, the City would have no cost burdens. The City could, however,
cooperate with the County and EBRPD towards achieving common objectives.
NEXT STEPS
1. Complete public review, legal evaluation, and comments.
2. Finalize report and recommendations.
3. Pursue funding mechanisms.
4
9232rplt.doc
Draft Report
Open .Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW
The Western Extended Planning Area (the Study Area) is located on the western edge of the
City of Dublin in northern Alameda County between the Communities of Dublin, San Ramon,
and Castro Valley. The Study Area is inside the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence (SOI) but
outside city limits. It consists of approximately 3,100 acres of rangeland with a series of-ridges
and canyons, including a number of rural residential units. Interstate 580 creates the southern
boundary of the Study Area, the Alameda/Contra Costa County line sets the northern
boundary, Eden Canyon Road is on the west, and the Dublin city limits are on the east. A row
of PG&E power lines cuts through the central part of the project site in a northeast-southwest
direction (see Figure II-1).
Most of the project site is privately owned --with the exception of about 160 acres owned by the
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) -- and is zoned by the County of Alameda as an
Agricultural District which sets a minimum parcel size of 100 acres.4 Four of the properties,
comprising about 537 acres, are under William son 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 (see Table II4). Schaefer Ranch, now owned by Shea
Homes, is outside the Study Area because this property has already been annexed to the City of
Dublin and is committed for future development (see Figure II-2). Appendix A includes a
detailed listing of all the landowners in the Study Area.
HISTORY OF WESTERN DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
Planning efforts in Western Dublin began in 1989 in response to proposals for development in
the area. In keeping with the General Plan requirements, the City of Dublin prepared and
approved a specific plan, an environmental impact report (EIR), and a general plan amendment
for the area. The Western Dublin Specific Plan proposed several residential tracts on 727 acres
surrounded by open space, with minor acreage for commercial and public uses.6 A total of
3,260 residential units were proposed, of which 1,850 units are single family and 1,410 units are
multi-family. At buildout, the area would be expected to house an estimated 8,383 people.
4 Alameda County General Zoning - Chapter 17.06 Agricultural Districts.
s The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.) provides for landowners to voluntarily place their
property in an ao~Ticultural preserve under contracts that are automatj.'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 Plan
Amendment, May, 199Z 1-12:13, 1-24. ' ....
9232rp~1 .doc
Figure 1I-1:
PG&E
Power Lilies
ptannin~ System, s,
t- 5BD'
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Regional Context
Contra Costa
County
S,Yc~mom V~ ~
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
Alameda
County
County Boundary
Line
2 4
Miles
Western Dubiin Extended Planning Area
h:LqZ32dubAmaps~fig_ If.. ~.wor
Table II-'1
Su~nmary by Property Owner In tile Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Strategy
Property Acres
Owner Total % of Total
Assessed Values
Land Improvements
Davllla Eden Canyon Family Parthe/ca
Machado Manuel J
NIelsen Ranch Partnership
Nielsen Flarold T and Alice, Robert
Oronln Heights MIlestone Partnership
East Bay Regional Park Dlstrtct
Machado John G
Wledemann Jeffrey C & Nancy NIr
Badling, Lemoyne
Loveland, Ray
Eastwood, Joseph
Vanvoorhls Thomas
Morris Cordella/tr
Davilla 'Anthony H & Fields Russell A
Dublin Sall Ramon Services DistriCt
1,228.42 39,6%
392.63 12.7%
248.00 8.0%
207.43 6,7%
175.81 5.7%
159.00 5.1%
147.03 4.7%
144.25 4.7%
99.99 3.2%
92.29 3.0%
89.92 2,9%
02.11 2.6%
22.95 0,7%
10.75 0.3%
0.51 0.0%
Total 3,101.29 100%
Sources: First American Real Estate Solutions; City of Dublin Planning Department
Eco,nomlc'& Planning Systems, Inc.
'$1,321,178
$33,454
$423,163
$288,232
$703,000
$0
$280,205
$12,509
$334 878
$291. 476
$199 91 g
$76 948
$37 692
$10 246
$2 462
$4,015,362
$g5,g00
$31,724
8o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$50,000
$19,000
$o
8o
$25,336
$o
$o
$221,960
Total
$1,417,078
$65,178
$423,163
$288,232
$703,000
$0
$280,205
$12,509
$384,078
$310,476
$199,919
$76,948
$63,028
$10,246
$2,462
$4,237,322
Economic & Planning Sysfems, Inc, 4/L1/00
H:t9232dub~dafaVares. xls
Figure ii-2: Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
Proposed EBRPD
Regional Trail
" ' ~\ \f ,~X,~ Wiedemann ' . .
Easlwood ill Family Partnemhlp
~ . ' ~ ' Schae[er~
East Bay Regional Parks Land to be AcqUIred
Western Dublin ~xt~nded Plannln~ Area ~ Machado Prol~erty Already Acquired
Econon~lc & Planning Systems, Inc.
Nielsen
[111111~11
h:~g232du~,~ Vig_ll_ 2. wor
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation .Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
The Specific Plan included a 12-acre country dub and associated radiities, community facilities,
and a pedestrian-oriented Village Center. Employment at the three commercial centers and
country club facilities was estimated at 200. Public facilities included an elementary school, fire
station, reservoir, and a park-and-fide 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 Courtall voted in favor of the Western Dublin Specific Han and a
General Plan Amendment that would permit residential and commercial uses in the Western
Dublin Area (Resolution No. 89-92). Due to growing concerns about the environmental
consequences of the proposed development in' the Western Dublin Area, Measure A - a
citizen's initiative--was placed on the ballot in January 1993 to approve or deny the City
Counc~ Resolution No. 89-92 that would adopt a General Plan Amendment and the Western
Dublin Specific Plan. Measure A received a majority of "No" votes, effectively preventing the
adoption of the Specific Plan and 'forestalling urban development in western Dublin.
The City Courtall directed City staff to work on the Urban Opportunity Area-General Plan
Amendment as a high priority in Fiscal Year 1997/98. In April 1998, the Dublin Planning
Commission held public hearings regarding a resolution that would recommend the City
Council to adopt the PA 98-029 Urban Opportunity Area General Plan Amendment. The
proposed Urban Opportunity Areas CUOA) represented a long-term commitment to manage
growth within the City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas; it
identified where development is expected to occur over the next 20 to 25 years. The UOA
boundary within the Western Extended Planning Area is the 770-foot elevation line. This
boundary was chosen because development beyond this point would result in the expansion of
water service pressure zones, except for already approved projects; would increase reservoir
sizes beyond what has been already constructed and approved; or would impact visual quality,
biology, geology, traffic and circulation, and areas which have slopes over 30 percent.7
The UOA General Plan Amendment was adopted in 'the summer of 1998 for the Eastern
Extended Planning Area; however, it was not adopted for the Western Extended Planing Area
due to concerns about allowing any development in the Area. Shortly after the UOA debate, a
few residents of Dublin proposed a land use initiative for the purposes of controlling growth
within the Western Extended Planning Area. A committee of two City Council members,
planning staff, legal counsel, and initiative proponents was established to discuss the proposed
initiative; the results of the cornmittee's work were presented to the Dublin City Council in the
fall of 1998.
In February 1999, the Dublin City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. The purpose of the Study is to consider establishing
an urban limit line along the western city boundary -- pending the vote on the Urbb. n Limit Line
7 Agenda Statement City Courtall Meeting May 19, 1998 - Public Hearing: PA 98-029 Urban Oppormrdty Area -
General Plan Amendment, by Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner. '
9
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
measure-and to consider appropriate land use desioc~nations and polides 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 effective until approval of the general plan amendments for the area.
As part of the General Plan Amendment Study, the City Council directed Planning staff to
conduct an open space preservation study for the Western Extended Planning Area to
determine the most feasible open space acquisition and preservation progam that could be
accomplished in the area.s EPS was hired in November 1999 to complete this open space
preservation study.
CURRENT PLANNING AND ZONING
The Study Area is in unincorporated Alameda County and within the City of Dublin's Sphere
of Influence (SOl) and is therefore zoned by Alameda County. In addition, the Study Area is
included in the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and in the City of Dublin's long-range planning
documents.
Alameda County General Ordinance Code
According to the Alameda County general ordinance code, all agricultural land, including the
_ properties in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, is desig-nated as an agricultural "A'
district to (1) promote implementation of general plan land use proposals for agriculture and
other non-urban uses, and to (2) conserve and protect eXisting agriculture in places where more
intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. Every use in an
"A' district shall be on a building site having an area not less than one hundred acres.9
City of Dublin General Plan, Revised July 7, 1998
In Land Use and Circulation: Parks and Open Space Recreation, the guiding policies for open space
preservation are as follows:
1. Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their
natural resource value; and
2. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent as permanent open space for public health
and safety.
s Western DubLin Open Space Study - Request for Proposal by Carol tL Cirelli. Senior Planner, City of Dublin on
October 6, 1999.
9 Alameda County General OrdinanCe Code Title 17.
10
9232rpt2 .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
The Dublin General Man also contains a number of specific policies for the Western Dublin
Extended Planning Area, including open space preservation of natural resources for public
health and safety, open space for outdoor recreation, and erosion and siltation control.~0
Open Space Preservation of Natural Resources. Development generally shall be confined to
areas where slopes are under 30 'percent as part of the overall cluster development concept on
approved development plans. Within projects proposing clustered development and ancillary
facilities in the Western Extended Planning Area, land alteration on slopes over 30 percent may
be considered where the following conditions are present:
· Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as
housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities.
Long-term visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby
communities.
Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended Manning 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 g-uiding policies for open space of outdoor recreation
in the Western Extended Plarming Area will (1) provide a north-south trail link across the
Planning Area, as part of the redohal trail network; and (2) create a local trail network which
links large areas of permanent open space, while providing convenient access from nearby
residential areas. The plan will (3) maximize visual exposure to open space and provide
multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open space; and (4)
provide active recreation facilities to serve neighborhood residents.
Erosion and Siltation Control. The guiding policies of erosion and siltation control are to
maintain natural hydrologic systems by containing any net increase of runoff onsite or with
approved offsite measures and to regulate gTading and development on steep slopes, with
special concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation.
County of Alameda'- East County Area Plan
The purpose of the East County Area Plan is to present a clear statement of the County's intent
concerning fueure development and resource conservation within East County to the year 2010.
The East County encompasses 418 square miles of eastern Alameda County and includes the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and a portion of Hayward, as well as surrounding
10
Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment, pp. 7,9, 15.
11
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extcq~ded Planning Area
June 12, 2000
unincorporated areas. ECAP contains a number of goals and polldes for open space and
ag-riculture and states several policies pertaining to the West Dublin Hills as follow.n
Policy, 69: The County shall work cooperatively with the cities of Pleasanton and Hayward, the
Castro Valley community, the East Bay Regional Park District, and landowners in order to
retain Pleasanton Ridgelands as permanent open space and reserve a regional trail corridor
connecting Sunol with the West Dublin Hills. Accordingly, the County shall oppose City
sphere of influence expansions and annexations outside the Urban Growth Boundary in this
area for purposes of urban development.
Policy 70: The County shall encourage the City of Dublin to designate West Dublin for
agicultural or open space uses to serve as a community separator and to reserve a regional trail
corridor connecting the San Ramon westside hills with Pleasanton Ridge, consistent with the
East County Area Plan.
Policv 71: The County shall recognize West Dublin as a valuable open space buffer separating
the community of Castro Valley from the East County planning area. The County shall
encourage the City of Dublin to retain this area as open space to be consistent with the County's
desig-nation of this area as "Large Parcel Agriculture."
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & PROPOSED INITIATIVES
The Western Extended Planning Area is subject to at least three proposed changes in regulatory
policy, which if approved by voters could sigTdficantly affect development opportunities and
fUttLre land use decisions in the Study Area. The three proposed policy changes are listed and
described below.
1. City of Dublin Proposed Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area.
2. The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative.
3. The Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative.
City of Dublin Proposed Urban Limit Hue in the Western Extended Planning Area
On November 7, 2000, voters will determine whether to adopt an urban limit line in the
Western Extended Planning Area, with such a line located along the current city limit line.
Lands west of the Urban Limit Line would be designated as Rural Residential/AgTiculture, and
the location of the Urban Limit Line and the Rural Residential/ AgTiculture land use
designation would be effective for a period of 30 years, unless changed by the voters of Dublin.
The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative
The Save Agriculture and Open Space Land Initiative seeks to encourage local government
organizations to work with the residents of Alameda County, inner city revitalization projects,
n East County Area Plan, A Portion of the Alameda County General Man, Volume 1 Goals, Policies, and ProDcrams,
May 5, 1994, Alameda County Planning Department, pp. 17. ....
12
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
june 12, 2000
community organizations, environmental groups, transit agendes, housing developers, and
park districts to ensure that Alameda County retains its quality of life. Provisions of the
initiative include the following:
Establishing a 30-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that will protect most of Alameda
County's remaining agricultural and other open space lands. Only development that is
consistent with exis~g zoning would be allowed in the protected area outside the UGB.
Any other development within this protected area must be approved by a Countywide
public vote.
Slowing down future residential growth in the East County area, including the three
incorporated cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, a small portion of Hayward, and
the Castro Valley and PalOmares canyonlands, to a level that the environment can sustain
in the long term.
Seeking to focus development of public facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure in the
unincorporated East County area to be consistent with the reduced level of growth allowed
by this initiative.
Tri-VaHey Vision 2010 Initiative
The Tri-Valley Business Coundl is 'preparing a Tri-Valley open space initiative as an altemative
to the Save Ag-riculture and Open Space Land Initiative. The Tri-Valley Vision 2010 Initiative
proposes to establish an urban growth boundary line based on the City's General Plan areas.
However, details regarding the wording of this Initiative are unknown at this point. It is the
intention of the Tri-Valley Business Council-to place the initiative on the November 2000 ballot.
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1985, AND REVISED
JULY 7, 1998
The City of Dublin General Plan requires erosion control plans for any proposed development
in the Western Extended Planning Area. In general, areas of steep slopes (more than 30
percent) should be restricted to permanent open space, as part of an overall cluster
development concept on approved plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall
require substantial mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community.~2
Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent as pen~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
siltation. An implementation policy would be to restrict areas of steep slopes (more than
city of Dublin General Man, Revised July 7, 1998, p. 15.
13
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the lAzestern Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
30 percent) to permanent open space, as part of an overall cluster development concept on
approved plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall require substantial
mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community, in keeping with the standards
of General Plan Policy 3.I.E33
Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space. Most of
the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning Area is concentrated in the Western
Extended Planning Area. In addition to California live oaks, other species such as laurel
are a vital part of this plant community. This woodland has important visual and
biological qualities. Implementing policy would be to require the preservation of oak
woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and
developed, the policy would permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of
the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review
process.14
DESCRIPTION OF OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE .'. :
Hay production, cattle grazing, and other ranching operations are the primary existing land
uses within the Western Dublin project site. The hills and valleys of the project site are typical
of rangeland in the area3s The grassy slopes and riparian woodlands of the project site show
evidence of continuous grazing. Cattle trails have left terraces on the steep grassy Mopes. A
portion of the extended planning area is under the Williamson Act.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Guiding policies for open space for outdoor recreation is to expand park areas to serve new
development and maintain and improve facilities at existing schools. As it relates to the Study
Area, an implementing policy would be to promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or
equestrian trails within designated open space area~ by restricting structures on the hillsides36
Another guiding policy is to create a local trail network which links large areas of permanent
open space, while providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Lastly, the policy
calls to maximize visual exposure of open space and to provide multiple local physical access
points to increase public enjoyment of open space by promoting land dedication or reservation.
It would also provide improvements for a ridgeline re~onal traiI and other trail links37
23 Schaefer Ranch Project General Man Amendment March 1996, p. 15.
24 Ibid.
~s Environmental Impact Report Draft FIR with Revisions for Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment, Report 5 Volume L May 199Z P. 3-21.
m6 City of Dublin General Plan, Revised july 7, 1998, p. 3-2:3-3
27 City of Dublin General Ha_n, Revised July 7, 1998, Part 2, p.'9:
14
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Linkage to Local Open Space Resources
According to the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, it is the intent of the City of Dublin
to balance open space goals with housing and recreational needs in the Western Extended
Planning Area3s An open space corridor on the main ridgeline would be preserved with a
regional trail extending across the site. Key ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other
important features would be protected.
East Bay Regional Park District
Calaveras Ridge Trail
Cities, counties, and several park districts, including the East Bay Regional Parks District
(EBRPD), are engaged in a cooperative effort to plan and implement a "regional trail system"
for the San Francisco Bay Area. The 1997 EBRPD Master Plan shows the proposed Pleasanton
Ridge to Las Trampas (Section 3c) segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail, traversing the Study
Area.~9 This segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail is proposed to extend from a staging area
close to the 1-580/Schaefer Road interchange, north through Schaefer Ranch and into the Study
Area, along Skyline Ridge, joining the Alameda/ Contra Costa County border along Divide
Ridge, and then continuing over to Wiedemann Hill and onto the Bishop Ranch Open Space
Regional Preserve. The Calaveras Ridge Trail is planned to ultimately link the Sunol
Wilderness to the south to the Las Trampas Wilderness to the north and then traverse through
the existing Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park and Bishop Ranch Open Space Regional Preserve
and the proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.
Dublin Hills Open Space' Re~onal Preserve
The EBRPD Master Plan also states that access to a regional trail link will be from "sta~ing
units" located at frequent intervals along the trail. The EBRPD provides guidelines to plan for
areas along a trail link that will be used for staging purposes. The Master Plan also identifies a
portion of the Study Area for a proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve. The
Master Plan defines a Regional Preserve as an area with outstanding natural or cultural features
that are protected for their intrinsic value as well as for the enjoyment and education of the
public. The essential feature of a Regional Preserve may be open space, wilderness, scenic
beauty, flora, fauna, or archaeological, historic, or geological resources.
An Open Space Preserve will generally consist of at least 200 acres of undeveloped open space
land within or bordering an urban area. An Open Space Preserve may be-used for agriculture
or for passive recreational activities that do not require substantial facilities or improvements.2°
The EBRPD has received a ll6-acre dedication from the Kaufmarm & Broad project in the
California Highlands and expects to receive another dedication of 106 acres as part of the
Schaefer Ranch development project. The Schaefer Ranch project will also construct and
dedicate a staging area for the Dublin Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail at Donlan
~s Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment March 1996, p. 3. as described in the City of Dublin General Plan.
~9 Master Plan 1997 East Bay Regional Park District, Figure 3 Redohal Parkland and Trail Map, page 74.
2o Master Plan 1997 East Bay Redohal Park District, pages 4043.
15
9~2~t1.d~
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Elublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Point. These significant open space dedications to the south of the Study Area are expected to
provide not only a staging area for the proposed link in the Calaveras Ridge Trail but will also
establish the initial phase of the proposed new Dublin Hills Open Space Re~onal Preserve.2~
In December 1998, the EBRPD purchased 160 acres on the Skyline Ridge towards the northern
edge of the Study Area. The EBRPD is land banking the propert), until such time that the
Calaveras Ridge Trail can be constructed and/or plans for the proposed Dublin Hills Open
Space Reg-ional 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
sta~ng area on the Schaefer Ranch property to the south. The next EBRPD ownership is at
Wiedemann Hill, which is directly northwest of the Study Area just over the Alameda/ Contra
Costa County border. The 70-acre Wiedemarm Hill property was dedicated to the EBRPD as
part of the Wiedemann Ranch development project and is linked directly to the Bishop Ranch
Re~onal Open Space Preserve via dedicated trail easements.m Therefore, a portion of the Study
Area forms a potentially important !ink in the Calaveras Ridge Trail and the proposed Dublin
Hills Open Space Regional Preserve.
LAND VALUES IN STUDY AREA
Ac. cording to the Alameda County Assessors Office, agricultural land sales for purposes of
agriculture have been scarce in the Dublin area. Historically, ag-ricultural gazing land in this
part of the County has sold in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 per acre.~
The most recent acquisition in the Study Area was a 160-acre parcel acquired in December 1998
for approximately $3,100 per acre by the East Bay Regional Park District.24 This parcel has
limited access, visually sensitive areas, and some slopes over 30 percent. Other acquisitions in
the area have been in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per acre according to a local realtor.~
'" and ~ Telephone conversation with Steven Fiala, Trails Coordinator, East Bay Regional Park District on February
16, 2000.
~ Telephone conversation with Sue Jenlik, Alameda County Assessor's Office January 6, 2000.
24 Telephone conversation with Suzanne Lusk, East Bay Regional Park District, on January 31, 2000.
2s Telephone conversation with Henry Bettencourt, a local realtor on January 17, 2000.
16
9 23 2rpt ] .doc
III.
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION OPTIONS
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES
The City of Dublin has three basic options in preserving open space within the Study Area: (1)
regulation; (2) compensatory regulation; (3) and outright acquisition, as described below.
REGULATION
Land use reg-ulation, including general plan land use desig-nations and policies, zoning, and
subdivision reg-alations, are generally simple to administer and do not place a sig-nificant
burden on local government since the cost of conservation falls on the affected landowners.
Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) / Agricultural Large Lot Zoning
Zoning is a form of local government land use control. Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) is
desig-ned to stabilize the agTicultural land base by designating areas where farming or ranching
is the primary land use and by discouraging other land uses in the area. APZ ordinances, also
known as agricultural. large lot zoning, restrict the density of residential development in
agricultural zones. The maximum densities in APZs can range from as small as one residential
unit per 20 acres to as large as one unit per 640 acres. As discussed above, all the land in the
Study Area is zoned in Alameda County's Agricultural District, wMch allows one unit per 100
acres.
APZ areas work best where there is a strong agricultural economy and an incentive to remain
in agriculture. Agricultural large lot zoning has worked well in Yolo County, which has prime
soils and a strong agricultural economic base; it has also worked weI1 in parts of Marin County.
However, APZ areas are not so effective where there are urban development pressures and low
returns on agricultural investments.
Agricultural large lot zoning may be sufficient to preserve open space where there are well-
documented physical constraints to development, such as steep slopes, unstable soils, and
erosion hazards. Such regulations may allow rural residential development in the canyons
while proMbiting development on steep Milsides, land slide areas, and visual buffer zones. The
main advantage to using regulatory methods to protect the steep MIls and ridge lines is that
they require no public funding. The main disadvantages are that regulation offers no monetary
compensation to landowners, and regulation may not be permanent, as future governments can
amend zoning laws and general plan designations.
17
~232rptl .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
COMPENSATORY REGULATION
Due to the limitations of traditional land use regulation and the cost of direct acquisition, a
number of innovative conservation implementation techniques have been developed over the
years, which can be referred to collectively as "compensatory regulation techniques.''26
Generally, these techniques fall somewhere between standard land use regulation and outright
acquisition progTams. A few Of the more commonly used techniques are described below:
· Dedications and Exactions
· Development Ag-reements
· Purchase of Development Rights
· Transferable Development Credits
· Mitigation Banking
Dedications and Exactions
Dedications and exactions are levied on developers by either cities or counties for the privilege
of developing land in the jurisdiction. Dedications and exactions differ from impact fees in that
they typically are negotiated on a project-by-project basis, generally during development of the
tentative subdivision map. Exactions differ from dedications in that they typically involve cash
payments for offsite improvements.
Open space lands (in addition to the standard park dedication requirements) can be required as
dedications by the landowners as part of a specific plan. The cost of the dedication is borne by
the development and must be within the overall cost burden that can be supported by project
values when all other development costs are considered. The City of Dublin and the EBRPD
have successfully negotiated and secured over 100 acres of open space for sta~ng areas and
trails as part to the Schaefer Ranch and the California Highlands development projects.
However, since the proposed 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 opportunity for future major dedications and/or exactions of open space. There
may, however, be opportunities for trail easement dedications as part of limited scale rural
residential developments.
Dedications of trail easements could be required as part of any future development approval or
subdivision processes. The advantages of acquiring land or easements via dedication are, of
course, that they require no public funding other than development and operation of the trail
system. The major disadvantage, as an open space preservation tool, is that there is no
guarantee that key pieces outside the urban development area needed to complete trail
linkages, for example, will be dedicated in a timely manner to produce a complete trail system.
26 This discussion is extracted from an article "Implementation Techniques and Strategies for Conservation Ham" by
Madelyn Glickfield, Sonia Jacques, Walter Kieser and Todd Olson in Land Use & Environment Forum Vol. 4, No.
1/Winter 1995. '
18
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
While recent court decisions have limited unrelated or arbitrary dedication requirements, local
agencies are still flee to require dedications and exactions that provide a connection or "nexus"
between the development and the dedication.
Development Agreements
A development agreement offers a means to overcome the "nexus" requirement of dedications
and exactions. As a contract between the jurisdiction and a developer, there is more flexibility
in imposing dedications and exactions where no strong nexus can be shown. Development
agreements between public agencies and developers provide developers with assurances that
the land use regulations for a project will not be changed in the future; they specify the
commitments of both the public and private sector parties to financing, impact mitigation,
phasing, and other elements of the development program. Since major urban development is
unlikely in the Western Hills area, development agreements may not be a useful open space
preservation tool.
Purchase of Development Rights
A government or private non-profit land trust can establish a conservation program to acquire
perpetual conservation easements (also known as the purchase of development fights, or PDR)
that restrict or prohibit future development or subdivision of land. These legal agreements are
created between private landowners (grantors) and qualified land trusts, conservation
organizations, or government agencies (grantees). The grantors may receive Federal estate tax
benefits and/or income tax beriefits as a result of donating all, or a portion of, the value of the
easement. Grantees are responsible for monitoring arid enforcing the terms of the easement.
Land protected by conservation easements remains on the tax rolls and is privately owned and
managed. All conservation easements are legally binding on future landowners. Conservation
easements on agricultural land are specifically designed to protect farmland, and grantors can
contintie 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 the grantor the
difference between the value of the land for ag-riculture and the value of the land for its
"highest and best use," which is generally residential or commercial development.'2
PDR programs are most successful where there is a strong agricultural base and an incentive
for farmers to continue investing in agriculture and passing the farm or ranching operation
onto the next generation. In Marin County for e>dample, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust
(MALT) has, by using PDR, protected over 26,000 acres on 40 separate farms, with a combined
acquisition cost of $17.4 million since its inception in 1980.2s The combination of strong
agricultural large lot zoning, a viable dairy industry, and financial commitment from the
County enabled the PDR program to be successful.
27 This section excerpted in part from 'Saving American Farmland: What Works" by the American Farmland Trust,
199Z
2s Telephone conversation with Lisa Bush at MALT on February'li, 2000.
19
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
In Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Ag-ricultural Preservation and Open Space District has
protected over 27,500 acres, at a cost of $51.5 million since its inception in 1990.29 The Sonoma
County PDR program was successful due to strong General Plan Policies for agricultural
protection, a thriving and diverse agricultural economy including dairy and wine grapes, and a
0.25 percent county sales tax that generates over $12.5 million annually for the PDR program.
Agricultural conservation easements may have limited applicability in the Dublin Study Area
except for those landowners who wish to remain in ranching and/or desire to will their land to
the next generation and thereby avoid the family estate tax. Other types of easements may be
appropriate in the Study Area, such as scenic easements and trail access easements. Scenic
conservation easements may be used to preserve key ridge lines and buffer zones. Access
easements may be used to acquire land for trails. If the land can remain in private hands, and if ·
there is an underlying economic use, a conservation easement may be .the most appropriate
conservation implementation tool.
Transfer of Development Credits Program (TDC)
A TDC program is another form of compensatory regulation that aL-tempts to preserve a
particular resource (sending area) by directing development to specific locations which can
support increased densities (receiving area). Development credits are assigned to all properties
in the sending area. Developers in the receiving areas are encouraged to purchase TDCs in
order to receive a "density bonus" allowing them to develop at higher densities than the base
zoning would allow. Perpetual conservation easements are placed on the lands in the sending
area when a TDC is sold.
While there are many examples of communities with TDC programs in their Open Space
Elements, there are few examples of successful TDC programs that have resulted in a
significant resource protection effort. The problem with many TDC prog-rams is that while it is
relatively easy to find willingbuyers of TDCs if the base zoning is set appropriately and if there
is sufficient market demand, often there is a shortage of willing TDC sellers.
Frequently, TDCs are the least developable and therefore the least threatened parcels in the
sending areas; they are sold first while the most threatened lands (often those with the most
sigTffficant open space resource value) retain their development credits and remain
unprotected. This can result in a fragTnented non-contiguous open space resource area
interspersed with scattered development. A targeted acquisition program, which follows a list
of acquisition priorities based on resource value and the degree of development threat, would
more likely result in a comprehensive and successful open space protection program.
.~mother problem with TDC programs is that they are cumbersome to administer. In the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, a TDC program would have little chance of success
without a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or equivalent agreement, between the City
and the County. The MOU would have to reinforce the base zoning in the sending area and
~ Telephone conversation with Maria Cippriard, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
on February 15, 2000. .
20
9232rpt1 .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
ensure that both jurisdictions' General Plans are compatible and consistent with an open
space/resource protection program.
South Livermore Valley Area Plan
In the South Liven-nore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in Alameda County, a number of open
space/agricultural preservation and enhancement policies have been successfully implemented
and include a TDC program. The purpose of the SLVAP was to preserve existing vineyards
and wineries, enhance the recognition and image of the area as an important premium wine-
producing 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. One
component of the program allows for an onsite TDC whereby landowners with 100-acre zoning
parcels can create up to five 20-acre parcels by agreeing to plant and cultivate 90 percent of the
parcel with vineyards or other perennial crops such as olive orchards; they can place a
perpetual conservation easement over the parcel, restricting the building site to a 2-acre
envelope for one house or one winery. Approximately 46 newly planted and protected 20-acre
parcels have been created since the Plan's adoption in 1993.
In a second program in the South Livermore Area and within the SLVAP, property owners
seeking increased density iri a designated area negotiated TDCs from property owners in a
designated donor area. It has been reported that the development credits have sold for
approximately $60,000 to $70,000 each.30
The South Livermore Area Plan TDC program has been successful so far due to a combination
Of factors, including premium prices for rural residential estates in the scenic Livermore Valley,
the high value of vineyards, the tradition of viticulture in the area, and the presence of the
Wente family, who has supported the program and offered vine pruning, harvesting services,
and technical advice. It will be a challenge to re-create the same market conditions in the West
Dublin Hills, unless there is a core group of landowners interested in establishing viticulture or
an equally valuable perennial crop in the Study Area.
On-Site TDC In Western Dublin Hills
An onsite TDC program could be considered in certain areas of the Western Dublin Hills if
there are some parcels that have the capacity to support additional development (receiver
areas), which if they meet certain criteria could be granted development permits in return for
dedicating permanent conservation easements over adjoining hillsides, ridgetops, and other
sensitive areas (sender areas). For an onsite TDC program to work it must show that the
receiver areas can support the urban infrastructure without major environmental or visual
impacts, and furthermore, that the cost of extending City services to these areas is financially
feasible.
ao "Options for Funding the Acquisition of Open Space and Agricultural Land In ConIra Costa County" prepared by
the Community Development Department 0ohn Kopchik) fo~ the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors
Finance Committee.
21
9232rpt l.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
· Mitigation Banks~
Mitigation banks are becoming one of the tools used to meet endangered species mitigation
requirements. Mitigation banks are established by surveying resources and consulting with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department:of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers if wetlands are involved. After a series of consultations, the regulating
agencies determine the types of habitat and endangered species mitigation that the bank can
support and the number and density of credits available for sale. Generally, the land in the
mitigation banks must be protected with a perpetual conservation easement granted to one, or
more, regulating agencies, and an endowment fund created for long-term habitat and species
monitoring.
Once a mitigation bank has been established and has received permits from the regulating
agencies, developers seeking mitigation for the same type of habitat/species preserved by the
bank may purchase credits at a mutually negotiated price. The regulating agencies prefer the
development requiring mitigation to be close to the mitigation bank, but some banks have been
allowed to mitigate for projects up to forty miles away and sometimes in a different county.
Mitigation banks have the advantage of protecting natural resources with private development-
related funds without the need to impose impact fees. Public agencies in the construction
business, e.g., Caltrans, sometimes need to purchase mitigation bank crediLs to mitigate for
transportation projects. Mitigation banks Can compensate landowners who, due to the
presence of endangered species on their properties, are unable to secure development permits.
The major disadvantages of mitigation banks are that they can take years of negotiation to
establish, and obtaining agency permits can be a very time-consuming process. Furthermore,
even after receiving the fight to sell credits, the mitigation bank owner is vulnerable to changes
in reg-ulating agency policies and to real estate cycles. Another disadvantage of mitigation
banks from the environmental perspective is the uncertainty regarding the ability to preserve a
unique habitat in the long term when it is isolated on a relatively small and unconnected piece
of property.
OUTRIGHT FEE ACQUISITION
Direct acquisition is relatively simple to implement compared to some of the compensatory
regulation techniques described above. Willing seller acquisition programs have the advantage
of compensating affected landowners but the disadvantage of being expensive to the public, as
the cost of conservation falls on the government. Finandal 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 significant pieces of land may need
permanent protection. Also, strategic links in the re~onal trail system may need to be acquired
in order to complete the trails proposed in the EBRPD 1997 Master Plan.
3x Ibid.
22
9232rpfl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Fee acquisitions should be considered where more intense public use is required, such as for
stagring areas and trailheads. Fee or easement acquisition, in willing seller programs, must also
be considered when regulation alone may fail to protect the resource due to its proximity to
existing or planned future development, and when there are no sig'nificant physical or
economic constraints to development.
OPEN SPACE / AGRICULTURAL FUNDING SOURCES
CITY GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES
Cities can only levy general taxes specifically authorized by the State le~slature, 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 progams for available dollars.
Construction 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 le~slation, such as total square
footage or construction value, and can be levied on both residential and commercial
development. Enactmen{ requires a two-thirds vote if the tax revenues are dedicated to a
special use.
Property Taxes
In 1986, voters approved an amendment to Article XIIIA to permit property tax rate increases
by-a two-thirds voter approval, but only to support general obligation bonds. The major
problem with a general obligation bond is that the revenues can only be used for one-time
development or land acquisition costs and not for maintenance or operations. However, a
bond measure supporting open space/agricultural acquisitions could be placed before Dublin
voters if sufficient voter support for an open space/agricultural preservation bond measure
could be raised.
ASSESSMENTS
~ *
AsseSsments are charges levied against real property by cities and counties to finance the
construction or maintenance of public improvements. The passage of Proposition 218 requires
a majority voter approval among landowners within an assessment district.
Assessments must be levied in proportion to the direct benefit conferred upon the property,
and the benefit to the assessed property must be geater than the benefit received by the public
at large. As stated in Proposition 218, "no assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which
exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Once
a special assessment district is formed, the local authority may issue bonds secured by the
23
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
june 12, 2000
assessments. Assessments differ from impact fees in part because they may be levied on
existing development as well as new development. The complicated procedural requirements
for establishing valid special assessment districts, combined with the need for a public vote,
make this an unattractive and administratively burdensome method of open space/agricultural
preservation financing.
MELLO-ROOS CFD
A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) tax is a charge levied on properties in a
district to pay for public facilities that benefit district properties. Mello-Roos taxes can be used
for a ~eater range of projects and services than assessments, including parks, schools, police,
and fire services. Unlike general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos special tax revenues can also be
used for maintenance activities and on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Approval of a Mello-Roos district requires an election of two-thirds of the re~stered voters in
the desig-nated area. However, the majority of Mello-Roos districts to date have been formed
under a provision, which permits district formation by the owners of two-thirds of the land if
the district contains less than 12 voters.
The flexibility of a MeLlo-Roos CFD, in that it can be used for both capital and operating
expenses, makes this mechanism the most attractive option for open space/agricultural
preservation financing in the post Proposition 218 environment. It is relatively straightforward
to establish and it can be used for a variety of services and facilities. For example, a CFD tax of
about $9_5 per household per year for the entire City of Dublin could raise about $200,000
annually on a pay-as-you-gO basis for open space/agricultural land acquisition costs.32
IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are charges levied upon new development by local governments to fund facility or
service requirements. Impact fees are commonly levied for facility improvements such as
parks, open space, roads, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and schools. Impact or
in-lieu fees may also be used for environmental mitigation under CEQA. Development
impacts, such as the loss of agricultural land as documented during the environmental review
process, may be partially mitigated by a "
32 Based on 8,367 residential households in the City of Dublin as of January 1, 1999.
24
9232rpt1,doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
variety of methods, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Impact/in-lieu fees are generally
charged on a one-time basis when the building permit or the certificate of occupancy is issued.
When a City institutes new fees for a park, open space, or any other purpose, there must be a
consistent and logical link between the standards of service established in the General Plan and
the projects being required to pay the fees. Fees that do not exceed the reasonable cost of
pro~dding the facilities can be levied without a public vote. If the fees are not properly linked to
actual new facilities required, they may be judged to be special taxes. Hence, impact fees
require that the enacting agency establish a formula within the enabling legislation, which
equates the new development with the need for expanded facilities.
Impact fees have a number of limitations as a financing technique, including:
· Impact fee receipts may not meet the timing need of the improvements. In addition, fees
may vary dramatically depending on the level of development and as such should not be
the sole source of revenue for debt payments on bonds.
· Impact fees increase the equity required which may, in turn, cause an increase in housing or
commercial prices, a reduction in land value, or result in a project not being financially
feasible.
The City of Dublin plans for about 14,000 new dwelling units and 14.8 million new commercial
square feet between~ now and buildout in 2020,33 Approximately 5,000 units have already been
approve& An open space in-lieu fee of $1,000 p~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 if the preservation of Western Dublin open space is deemed to be of citywide
benefit through the City's General Plan.
General Funds
The City of Dublin could allocate a portion of any budget surpluses or unallocated funds to
acquisition of fee interests or conservation easements in the Study Area. These funds could be
used as the local match often required by competitive statewide grant programs. The
advantage of using general funds is that it requires no voter approval; the disadvantage is that
these funds will have competing demands and cannot be a dedicated long-term funding source.
The City can also contribute towards an open space acquisition program by dedicating staff
time and resources towards writing grant proposals and coordinating with conservation
organizations/agencies such as the EBRPD.
REGIONAL
Countywide or Tri-Valley Sales Tax
33 Projected housing units and commercial square feet based on. Land Available for Development in Dublin, facsimile
from Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, Dublin Community Development Department on February 14, 2000.
25
9232rptl .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Alameda County voters could support open space preservation by approving a sales tax
increase for a re~onal conservation program as residents of Sonoma County have done. It is
eslirnated that if the current sales tax rate of 8.25 percent were increased by hA cent, this could
raise about $46.3 million in annual revenues.34 These funds could be used for conservation
projects all over the County, and Dublin could compete for a share of these funds for
acquisitions in the Western Hills. Strong voter support and an excellent educational and
promotional campaigTt would be required to secure the necessary two-thirds vote.
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
The East Bay Re~onal Park District has a limited number of funds available for acquisitions of
fee or trail easements in the Study Area; however, they are eli~ble for direct funding for the
statewide conservation bond because Proposition 12 was approved by voters in March 2000.
The EBRPD can also compete for statewide grants from resource agencies and from private
foundations (see discussion of Proposition 12 below).
Tipping Fee Alameda County Waste Management
Starting January 1, 2001, all entities disposing waste into the Altamont land fill 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 (re.on undefined) and 20
percent dedicated to the Western Area (region undefined). Annual revenues from tipping fees
are expected to be about $1.87 million, of which approximately $1.12 million could be available
for open space acquisition.as 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
34 "Ag-ricultural Eruhancement and Open Space Conservation in the Tri-Valley - A Research Report" by Bill
Eisenstein for the Tri-Valley Business Council, August 1999, page 3Z
~s Based on Alameda County Waste Management District's revenue of $27,000 to $29,000 per quarter from the $0.075
per ton tax rate according to Ron Gee of the Alameda County Planning Department, February 14, 2000.
36 Telephone conversation with Ron Gee, Alameda County Planning Depm h~;ent Feb. 3, 2000.
26
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
STATE
The last park bond act approved by voters in California was the 1988 Proposition 70 Wildlife,
Coastal, and Park Land Conservation, which funded $776 million for conservation and
recreation acquisitions and improvements. With Proposition 70 funds all expended, California
voters were asked to approve another park and open space bond on the March 2000 ballot.
Proposition 12 - the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2000 contains $826.5 million for local and regional parks. Since approval of this
bond measure by voters in March, the EBRPD and/or the City may apply for g-rants for the
protection of key resources in the Western Dublin Hills. Proposition 12 specifically contains the
following funds that could potentially be used for acquisition of fee interests and/or trail
easements in the Study Area for the proposed Dublin Hills Open Space Regional Preserve and
for portions of the Calaveras Ridge Trail:
· Per capita ~ants to EBRPD - $9 million
* Roberti-Z'berg Harris gTants to EBRPD for acquisition and development of local parks and
recreational lands and facilities - $5.4 million
· Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy - $55 million
· Competitive Statewide grants - $266 million
· California Department of Parks and Recreation grants to local agencies for non-motorized
trails - $10 million
· Unaltocated fun'ds Statewide - $7.5 million
· California oak woodlands - $5 million
FEDERAL
The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal source that is funded by outer-
continental shelf lease revenues and royalties. Its funds are allocated through four Federal
agencies: the U.S. Forest Service; the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service;
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A portion of the National Park Service funds are then
distributed to states, which are then allocated to local jurisdictions (counties, cities, and park
and recreation districts). The "stateside" allocation of the LWCF has not been funded since
1995. ---
Prior to 1995, the National Park Service grants were designated for the acquisition,
development, or rehabilitation of neighborhood, community, or regional parks, or facilities
supporting outdoor recreation activities. Past grants have been as high as $5.5 million but have
averaged approximately $70,000. No more than 50 percent of a project could be federally
financed, although exceptions were sometimes made. Local governments would seek funding
from their state government, administered through
27
9232rptl .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000 ·
the state's comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plart Although the Fund often earns more than
$900 million annually from leases and royalties, in recent years Cong-ress has diverted a
substantial portion of this funding to deficit reduction and other programs.
However, after years of resistance, CongTess voted to allocate $465 million for FY 2000, of
which $40 million is made available for state matching grant money, which state and local
governments can then use to protect land and create or improve recreational opportunities
locally. The EBRPD and the City of Dublin could apply for the State matching grants through
the LWCF; however, competition for these funds will be intense.
Urban Parks & Recreation Recovery Act
The Urban Parks & Recreation Recovery Act CUPARR) was created in the 1960s as an urban
"arm" of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Like the LWCF, UPARR has received
no appropriations in the past several years. When fully funded, UPARR had, at the national
level, approximately $100 million annually to allocate directly to local jurisdictions for
provision and rehabilitation of community parks in the urban core, especially in low income
communities. CongTess voted to allocate $2 million for UPARR in FY 2000. Competition for
these funds will be intense, and Dublin may be too suburban and too well-off to qualify.
Better America Bonds
Another component of the Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative includes a
proposed new financing authority called Better America Bonds (BABs), which are tax-exempt
bonds that fund environmental enhancement projects. This bonding authority would be
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and would be allocated
through an annual competition open to state and local governments. The bonding authority
would be limited to $1.9 billion annually for five years, beginning in 2000. Holders of the 15-
year bonds would receive Federal income tax credits.
The Better America Bonds progTam is intended to assist local governments assume the massive
financial burdens of major environmental projects which have widely diffused public benefits.
Funding would go to projects in four program areas: (1) restoration of urban parks; (2) clean up
of abandoned industrial sites in the urban core; (3) acquisition of permanent easements on
suburban open space; and (4) protection of weftands and natural flood zones.
Qualifying purp6ses for BABs would include:
Acquisition of land for open space, weftands, public parks, or gTeenways to be owned by
an issuer or a 501(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.
· Construction of visitor facilities, such as campgrounds and hiking/biking trails, in
connection with acquired land or other open space.
28
9232rpt1 .doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
Remediation of land to enhance water quality, control erosion, or remediate for toxic
contamination on publicly owned land.
Environmental assessment and remediation of property owned by state or local
government due to abandonment by the prior owner, for the purposes of establishing
public open space.
The Better America Bonds proposal is currently before Congress as part of the Clinton
Administration's proposed budget. Applications would be reviewed by the EPA in
conjunction with the Community Empowerment Board and in consultation with other Federal
agendes. Issuers of the bonds must have a reasonable expectation that 95 percent of the
proceeds would be spent for qualifying purposes within three years, and that the project or
property so financed would be used as public recreation or open space for at least 15 years.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Intenf~odal Surface Transportation Enhancements Act (ISTEA) was reauthorized in 1998 as
TEA-21, with expansion of many existing "Enhancements" project categories and addition of
several new ones. TEA-21 is the Federal government's comprehensive transportation funding
package. The potential for urban parks funding in this context is generally limited to bicycle
and pedestrian trails and projects that directly mitigate the impacts of a transportation-related
improvement, above and beyond what would normally be required. Funds could be available
to Dublin in assodation with any 1-580 improvement projects.
The Recreational Trails Program, the most relevant funding area, funds up to 80 percent of
project costs on a wide range of motorized and non-motorized trail projects. Funds are
administered by the California Depafh~ent 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 gTant to date has been about $400,000, while most grants average about $140,000.
Future grant proposal deadlines will be October 1st each year for the next four years. The
EBRPD and/or the City of Dublin could apply for funds to help complete the Western Dublin
Hills segment of the Calaveras Ridge Trail.
GRANTS / OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES
PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
There are a variety of grant programs and other funding sources for open space/agriculbaral
acquisition. Certain foundations offer funds for purchasing conservation easements on
agriculi-ural land. The Packard Foundation, for example, offers grants for agricultural
preservation under their Conservation Program's Transactions Grants. The Conservation
Program has an emphasis on acquisitions of agricultural land over 100 acres in size in
undeveloped or rapidly developing areas. The new five-year Conserving California's
Landscapes Initiative desio~nates $175 million over a five-year period for acquisitions in four
re~ons. Historically, the Foundation has concentrated its charitable giving to acquisitions
29
9232rpt1.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Opffons for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
along the Central Coast and in the Sierra regions. The Foundation's geographic interests are
expected to expand in future years and could potentially include parts of Alameda County.
Other foundations that have given funding for land conservation are the Hewlett, Irvine,
Wallace Genetic, and Heller Charitable Foundations.37
PRIVATE SOURCES
GIFTS
Individuals and corporations can make gifts of fee and less-than-fee interests for open
space/agricultural protection. Typically, gifts are made of the fee interest or development
rights. While this may or may not be a prime motivating force, substantial tax advantages may
accrue to those who make such gifts. Sales at less than market value (bargain sales) can also
offer these advantages. Gifts can be received by both public and private nonprofit agencies.
DONATIONS AND GRANTS
The City either independently or working in concert with a land trust can solicit donations and
~ants from private individuals and corporations. Although such grants and donations may
not generate large sums, a program to solicit donations and grants will be valuable to create
public awareness and involvement in open space/agricultural land protection.
37 "Agricultural Enhancement and Open Space Conservation in the Tri-Valley - A Research Report, by Bill
Eisenstein for the Sierra Business Council, August 1999, page 45-49.
3O
9232rptI.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
IV. WESTERN DUBLIN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
As described in the previous chapter there are a variety of open space preservation techniques
and funding sources used to preserve open space and agricultural lands in California. It is
important to match the tool to the problem, as described in some of the case studies, as not all
techniques are appropriate for all situations. Funding sources for acquisition of easements or
fee ownership should be matched to the resource to be protected and the benefit area of the
protected resource. Different funding options apply to the various beneficiaries of open space
preservation.
· New Development. New development that creates demand for open space resources and
impacts existing open space may be charged a fee for open space mitigation. Therefore,
new development in the City could be charged .a development impact fee for open space
and trail acquisitions. However, it is important that the fee not jeopardize the financial
feasibility of future development projects, and that it meet the legal requirement for a
"nexus" - i.e., that there be a supportable relationship between the impact and the level of
the fee.
Citywide. To the extent that the whole City of Dublin benefits from the protection of their
views of the Western Hills and can enjoy access to the area through a trail system, a
Citywide funding source could be created, such as an open space and trail acquisition bond
measure or a Citywide parcel tax~ These measures would require the support of Dublin
voters,
Re~onal. For lands with regional' sigrd~cance, 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 re~onal
participation may come from voter-approved bond issues or other agency funding sources.
Based on preliminary research on land values in the area, it is estimated that property values
may range from $2,500 in more remote areas to $10,000 for gTazing land close to the City of
Dublin. If all 3,100 acres in the Study Area were acquired outright, this could cost in the range
of $7.8 million to $31 million. It is not realistic to consider acquisition of the entire Study Area,
as not all property owners will want to sell, and this magnitude of funds, at least at the higher
end of the range, is not likely to be raised. Therefore, some combination of land use reg'ul/ition,
compensatory regulation, and acquisition will be required.
31
9232rptl.doc
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES BY
SUBAREA
The land in the Study Area can be described according to the degTee of physical constraints to
development, such as existing rural residential uses or steep slopes, and the resource values for
recreation, scenic view shed, or community-separator and greenbelt. Based on these criteria
there are two significant subareas within the Study Area: (1) the area located between the
Dublin City limits and Skyline Ridge (the Eastern Zone); and (2) the area located between Eden
Canyon Road and Skyline Ridge (the Western Zone) as shown in Figure IV-1. The
development constraints and open space resources are described below for each subarea.
EASTERN ZONE
There are approximately 937 acres in the Eastern Zone. This zone is bounded on the west by a
major north-south scenic ridge, known as Skyline Ridge, on the east by the Dublin City limits,
on the north by Divide Ridge along the Alameda/Contra Costa County line, and on the south
by Hansen Ranch, EBRPD open space, and Schaefer Ranch. The area is dominated by Skyline
Ridge, which rims from Donlan Point in the south and Divide Ridge in the north, and has
elevations up to 1,300 feet and two 1,000-foot foothills dose to the Dublin City limits. In
between the ridge and the hills are areas of woodland and coastal scrub, and a significant
portion has slopes over 30 percent. Most of this Zone is used for cattle grazing and ranching
operations.
According to maps prepared for the Western Dublin Specific Plan, there are pockets of deep
seated landslides that run in a northwestern direction stretching from an areh somewhere south
of Brittany Lane towards Skyline Ridge. A portion of the area just south of Brittany Lane is
below the 770-foot elevation line and could theoretically be developed if City services were
extended from the City limits and development was sited to avoid the landslide areas and the
slopes exceeding 30 percent.38 The Eastern Zone, while having significant constraints to
development, is also the most accessible area with at least three Dublin City streets that stub
into it.
The proposed alignment for the Western Dublin Hills segTnent of the Calaveras Regional Trail
traverses the spine of Skyline Ridge in the Eastern Zone. Therefore, the Eastern Zone, which
includes the EBRPD property, offers the greatest opportunities .for creating regional recreational
resources and linkages to existing local and regional parks. The Eastern Zone also serves as a
community separator between Dublin, San Ramon, and Castro Valley, and ff preserved would
create a permanent greenbelt on the western edge of the City. This area is most visible from the
western Dublin neighborhoods and would be most affected if a portion of the Eastern Zone
were developed.
38 Assumes the 770-foot elevation cap in the Eastern Extended Manning Area (PA 98-029) applies to the two
subareas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
32
9232rptl.doc
Appendix A
Ln,ldownorg In 111o Western DulJIh~ I-:xtondad Plnnnh.lg Aron
Was1 Dublin Open 9pace P~eeervnllo, 8trntogy '
· i. Solos
No. APN Owner Homo Acres Uala
PrIce
3. 089A-2201-0t7-t Baffling, Lameyea. (I) 65J0 Pro 1965
086A-1200-001-10 Earlling. Lameyes (I) 34.83 Pro 1909
12 94 1-0010-008-00 Cmnln Heights MIlestone Padnerehlp 175.81 10/O4/89
lb. OBSA-lg00.003-00 DayIlia Nffimny 14 & Reld9 Russell A 10.75 t 2/04/81
t o 089A-2000.001-01 DayIlia Eden Canyon Finally Prairie/on 597.00 06/21/94
2a 085A.2201-000-00 Dnvllla Eden Canyon Family Pintholes 30,00 06/21194
2b. 090A.2300-O02-00 DayIlia Eden Canyon Family Padhales 160.00 00/21/94
20 000A-2300-003-00 DayIlia Eden Canyon Fmufiy Patina/as 247.2o 00/21/94
2d. OOSA-1100-002-07 Daytile Eden Canyon Fronil), Pmlne/ea 147.04 06/21/94
20 080A-1 t01.003-02 DayIlia Eden Canyon Finally Pedne/ea 40.38 00/21/94
1 Ie 941-0100-007-65 Dubfin San Roman 8entices Dlshlct 0.0t 07119185
80 005A.2400-001-04 ansi gay Regional hark Dlsidct 65.00 t2/15/98
0b 005A-2400-OO|-O0 Easl Bay Regional Pink Disbid 14.00 12/15/90
80 941-0010-003-02 East Bay Regional Park Dlshlcl ' 13.00 12/15/96
8d 941-0010-003-01 Eas( Bey Regional Pink Dlshlc( 67.00 12/15/90
3, 086A-220t-O17-2 Eastwood, Joseph {I) 69.28 Re 1965
3. 085A-2201-017-4 Eastwood, Joseph 111 0.41 Pro 1988
085A-1200-002-00 . Eastwood, Joseph 0.19 t2/10/90
005A-f101-0Ol-OI Eastwood, Joseph (I) 7.38 Pro 160{3
oOOA-I:~O0-OQI-11 Hoetweed, Joseph (t) 12.00 he 1980
3. 085A-220F017-0 Leveland, Roy 11) 10.72 Pro I980
085A-1100-001-00 Leveland. Ray 20.00 12/10/98
005A-1101.001.02 Love/and, Ray (1) 2.15 Pro f986
080A-1200-001-12 Leveland, Ray '.' 111 51,42 PIe 19613
ga 000A-2400-001-07 Madrode John G · 15.00 02/22/83
9b 080A-2400-001-05 Meritado John G 60.00 02/'22/83 '
go 941-0010-004-02 Mediado John G 4.00 02/22/03
gd 941.-00t0-904-01 Machorio John G 39.00 02/22/03
ge 941-0010-005-09 Madrode John G 20.03 02/~2/83
08 005A-2300-004-Oq Madrode Manuel J 72.83 02/22/83
6b 005A-2400-001-03 Madrode Manuel J 320.00 02/22/83
17 005A-1t01-002;00 MonlsCordellMr 22.96 OlYOllag
11 c 64 t-0t 00-007-39 NIelsen Harold T and Nice, Robert 8.25 02/08/99
11o 941-0100-007-54 Nlelsen Harold T and NIce, Robed 198.18 02/08/99
33 941-0100-007-59 NIelsen Harold T and NIce, Robert 3.00 02/08/99
11 a 941-001 0-001-0t NIelsen Randr Partnership 49,00 00/20186
1 ta 000A-lg00-002-02 NIelsen Rantit Padnershlp 20.0g 08/28/85
1 ld 041-0010-002-00 NIelsen Rend~ Pednershlp , 125.00 00/20/96
111 941-0010-001-02 NIelsen Rand~ Pmlnershlp · 13.00 00/20/85
I lh 005A-1900-002-01 NIelsen Randr Fadnershfp 38,00 00/'20/80
10 805A-2201-012-00 Venvoodde themes 82.11 05/01197
7a. 005A. 1 g(X)-oO1-01 Wledemenn Jeffrey C & Nmmy Mr 134.25 03/09/94
7b. 085A-1900-001-02 Wisdomann Jelhey O &Nancy A.qr 10.00 03/09/94
· $277,400
$277,400
$277,400
$279,600
$279,60O ·
$279,600
$279,000
$276,600
Total ,"t, 10 t.2g
(I) Pmcei9 spill hi 1999 according le Ihe Aimnods Counly ASsessor.
Sources: FIrst Amedcan Real Eelale Solullons; C(ly o1DubUn Planning Depadmenh Almaode gounly Assessors Oilice;
Economic & Pimpnine Systems, Inc.
Price/
Acre
Assessed Value
Land Bl{/g T~]j~(
$0 $144,403 $9 $t44,483
$190,395 $00,O00 $240,395
$0 $703,0OO $0 $703,000
$0 $t0,246 $0 $10,246
· $0 $030,092 $91,30~ $727,259
$0 $01,204 $0 $51,204
$0 $213,441 $4,108 $217,049
$g $277,7{31 $425 $278,206
$0 $111,200 $0 $111,200
$0 $31,660 $0 $31,060
$0 $2,462 $0 , $2.462
$o $o $o $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $o $o $o
$o $o $o $o
$o $153,537 $o $153.0~7
So $912 $0 $912
$0 $399 $0 S399
$ I 0,~o13 $o $ I
$27,000 $0
$0 $41,508 .$0 $41,500
$o $49,0o0 $1,o00 $00,00o
${3,230 ' $0 $5,238
$195,732 $16,(:XX) $213,732
$0 $28.592 $0 $28,592
$0 $125,806 $0 $125,81H~
$0 $7,625 $0 $7,625
· $0 $09,822 $0 $00,622
$0 $40.560 $0 He,B60
$0 $8,202 $0 $6,202
$0 $27,262 $31.724 $58,976
$0 $37,692 $25,336 $63,O28
$708 $24,9t8 $0 $24,916
$708 $261,411 $0 $261,41t
$70{3 $1,905 $0 $1,905
$1,364 $61,g02 $0 $87.982
$1,004 $35,822 $0 $313,822
$j,304 $224,443 $0 $224,443
$1,304 . $23,042 $0 $23,342
$1,384 $51,574 $0 $51.574
$0 $76,948 $o $76,948
$o $11,663 $0 $11,663
$0 $048 $0 $846
$,1,015,362 $221,900 $4,237,322
Williamson
Aot
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ye9
Bldg.
9qft.
2,282
2,230
791
1,356
1,255
Year
BIL
lg16
1920
1924
Draft Repart
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
rune 12, 2000
WESTERN ZONE
There are approximately _9,164 acres in the Western Zone, which is bounded on the west by
Eden Canyon Road, on the east by Skyline Ridge, on the north by Divide Ridge and the
Alameda/ Contra Costa County line, and on the south by Schaefer Ranch and the 1-580
Corridor. Divide Ridge, with elevations up to 1,600 feet, forms a scenic backdrop to the Study
Area from which one can see views of Tassajara Valley and Mount Diablo to the east and views
of the Western Dublin Hills and Pleasanton Ridge to the west and south.
The Western Zone is characterized by the rolling Palomares Hills and woodland and coastal
scrub in Eden Canyon, bordering on the 1-580 corridor, and in a central core area. Eden Creek
runs at the bottom of Eden Canyon. Oak Ridge, which has elevations up to 1,000 feet, runs
north-south from the 1-580 corridor to Divide Ridge and forms the eastern side of Eden Canyon.
There are a few existing rural residential properties in the southwest corner of this Zone. The
remainder of the Western Zone has steep slopes over 30 percent, several deepseated
landslides, patches of woodland and coastal scrub, and a few canyons under the 7704oot
elevation line. A significant portion of this Zone is used for catfie grazing and ranching
operations. Approximately 537 acres, consisting of two separate ownerships, are under
Williamson Act contracts.
The Western Zone has limited access to City services, except potentially for those properties
bordering on Schaefer Ranch, which is the City limit on the southern boundary of the Zone.
The Western Zone is oriented more towards Castro Valley than towards Dublin, since schools
and other urban services are provided by the unincorporated community of Castro Valley.
While access could be gained from Eden Canyon Road, there is unincorporated land on either
side, and therefore extension of backbone im@astructure would be expensive and ineffident.
PRESERVATION STRATEGY MATRIX
The open space preservation goals identified for the Study Area by the City can be
implemented through appiication of reg-ulatory and acquisition techniques. While many
variations of such a pro~am are possible, a conceptual implementation strategy has been
developed for each of the three subareas by resource type. This strategy can serve as a basis for
developing and implementing a preservation pro~am for the Western Dublin Extended
Planning Area. A narrative summary of the recommendations was presented in Chapter 1.
Table IV-1 provides a detailed description of the strategy, linking specific preservation options
discussed in this report to the unique open space resources found in each of the sub-areas, as
described above.
34
9232rpt1.doc
Table IV-1
Open Space Preservation Strategies and Cost Allocation and Funding
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Study :.
r, J1
Subarea/Open
Space Strategy
Eastern Zone
RIdge Topes & Slopes >30%
Carlyon Floors below 770 leet (1)
Implenmntallon Strategy
Internal +ransler el Development
Credit (TDC) Program
Prohibit development on slopes >30%,
& ridge tops (sender areas) malntaln base
zoning (I.e., nrlnhnum lot size 100 acres).
Require dedication of conservation easements
over areas above 770 elevation line.
Require dedication el trail easements to link
with regional trail on Skylhm Ridge,
Allow limited residential development
(assuming a mln. lot size el 0,25 acres)
below 770 foot elevation line providing building
sites avold steep slopes & landslide
areas (receiver areas). Employ design
standards to limit visual hnpact on adjacent
nelghbod~eods.
Acre ~
Assumed
Cost
$0
$0
Fhlanchlg
Mecl'lanlsm
Dedication for
Increased Density
Bonus,
DIstribution el Costs
All Dublin New Dublin Regional/
Residents Development Other .
Citywide
n/a Wa n/a
TDC n/a n/a n/a
Regional Open Space Preserve
Regional Trails
Visual Buller
Economic & Ptnnnlng S),stems, fn~. 5/4A~0
Fee a~:qulsltlon of 150 acres to complete the
EBRPD's proposed Regional Preserve In tile
Western Dublin HIlls Open Space
Acquire trail easements to complete
.regional trail linkages as described
In the EBRPD lg07 Master Plan.
Protect views hem Skyline I-'lldga by providing
adequate bullets.
150
1.5
$goo,oo0 (2)
$~,soo (3)
$0
Grants/State Bonds/ 25%
Local special tax/ $225,000
In-lieu developer [ees
Grants/State Bonds/ 25%
Local special tax/ $375
In-lieu developer fees
25% 50%
$225,000 $450,000
25% 50%
$375 $750
n/a Na n/a
I ht9232dubltdataLfrratelly. xll
Table IV-1 ' ': :'
Open Space Preservation Strategies,and Cost Allocation and Funding
West Dublin Open Space Preservation Sludy
Subarea/Open Assutned FinsacheS
Space Strategy Imlfien~entatlon Strategy Acre Coat Mechanism
Western Zone
Reulove Irom Olty Sphere el Influence (SOl) .
$0
DIstribution of Costs
Ajl Dubfin New Dubfin Regional/
Residents
Development Other
Citywide
Na Na n~
Total Cos{: Pereeniage , 100% 25%
Total Cost: Alnount · $901,500 $225,375
1) Assumes the elevation cap In tile Eastern Zone s. nd Western Zone Is 770-1eel, shnllar to tile elevation cap (PA ge-02g, Resolution 114-g8) In the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
2) Assumes an average lend cost el about 6,000 per acre.
3) Assumes a 20-loot wide access easement totaling 1 .~ 6cres will be acquired Ior the EBRPD ~eglon~l balls Ior $1,000 per acre.
25% 50%
$225,375 $450,750
Sources: CIty el Dublin, East Bay Regional Park DIstrict (EBRPD), Ecouomlo & Plennhlg Syslerns, Inc.
S},s~mn~, h;d. 5/4/t)0
I1:Lq232c(~
~tstrelelTy, xls
Draft Report
Open Space Preservation Options for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area
June 12, 2000
V. LEGAL VALIDATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The preservation strategy presented in this report must be thoroughly investigated by the City
Attorney as to its. legality. Should the City Council decide to pursue open space preservation in
the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area, any specific approach will be evaluated in detail.
37
9232rptl .doc
West Dublin Open Space Presen'ation Study Workshop Minutes
February 3, 2000
Stm~Members Present: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, Carol CireHi: Senior
Planner, and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary
The meeting w~s called to order m 7:20 by Mr. Peabody. He ~sked everyone to introduce
themselves:
~. CirelIi welcomed everyone. She introduced the consultant team hired by the CiF to prepare
the open space preservation stud,v. Walter Kieser, Managing PFmcipal of Economic and
Planning Systems; Sonia Jacques, Vice President; and Jeannie Young, Research Assistant. She
r,-~t-~ct that she would first talk about the o~n and pLU'pOSe of the study. The consulmnz team
~-ill discuss the various topics being studied,. and at the end of the meeting there ~4tI be a
question and answer period..4_s pan of the City's goals and objectives the CiD' Council direz~ed
Staff to prepare a Western Extended PIanning Axea Open Space Prese,wation Study. ?he
pm.-pose of study is to examine the' vario~ open space presentation options for the area beyond
the exiSting Ciny limits out m Eden Canyon Road, Based on the study, Staff will prepare a report
~dth all the viable and feasible techniques for presto-ring open space and to compensam the
ca-rent landov,.~ers. The consultant will a=~be the possible techniques, which include transfer
of developmere rig_hts and purchasing of conservation easements. The Councii's desision to
prosed with the study came from the discussions at the Dublin Ridge!and Voter's Voice
ini~ative Commiuee meeffu~ held in 1998. This open space study wilt serve as a back~ound
imbrmation for the City Council v-hen considering the Western Extended Planning Area General
Plan .~mendment Study. She stmed that this General Plan 14.mendmerit study will consider
ermbtisbing an Urban Limit Line along the current City limits in the We~ern Extended Planning
Axea Dendino the vote on the Ufman L~mit Line Initiative that will be placed on the November
2000 ballot. The study will also determine appropriate land ,uses and general plan designation
for properties within the Western Extended Planning Area_ She rmled thaz the consulrzn~s will
now present The different topics Tha will be studied,
Ms. Nielsen asked the time flame for the General Plan Amendment study.
Ms. Citeill said Staff is currently wofning on it and try, ing to have it completed by the 'end of
s~n'nmer. She stated that i1 will depend on v/hen the Council wants to br:mg it m public, it mav be
earl3' fail.
Ms. Nielsen asked if it would be before the election.
Ms. Cirelli responded yes.
Walter t<Zjes~; Consultant, stated that they wilt be ~ving a briefpresenta~om The pm~pose of
the study is to explore some of the Dols that The City wilt ha~e avallable for preserving open
space and the associated costs. The area being studied is approximately 3:500 acres locsxed in
the West Dublin Extended Planning ares, He stated that from an economic standpoint. Their fu-m
G: minutes~_000twes~ tiubtin open 5patz presen'mion szudy woricshop minmes
ATTACHMENT
· x~ll treat the open space as an integal part of the urban area and as an economic benefit To the
community. They will establish the costs of the program and who MI1 pay thosd costs. The), will
~o determine how those funds will be collected and disbursed and who will manage the .Open
space:
So~a Jacques, Consultant, stated there are a series of options that range from land use
r%mlations to out right purchase of the inn& The City cm-rently has land use regulations in
place, but the zoning can be changed. To protect the land forever is to buy it and pm it in the
hands of a public agency. She stated that one method commonly ,used is the purchase of
developmere riEzhts from the landowners. There is the option of transferring development
credits, .which is transferring the development rights from an area that will not be developed
an area that can support additional development The final option is the outright purchase of the
land. She discussed the potential funding sources, which are local funding, re~onal funding,
rate funding, or federal funding. Local funding involves in lieu fees paid on new devetopmenz
in Dublin;.' or existing residents could be assessed with an annual m,x. Regional funding could
come from sources such as the East Bay Regional Parks District, or a coun,tywide sales r~x.
~qth rate funding the City would be competing with all the other open space projects within the
sm~e. On the positive side, there may be ate funding through Proposition 12 that will be on the
March ballot,. which if passed, would provide 825.5 million for local a;:id'.~egidnal par/Ks. She
.staled that federal funding COvers land and water conservation;~hlch'-Con_cress has fully funded
40 manon nation,, de. She ald they nke to frO;- th; on the
following issues: What are the open space resource vitti~[in';.th~ Western Dublin Ex"tended
Planning Area? How should these resources be manage&~ For view sheds from 1-580 corridor
.and backdrop to' the City? For habitat protection? For _a__m'icultaral-pmmction? FOr recreation'
such as hiking and riding trails? How do these open space resources link to other resources in
the region? Who would most benefit from pzrmanent preservation of this area? Who should pay
for the permanent preservation of these open space resources? Who should manage this open
space resource in perpetuity?
Ms. Circ~jj asked if anyone hnd any questions or comments.
Morgan King asked what is the op~ space resource value.
h;~r. Peabody r~ted that Staff is loo'king for comments on this study. Staff will prepare a report
for the City Council with viable options on open space. The next workshop wig cover some of
the options in more detail.
Marjo~e LaBar stated that thee are projects in the west side that are in existence or under
comgtmctiom She is concerned that the protection of their view shed on the west side be a
manageable existLug piece ofprop~ and to ~vork around those existing projects.
Mr. King asked how Pleasanton preserved the foothills for open space.
Linda Chavcz, East Bay Redohal Parks District responded that the District has had a regional
trail planned. Their recent Master Plan includes a Dublin ~ills open space designation for the
area. She stated ',hat there will be desi_mnated open space from the Schaefer Ranch project.
?here are possible connections underneath Schaefer Ranch Road that will eventually connect to
Pleasanton Ridge,
Ms. Jacques stated that there is a mitigation bank connected to Schaefer Ranch because the>'
n~ded to have habitat credits. There was an endangered species that was found on the property
and they acquired a large portion of land.
Mr. Bew]ey asked if the area on Schaefer Ranch was aLloWed development if the); purchased an
open space area in Pleasanton.
Ms. Chavez stated that in the Schaefer Ranch development area fie), found red legged frogs after
the project was approve& The Schaefer Ranch development purchased some open space land in
Pleasanton to preserve the habitat of the red legged frog.
A member of the meeting stated that he has heard MarjoHe LaBar state she wants to presen,e
"our"' view shed. He iets that she' should not say "our" view shed because fiat open space land
has private owners. He was concerned with fie philosophy of open space being treated the s-,2ne
as other infrasm~cmre and community facilities such as schools and roads.
Mr. Kieser stated they make that point because they consid~ it a community, investment and
because open space has economic value to the urban fabric of the City.
Mr. Peabody stated that the City Council will decide the value of open space. This study x~dll
proxddc ka'ormadon on the di_ffercnt options available. The objective is to identify how- the City,
will treat open space and how it will be value&
tVlr. Fields stated that fie study should include residential development as part of the philosophy
because thai property has the value to build homes on it The boundmy was oHginally created
for development.
A member of the meeting asked why a General Plan. Amendment study is being done if the West
Dublin Open Space Preservation study includes the 3,500 acres.
~. Peabody said that establishing open space is different than ermblishing a land use policy for
the western extended planning area. The City Council directed Staff to do a General Plan
,~'nendment study to identify the land use plan and identify the necessary policies for the area.
A member of the meeting stated that by including the 3,500 acres of open spacd there isn't
an,-,mhing to mitigate against. He asked what would be included in the mitigation if there isn't a
vatu~ or area defined
Ms. LaBar stated that the West Dublin Open Space has value being open space. She stated that
there are many residents thai feel fie respons~ility to camDensate the landowners for that va/ue.
Roxarme Nielsen stated she would Like the fair market value determined for the area, She
explained that each parcel.of land has different circurnmances and should be considered in the
.h/h-. King stated that the residents are aware that there are property owners for the West Dubiin
Open Space area. He explained that he would like to see both sides win in the situation.
Currently ~e landowners do not have any development rights. The property is zoned a__oriculture
and .~ameda County has a ~eenbelt alliance for the area, He stated that the City might want to
preserve this area for open space and establish the type of benefit the public would get from it.
He would like to see a win-win situation for the property owners and the Dublin residents.
A member of the meeting said he isn't hearing any friendly solutions. He feels that the residents
of Dublin are trying to control land that does not belong to them.
]VL-. Fields asked the price that East Bay Re~ona] Parks District paid for a=~ujculrm-a/land.
Ms. Ciretti s+,ated that it was 52,500 per acre.
A member of the meeting stated that 2 w~k.s ~o East Bay Regional Par'ha District paid
5400:000 for 60 acres west of FoothiI1 Road in Pleasanton.
Ms. Chavez stated that when the District purchases land, the land is appraised and negotiated
be,w,,een the Parks Diswict and the landowner.
A member ofthe meeting asked if the City will review the different mechanisms to preser~'e the
open space as weLl as the land value if development occm-re&
Peabody said the obj e~ve of the study' is to estabt~.sh the most practical and usable method
pres~Jve open space.
Ms. Jacques stated that their plan is to accumulate a range of preservation sirarches.
A member of the meeting asked if the plan for Tassajara Road development in East Dublin has
been de~ei,-ined.
Ms. Cirelii stated portions of land around Tassaja.--a Road are currently being developed.
Morgma King said that the most feasible solution would be a recreational type land use for the
area.
Tom Ford said tere is the option of land u-ust, w~rrich allows the landowner to s-my on the land
and receive financial outcome from it He read the following "conservation easements hm, e
become more widely used by ranchers and farmers in California, but some confusion remains
about what conservation easement Lv. In recognition of this confusion, the California Rain Plan
Trust has prepared a document to help landowners work through conservation easement..~
conservation et~sement are tailored to3qt a land owners individual situation and the terms of the
4
easement are established only at the detailed discussion between the landowner and California
Rain ?Jan Trust. The landowners continue to have complete control of the public access of the
tvroper~y." He stated that this type of situation may work for Dublin.
Ms. ~NHelsen stated the property owners are very familiar with the land trust but that it does not
work for everyone.
A property ow~qer stated that there is approximately 2,700 acres that can't be seen and shouldn't
be considered a "view shed."
Bud Nielsen asked if the study will determine whether this is a proper place to preserve open
space.
Ms. Jacques responded no; that question is not part of Lhis study.
Ms. Nielsen said the General Plan. Amendment Study would address that
member of the meeting stated limt part of the stud3, should look at other infraswucmre as a link
this open space area.
lx~. Fields would like the study to include the buildable areas within the 3,500 acres. The high
peaks, view arc~ and hiking areas should be mitigate&
A developer stated that they do fe~sibiliry studies, put in all the inf'rasn-ucturc, and then they add
fnem up to s~ flit is affordable; it is not the same as preserving 3,500 acres of open space.
Ms./,,He]sen stated that she would like the General Plan Amendment study done in conjunction
'Mth this study.
.Mr. Peabody rated that Staff is working three issues; the question ofpreserxing open space,
policies for General Plan Amendments, and the election in November which will help determine
the outcome of the West Dublin Open Space.
A member of the meeting stated that the Ci~ should go to L.~GrCO and have the land taken out
of Dubtin's Sphere of influence.
]vir. Peabody stated that there would be another study workshop in approximately one mong2.
He sa/d that Staff would have concrete suggestions to discuss.
The following issues were taken from the flip chart at the meeting:
1. Linking other resources, large enough area, operating exT~enses, and large contiguous
parcels
2. To use the open space area forpassive recreation,
l'Vhat is the habitat value, and the ridgeline view - (EBBaPD)
Mitigation banking
Witat is the property value for residential development?
"Map" viewsized and "developable areas"
"PVilling Sellers" do not want to see a "cookie cutter" approach,
Little "a,~' value
Wi~at is fair market value for the Iand?
Housing shortage
"Government Entity' as' "partner" could be problem (re: conservation eesements)
PoKing- valuable
STANDARD CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Dublin, California. as of October 17, 2000 by and hotwean the CITY OF
DUBLIN, a munirApal ¢~rporaticm {"CITY"), and iic~onomie & Planning $yst~rns, Inc., ("CONTRACTOR"), who
agre~ aS follows:
!. SERVICES, Subject to the terms and c4mditi0ns set foflh in ~ Agreement, CONTRACTOg shall
provid~ to CITY the services described in Exhibit A. CONTRACTOR shall provid~ said sm~/ic~ at the tim% place
aml in the ~ specified m Exhibit A.
2. PAYMEL~JT. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOK for service~ rendered punuam to this Agreement at the
time and in the manner set forth in E:~hibit B. Th~ paymcnt~ sl~cified in Exhibit B shall b~ ~he ¢mly payment~ to b~
tn~e lo CONTRACTOR for seaices rcndc~A putsat t~ iris Agrement. CONTRACTOR shall submit all billings
for said servi;m to CITY in the mariner specified in Exhib~ B; or, if no manner be specified in Exhibit B, then
aCeOtdifig IO I~ usual aiR[ custorllary pfOCe, dLLreS and practices v/nkh CONTRACTOR uses for billing clients similar
toCITY.
3. FAClLI'B~ AND EOUEPMEICI'. Exempt aa set forth m Elibit C, CONTRACTOR .~11, at iB sole
ctmt and expense, furr~h all facili~i~ and equipm~t which may be required for furnishing s~rvice5 pursuant to this
Agreemere. CrrY shall ~um/sh to CONTRACTOR only the ticiliti~s and equipment list~ in Exhibit C according to
the terms and conditions s~t forth in Exhibit C.
4. CvENE.RAI. PKOVISIQ~N$. The general provisions set forth in Exhibi, D axe part off, is Agreement.
In the event of any inconsisTencS, between se~d general provisions and any ¢,her terms or condifier~ 4~f~is Agreemere,
the other team o~ eonditiot~ shall control insoEat as it is inconsistem with the L~ncrnl ptovisicms.
EXBTRITS. All exhibits refeffed to heroin ate a~achcd hereto and a~e by this reference ine.~orated
herein.
6. CONT_RACT A.DMIL%qSTKATION. This Agreement shall be administered by ~tich~d C: An~.ros~
'~"ADMINISTRATOR"). All correspondence shall be directed to or Ihrougb the ADMINISTRATOR or his or her
7. 3NO1:[CFS. Any written notice to CONTRACTOR shall b~ sent to:
Walt,:r Kick, EcanOmi~ & lianainS Sys~m~
lgl5 Feufth Sin:el; Suik B
Bcldey. CA 94710-1910
Any writteD notie~ to CITY $h~! be sent to:
Atlegt:
CITY 0; DUBLIN
a mualcipal r~orporatioa
James R. Musbach, Managing Principal
Walter. F. Kieser, Managing Principal
ATTACHMENT
7'2
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Dublin Open Space Action Plan
October 2, 2000
WORK PROGRAM
DUBLIN OPEN SPACE ACTION PLAN
The following tasks describe the technical and policy development effort necessary to
create an Open Space Action Plan, a set of actions initiated by the Dublin City Council
that implement a strategy adopted in June 2000 related to open space preservation in the
Western Dublin Extended Planning Area. Developing the Action Plan will be a
collaborative effort, led by the Consultant (EPS) engaging key City staff members,
supporting consultants (geotechnical engineers, appraisers), and policy makers. The
interaction will be continual; each task as the assignment proceeds will be reviewed,
decisions taken, and refinement of subsequent efforts identified.
TASK 1: RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC OPEN SPACE OPTIONS
Work with Staff to complete precise Open Space Preservation strategies. Review and
resolve specific property analysis including environmental issues, development
potential, political and long-term sustainability of various acquisition possibilities.
Determine precise schedule, data needs and outside resources. (East Bay Regional Park
District's use of land trusts or other public agencies.)
TASK 2: UPDATE PARCEL DATA BASE INFORMATION FOR
PARCELS LOCATED EAST OF THE RIDGE (930 + ACRES)
Conduct new investigations related to the following:
· Geological constraints
· Soil conditions
· Access
· Visual exposure
· Slope
· Vegetation & biological resources
· Land use history
· Property sales and transactions (individual properties and actions. of public agencies
such as EBRPD)
Retain a Geologist, utilize Staff and Consukants to compile necessary information.
WrkPrgm-Contract
Dublin Open Space Action Plan
October 2, 2000
TASK 3: DEVELOP SUITABILITY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY
One strategy that the City Council selected for further study was the "transfer of
development" program for those properties east of the ridge in the Extended Planning
Area that may have some development potential. This task will provide a basic
development suitability analysis for these potential sites. The site suitability analysis
will involve a typical "constraint overlay" approach. A key constraint factor will be
"geotechnical conditions". The hilly geomorphology of the Extended Planning is
characterized by expansive soils, historical mass movement (landslides), and ongoing
soil creep. These conditions can generally be managed with proper siting and
engineering solutions. Other constraints include access, development context, visual
exposure, and biological resources. The suitability analysis will be summarized in map
form ( a composite overlay map) showing areas that have potential for "cluster
development", consistent with the objective of preserving open space resources in the
Area.
TASK 4: DEVELOP FOUR SPECIFIC OPTIONAL PLANS
Based on suitability analysis developed in Task 3 determine the following:
· Transfer of Development concept based on potential development of certain areas
and specific feasibility of such an approach. Determine incentives for private sector
participation and potential acceptability of possible development.
· 'Potential acquisition and/or preservation potential by outside agencies and land
trusts. A certain realistic potential for outside agencies and the specific properties
that may be affected.
· Use of conservation/development rights easements and their potential costs.
· Potential' direct acquisition of all or portions of affected properties.
Appraisers will conduct specific appraisals of key parcels.
TASK 5: OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PRIORITIES
The parcel data base along with geographic data previously prepared by City staff will
facilitate a discussion with policy makers regarding priorities for acquisition. This
priority-setting will be facilitated by preparation of a ranking system that applies a
formal ranking logic to the parcels in the Extended Planning Area, including such
criteria as "level of development constraint", "open space values", "potential for near
term development", and "willingness of landowner". The acquisition priorities will be
2
I/VrkPrgm-Contract
Dublin Open Space Action Plan
October 2, 2000
documenfed and used during the subsequent tasks. A workshop with the City Council
in January w~l be held to solicit comment on potential priorities.
TASK 6: COMPILATION OF SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES AND
FUNDING SOURCES
Land value information from Task 5, plus realistic outside funding sources will be
· combined to give a bottom line cost for each option. Specific outside funding sources
will be determined and evaluated.
TASK 7: ACTION PLAN & PUBLIC COMMENT
The Action Plan will establish a series of specific actions for the City Council that
implement the open space strategy for the Western Extended Planning Area. Each of
the four options action w~l be discrete, but the actions will be ordered by their
independence. Thus, the actions related to implementing the transfer of development
concept will be presented first, followed by formal priority setting and funding actions.
Funding actions will include those previously identified but these will be evolved to the
point of being "actionable" rather that "possible". Similar actions will be identified for
acquisition preservation options and direct acquisitions. Actions may also include
partnerships or agreements with other public agencies (e.g. the East Bay Regional Park
District) and/or private parties.
A Draft Action Plan will be prepared for review, initially by City staff, the public
through two workshops and then by policy makers. This review will assure
appropriateness and practicality of the' recommended actions. Following policy
guidance a more final Action Plan will be prepared for inclusion in the Report.
TASK 8: REPORT PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION
The Action Plan public comments from the workshops and its supporting
documentation will be summarized in a 'Report intended for adoption by the City
Council and subsequent implementation by City staff. The Consultant will prepare the
Report. A administrative draft will be followed by a draft for public review and
comment. Following the requisite public process and direction by the City Council a
final Action Plan Report will be prepared.
WrkPrgm-Contract
Dublin Open Space Action Plan
October 2, 2000
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
Open Space Action Plan Schedule
November
December January February
City Co}until
Workshop
2 Public
Workshops
City Counli 1
Action
4
WrkPrgm-Contract
Table 1
Budget Estimate
Dublin Open Space Allocation Plan
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; #10274
Task/
Description
EPS Staff
Walter Teifion Todd
Kieser Rice-Evans Lieberman
Prod.Staff
EPS
Staff Cost
Subtotal
Subcontractors
Grand
Expenses Total
Task 1:
Task 2:
Located
Task 3:
Task 4:
Task 5:
Resolution of Specific Open Space Options
Update Parcel Database Info for Parcels
East of the Ridge (930 + acres)
Develop Suitability of Affected Property
Develop Four Specific Optional Plans
Open Space Acquisition Priorities
Task 6: Compilation of Specific Cost Estimates
& Funding Sources
Task 7: Action Plan & Public Comment
Task 8: Report Prepartion and Presentation
TOTAL HOURS
Billing Rates
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
4 4 4 '0 $1,400 0 0 $1,400
0 4 16 0 $1,420 0 $50 $1,470
16 16 40 0 $7,160
24 8 0 4 $5,520
8 24 24 0 $5,360
16 12 8 0 $4,70O
20 16 8 0
8 12 24 16
96 96 124 20
$190 $95 $65 $50
$10,000 $200 $17,360
0 $50 $5,570
$10,000 $50 $15,410
0 $50 $4,750
$5,840 0 $300 $6,140
$5,020 0 $100 $5,120
$36,420
$20,000 $800 $57,220
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/02/00
g :/correspolrd/openspacel100200-os-budget
EXHIBIT B (page 1 of 1)
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR an amount not to exceed the total sum of Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred
and Twenty Dollars ($57,220) for services to be performed pursuant to this Ag/reement. CONTRACTOR shall
submit invoices during the term of this Agreement based on the cost for services performed in accordance with
the following schedule:
Monthly
but not more often than once a month; and provided further, in no event shall CITY pay CONTRACTOR a sum
exceeding 20% of the total sum due for services pursuant to this Agreement in any one month; and provided
further, CITY shall pay the last 20% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within forty-five (45) days
after completion of the services and submittal to CITY, if all services due pursuant to this Agreement have been
satisfactorily performed.
The total sum stated above shall be the total which CITY shall pay for the services to be rendered by
CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost
whatsoever incurred by CONTRACTOR in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement.
CITY shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service pursuant to this Agreement
unless such extra service and. the price therefor is agreed to in writing executed by the City Manager or other
designated official of CITY authorized to obligate CITY thereto prior to the time such extra service is rendered
and in no event shall such change order exceed twenty-five (25%) of the initial contract price.
The services to be provided under this Agreement may be terminated without cause at any point in time
in the sole and exclusive discretion of CITY. In this event, CITY shall compensate the CONTRACTOR for all
outstanding costs incurred as of the date of written notice thereof and shall terminate this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to date. ·
The CONTRACTOR is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the
terms of this Agreement until receipt of a fully executed Purchase Order from the Finance Department of the City
of Dublin.
EXHIBIT C - City Facilities
CITY shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for CONTRACTOR'S use while consulting with CITY employees and reviewing records
and the information in possession of CITY. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing said physical facilities
shall be in the sole discretion of CITY. In no evem shall CITY be obligated to furnish any facility which may
involve incurring any direct expense, including, but not limiting the generality of this exclusion, long-distance
telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 1
10-17-00
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL PROVISIONS
d'7
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. At all times during the term of this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of CITY. CITY shall have the
right to control CONTRACTOR only insofar as the results of CONTRACTOR'S services rendered pursuant to
this Agreement; however, CITY shall not have the right to control the means by which CONTRACTOR
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
2. LICENSES: PERMITS: ETC. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to CITY that he has all
licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
CONTRACTOR to practice his profession. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to CITY that
CONTRACTOR shall, at his sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement
any licenses; permits, and approvals which are legally required for CONTRACTOR to practice his profession.
3. TIME. CONTRACTOR shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of CONTRACTOR' S obligations
pursuant to this Agreement.
4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration
of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONTRACTOR, his agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the CONTRACTOR'S bid.
(a) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) coveting comprehensive
General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive
General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form CG
0001:)
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) coveting Automobile
Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
3. Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability Insurance.
(b) Minimum Limits of Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodilyinjury,
personal injury and property damage. If commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general
aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
property damage.
.Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as
required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
Exhibit D (Page 1 of 3)
10-17-00
(c) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the 'CITY. At the option of the CITY, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate
such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its officers, officials and employees; or the
CONTRACTOR shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
(d) Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions:
1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages.
a. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR; products
and completed operations of the CONTRACTOR, premises owned, occupied or used by the CONTRACTOR,
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the CONTRACTOR. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of the protection afforded to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
b. The CONTRACTOR'S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the
CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the CONTRACTOR'S insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect
coverage provided to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
d. The CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
2. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability .Coverage.
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the CONTRACTOR for the
CITY.
3. Professional Liability.
CONTRACTOR shall carry professional liability insurance in an amount deemed by the
CITY to adequately protect the CONTRACTOR against liability caused by negligent acts, errors or omissions on
the part of the CONTRACTOR in the course of performance of the services specified in this Agreement.
4. All Coverages.
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall
not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days'
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the CITY.
(e) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less
than A:VII.
(f) Verification of Coverage. CONTRACTOR shall furnish CITY with certificates of insurance and
with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for
each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. The CITY
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(g) Subcontractors. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or
shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors
shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Exhibit D (Page :2 of 3)
10-17-00
5{> o{
(h) The Risk Manager of CITY may approve a variation in those insurance requirements upon a
determination that the coverages, scope, limits and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available
or that the CITY's interests are otherwise fully protected.
5. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT. Except as CITY may specify in writing, CONTRACTOR shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. CONTRACTOR
shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind CITY to any obligation
whatsoever.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant
to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement
shall be void and of no effect.
7. · PERSONNEL. CONTRACTOR shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to
this Agreement. In the event that CITY, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement,
desires the removal of any such persons, CONTRACTOR shall, immediately upon receiving notice from CITY of
such desire of CITY, cause the removal of such person or persons.
8. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall perform all services required pursuant to
this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the
profession in which CONTRACTOR is engaged in the geographical area in which CONTRACTOR practices his
profession. All instruments of service of whatsoever nature which CONTRACTOR delivers to CITY pursuant
to this Agreement shall be prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner and conform to the
standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in CONTRACTOR's profession.
9. HOLD HARMLESS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR shall take all
responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to any
subcontractor, to the CITY, to CITY officers and employees, or to parties designated by the CITY, on account
of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents, occurrences or other causes
predicated on active or passive negligence of the CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor. CONTRACTOR shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY, its officers, officials, directors, employees and agents from and
against any or all loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs of defense), suits, and damages of every
kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of the work. This paragraph shall
not be construed to exempt the CITY, its employees and officers from its own fraud, willful injury or violation of
law whether willful or negligent. For purposes of Section 2782 of the Civil Code the parties hereto recognize
and agree that this agreement is not a construction contract. By execution of this agreement CONTRACTOR
acknowledges and agrees that he has read and understands the provisions hereof and that this paragraph is a
material element of consideration.
Approval of the insurance contracts does not relieve the CONTRACTOR or subcontractors from liability
under this paragraph.
10. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal
assistance from another governmental entity, CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable rules and
regulations to which CITY is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
11. DOCUMENTS. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda or
other written documents or materials prepared by CONTRACTOR pursuant to thi~ Agreement shall become the
property of CITY upon completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of the
Agreement.
Exhibit D (Page 3 of 3)
'70
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 115 - 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.
C.i. TY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 262
ATTACHMENT
Western Zone:
· Specific definition of areas included in a possible Sphe~'e 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 Space in 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 2001. The City Manager would be
authorized to prepare a budget transfer from the Open Space Budget Reserve and return
to the City Council for approval.
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 19'99~2000.
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 SOl
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 M'INUTES
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 LaBar, 1'I 707 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, Heasanton, 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. Livemore 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 Livemore. 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 ~t~'t~es and he
asked if this is primarily the trail.
Mr. Peabody stated 150 acres would be acquired in conjunction with 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. Everything east of the line is approximately the cJ35 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 935 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 double.
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 all 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 thatlevel 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. This would 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 1-680, 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 SOl 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~ 265'
consider whether the western portion should remain in our SOI, 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 w0iild 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 Hace, thanked the Council and stafffor'ill 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, 211 Z0 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 10 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 prettS; 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, I 1182 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 tong 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 v&ry 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, 11637 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 l0
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 2010 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..T:~.ey encourage increased
opportunity for agriculture participation and opportunities for' families that so desire to
remain on the land. Dublin c~n 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 arid sewer lines
running to it plus they donated money towards the water tank. They have the capacity to
build 40 to 50 homes. Them 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 landis
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 McCallislet, 4700 Bel Roma Road, Livermore, stated she was representing Citizens
for Property Rights in Dublin and stated she felt t,he study-boils down to eastern. zone will
get development and in exchange we have to put the rest of the hnd 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
REG'ULA2R 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 the 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 Driv% 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. "~Thi~ means' riiord open Sf~Ce 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 has a tot 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
C~[TY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME l0
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 arid 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 1993 and 79% said that they did not want to develop
that area. We should release them from our SOl 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 all 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
30 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 Iand.
C!TY 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 all. 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 bill 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 their '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 with letting the western portion go back to the
County. In some ways this might be better for Dublin. For Dublifts 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 SO1 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.
CmZ 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 fight 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 took 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 EBRPD has already
purchased.
Mr. Peabody stated yes it does.
CITY COUNC][L MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June20, 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 with 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 took 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 to 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 HSUston summarized a need to get all the data, attach numbers and get the
Communi~ 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 10
REG'ULAR MEETING
dune 20, 2000
PAGE 273
or-
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 CouncirS 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
opfions~ 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.. Howa?d, seconded by Vice Mayor Lockhart~ and by unanimous vote,
the Council 'confirmed the above directibm :
ANNUAL REVIEW OF BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH LINHART FETERSEN POWERS ASSOCIATES (LFzA)
AND 'PR4~POSED' FEE' ADJUSTMENTS
8:07 p.m. (600-;30)
Community Director Eddie Peabody presented the: Staff Report and advised
that the City of Dublin the firm of Linhart Petersen Powers Associates (LPzA)
since July I., 1995 to provide inspection, plan checking and building code
enforcement. The firm has numerous positive responses through the City's
Customer Service comment card over the past year. LPzA's work has been
exemplary and responsive to the City's Customer requests on the phone and over
the counter have been handled quickly Lciently.
In Fiscal Year 2000-2001, it is projected that 14
specialized services will be required. Only those
2000-ZO01 hours of services reach projections, the
contract will be $935,500.
hours of inspection, plan check and
uired will be billed. If fhe FY
of services under this
Mayor Houston stated he felt they have done an outstanding job
last. few years.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 19
REGULAR MEETING
June 20, 2000
PAGE 274
a('
CITY OF DUBLIN
BUDGET CHANGE FORM
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required):
CHANGE FORM #
Budget Transfers:
X
Required)
__ From Appropriated Reserves
(From General Fund Open Space Reserve)
From New Revenues
From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (1080-799.000)
Within Same Department Activity
Between Departments (City Council Approval
Other
NaiTle:
Name: General Fund - Open Space Study -
Professional Services
Account #: Account #: 001.90100.741.000
Name: Name:
$57,220
Account#: Account #:
Name: Name:
Account #: Account #:
Name: Name:
Account #: Account #:
Name: Name:
Account #: Account #:
City Manager: Date:
Signature
ASD/Fin Mgr Date:
Signature
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: As part of the Study, the City will be using funds prexdously
reserved for the Open Space Study' in the General Fund.
Mayor: Date:
Signature
Posted By: Date:
Signature
ATTACHMENT