HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.5 East County Area Plan Y
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Report to the City Council on the proposed
East County Area Plan.
REPORT PREPARED BY: _D�, Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: East County Area Plan Planning
Commission Policy Options
Report dated December 2, 1991 .
Exhibit B: December 11, 1991, letter from
Adolph Martinelli .
Exhibit C: Draft letter to the President
of the Alameda County Board of
lqly Supervisors .
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to send draft letter
(Exhibit C) to President of Alameda County
Board of Supervisors expressing concerns and
requesting a process where meaningful dialog
and discussion can occur.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
Alameda County is proposing to completely revise the Livermore
Amador Valley Planning Unit Plan of the Alameda County General Plan,
now renamed the East County Area Plan. The City of Dublin has
received a copy of the East County Area Plan Planning Commission
Policy Options Report dated December 2, 1991 . The report outlines
eight proposed policy options for subregional planning, growth
management, urban service line, jobs/housing balance, fiscal impacts,
agriculture, city/county development and new communities . These
policies are to be included in an updated East County Area Plan.
Additionally, the County is proposing a new Regional Element for
County-wide land use planning and to revise the Open Space Element.
The Regional Element would coordinate County land use and
transportation policies in unincorporated areas, incorporated cities,
and subregional and regional agencies .
The Alameda County Planning Staff proposed policy options for
discussion by the Alameda County Planning Commission at its December
2, 1991, study session as shown on pages 3 through 10 of Exhibit A.
At that study session the Planning Commission received and discussed
the report without allowing comments from members of the public . At
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
5 COPIES TO: Agenda/General File
ITEM NO. � East County Plan File
/ECO12-23 Project Planner
CITY CLERK
FILE
the end of the meeting County Staff requested that the Report be
presented to the City Council for comment. City Staff is currently
reviewing the land use policy issues proposed in the report and will
bring draft comments to the City Council for consideration in January
of 1992 . At this time, staff has several major concerns with the
process proposed by Alameda County for preparing the East County Area
Plan:
1 . The report was delivered to the City on November 27 , 1991
(the day before Thanksgiving) for review before the study session on
December 2, 1991, the following Monday. The lateness of delivery
allowed no time for adequate review of the report.
2 . At the study session, no input was allowed from interested
parties .
3 . The report does not adequately explain the reasons for the
policies set forth in the report or describe their consequences and
means of implementation.
4 . Several policies are proposed that could greatly limit the
ability of the City to make land use decisions that are highly
important to the future of Dublin.
5 . The report states that a "cooperative effort among local
cities and agencies is proposed to provide a 'bottom up' approach to
subregional planning as an alternative to the 'top down' approach
proposed by recent State legislation and the 'regional ' approach
proposed by the Bay Vision 2020 Commission" .
The letter from Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Planning
Director, dated December 11, 1991 (Exhibit B) indicates only three
opportunities to provide city input. In each case, the input would be
in the form of formal comments :
a. In writing based on the policy options report by January
1992;
b. At a meeting in March prior to completing the Draft General
Plan (after the policies are determined) ; and
C . When the Draft General Plan and EIR are released in April .
A cooperative effort typically means more than just formal
comments followed by formal responses . Substantial dialog and
discussion on the issues needs to take place. If Alameda County
wishes to establish a cooperative effort among local cities the Board
of Supervisors should establish a process where meaningful dialog and
discussion can occur among elected officials and Staffs of the local
cities and Alameda County.
Staff would recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor
to send a letter to the President of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors expressing the City' s processing concerns and requesting
establishment of a process where meaningful dialog and discussion can
take place.
EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY OPTIONS REPORT
December 2, 1991
SUMMARY
Introduction
Alameda County has embarked on a process to update the entire County General Plan
covering 743 square miles of incorporated and unincorporated land. Staff is proposing to
restructure the existing General Plan into three Area Plans (East County, Eden, and Castro
Valley) and a summary document containing all County-wide functional elements covering
land use, circulation, housing, safety, conservation, open space, recreation, noise and other
issues (see Figures 1 and 2).
The first step in the General Plan Update process will be a complete revision of the existing
1977 Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit Plan, the formulation of a new Regional
Element for County-wide land use planning, and revisions to the existing Open Space
Element (see Figure 3). The East County Area Plan will be reformatted into a concise, user
friendly policy document which will provide policy guidance for all unincorporated areas in
East County. The Regional Element will coordinate County land use and transportation
policies among the three unincorporated planning areas,incorporated cities,and subregional
and regional agencies such as the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
County Economic Development Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
Agency, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Revisions to the Open Space
Element will clarify existing agriculture and open space designations in remote areas of East
County.
The PolicyQptions Report
This policy options report is the most recent product of the General Plan Update process.
The report presents staff recommendations for eight major issues affecting East County.The
policy options are presented in condensed form and will be expanded in the forthcoming
East County Area Plan. In this report, staff has synthesized the most significant of the issues
raised in the prior five issue papers and public hearings conducted over the past ten months.
The County Planning Commission requested the policy options report as a point of
departure for discussing and formulating key policies which affect the future development
and conservation of East County. At the meeting of December 2, staff will be available to
further expand on the policies contained in this report. Planning Commissioners will
comment on the effectiveness of the various policy options in guiding the future of East
County. Following Planning Commission discussion of the attached policy options, staff will
prepare a Draft East County Area Plan and accompanying Draft EIR by April 1992 for
public review and comment.
-1-
EMT
The East County Subregional APProach
The central approach behind the East County Area Plan and Regional Element is the
coordination of land use planning throughout the East County subregion. The intent of the
Plan is to bridge the gap between incorporated City General Plans, County proposals for
unincorporated areas, and regional policies which affect land use and transportation
planning by local jurisdictions.
The recommended policies are intended to manage growth at the subregional level, to
promote economic development,to reduce inter-city traffic congestion,to provide affordable
housing near employment centers, to develop compact communities with a full range of
public facilities, and to preserve open space, agriculture and environmental quality while
accommodating necessary growth in the subregion.
In order to fulfill these subregional objectives, Alameda County is proposing to take a
leahip role in coordinating land use planning:aniong cities,special"dish cfs;and iegional
_.
agencies. A cooperative effort among local cities and agencies is proposed to provide'a
'ottom up" approach to subregional planning as an alternative to the "top down" approach
proposed by recent State legislation and the regional approach proposed by the Bay Vision
2020 Commission. If the County and cities take a proactive role in developing a workable
plan which achieves State and regional objectives for growth management, jobs/housing
balance, affordable housing, open space preservation, and fiscal balance, State and regional
dictates may become unnecessary. East County could become a model for cooperative
planning at the subregional level. This is the goal of the East County Area Plan.
(c4mim)
-2-
ALAME DA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
AREA PLANS FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS
• East County • Natural Resources, Recreation &. Open Space Element
• Castro Valley • Regional Element
• Eden Area
• Housing Element
Issues covered in each area plan: • Safety and Noise Element
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
* All mandatory elements as well as optional elemer'
Issues unique to each area will be consolidated into these four elements.
wool—
Figure
General Plan Format Options Report
RECOMMENDED FORMAT
Based on a review of the format options presented in the previous'section and discussion with County
staff, the Consultant recommends the following format for the revised Alameda County General Plan:
1. Prepare and adopt four countywide functional elements: 1) Regional Element; 2) Housing Element;
3) Natural Resources, Recreation, and Open Space Element; and 4) Safety and Noise Element (see
Appendix B for a proposed outline). The land use and transportation portions of the Regional Element
and the noise portion of the Safety and Noise Element would be very general in scope and would be
substantially supplemented by more detailed area plans for unincorporated areas. The Housing
Element, the Natural Resources, Recreation and Open Space Element. and the Safety and Noise
Element would be more detailed in scope and would be supplemented to only a limited degree by area
plans for unincorporated areas. (It should be noted that the County is currently preparing an Energy
Element. Upon adoption the Energy Element may eonsitute a fifth functional element or it may be
folded into the Natural Resouces, Recreation, and Open Space Element.)
2. Prepare and adopt area plans for unincorporated areas only. Countywide functional plans would
address both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Area plans would be prepared for the following
three unincorporated areas: Eden Area, Castro Valley, and East County. Area plans for
unincorporated areas should focus principally on land use,transportation,public facilities and services,
noise, and issues that are unique to the Planning Area (see Appendix C for a proposed outline). This
approach will necessitate adjusting the existing geographic element boundaries in existing plans to
ensure that all unincorporated territory in the county is included in one of the three area plans. The
existing General Plan for the Central Metropolitan,Eden, and Washington Planning Units would be
eliminated.
3. Segregate policy and background information in both the countywide functional elements and the area
plans. All General Plan documents should include an introduction, policy section, and background
section. This will help clarify the distinction between what is adopted policy from what is purely
descriptive of existing conditions and trends.
4. Use three levels of policy statements: "goals," "policies," and "implementation programs." General
Plan documents would include a single goal statement for each major issue addressed in the document.
Under each goal there would be several "policies" (e.g., 5 to 20). Implementation programs would
be grouped either under each goal statement following the list of policies or at the end of the
elements. Implementation programs should include a description of the proposed action and an
identification of the agency or agencies responsible for carrying out the program.
5. Develop a single set of land use categories and a single set of functional classifications for streets and
roads to be used in the area plans.
6. Use a loose leaf. binder format for publication of all the General Plan documents.
Source: J. Laurence Mintier & Associates
Figure 2
THE GENERAL PLAN REVISION PROCESS.
First Step: East County Update
REGIONAL ELEMENT
Goals
EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN Policies Justification
Goals
Implementation Programs
Policies Justification •.�---�-fy
Implementation Programs OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Goals
Policies Justification
Implementation Programs
Figure 3
EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY OPTIONS
December 2, 1991 .
eti' .asCCOun Pori ions:;;;< <> Just tatio� l~or�referred,Poly
: P ........ . ............. .tY. .. .. .... ............ _.._ _ 0P' . : .,:.
Po 'x 1: SubregionaI Planning Policy 1:�Subr_e2ional Planning
Option A: Coordinate land use planning Major revisions to California law are
among cities, the County, special contemplated to coordinate land use
districts, and regional agencies using planning among State, regional, and local
subregional objectives established in the agencies.(1) This coordination is best
East County Area Plan. achieved at the subregional level. Rather
than having local planning regulated by a
Major objectives of the Area Plan are to State or regional agency, the East County
manage growth, to promote compact Area Plan would provide a 'bottom up"
communities, to achieve a jobs/housing approach to regional planning which
balance, to equalize fiscal benefits, and balances local control with regional
to preserve open space and objectives. The East County General
environmental quality while Plan would provide a mechanism to
accommodating economic development coordinate local land use planning, to
opportunities and necessary growth achieve regional objectives (such as
throughout the East County subregion . affordable housing and environmental
quality), and to equitably distribute the
costs and benefits of future development
and conservation among local
Option B: Coordinate land use planning jurisdictions.(2)
at the State and regional level. To achieve these objectives, the East
County Area Plan would establish
Option C: Maintain existing system of criteria for land use planning using
exclusive local control over land use standards established by cities (e.g.
planning with non-binding review by General Plans), the County (e.g.
impacted jurisdictions. Congestion Management Program),
regional agencies (e.g. regional housing
allocations), and the State (e.g.
forthcoming growth management
legislation).
Coordination of land use, economic, and
social service planning at the subregional
level would bridge the gap between the
existing system of exclusive local control
and proposed systems of State and
regional control.
-3-
Policy 2: Growth Management Policy 2: Growth Management
Option A: Establish a 20 year holding A specific holding capacity for jobs and
capacity for East County and phase housing units can best achieve a balance
development according to availability of among.land uses in East County and a
infrastructure and services and limit to urban development within the
conformance with East County objectives. planning period Holding capacities
currently are used by cities to balance
jobs and housing, size infrastructure, and
meet local objectives.(3) A County-wide
Option B: Phase growth in an orderly 'holding capacity would serve to
manner. (1977 Livermore Amador Valley coordinate the amount and distribution
Planning Unit (LAVPU) General Plan, of development among cities and the
p. 12, Objective 1) County at a subregional level.
Tying annual growth to the availability of
Option C: Existing communities should facilities and services provides the most
serve as nuclei for growth. Land uses logical nexus for growth limits while
should be located in appropriate areas. allowing market forces to operate. Level
(1989 LAVPU as adopted by the of service standards provide a rational
Planning Commission (PC), p. III.A-8, approach to phasing growth, rather than
Principle 1.2, 13) arbitrary numerical limits. The City of
Pleasanton currently uses a level of
service approach in determining annual
Option D: Regulate the annual number growth limits. Coordinating annual
of housing units and Industrial, ' growth among cities and the County
Commercial and Office square footage would ensure adequate infrastructure
for unincorporated and/or incorporated rapacity (water, sewer) and services
areas. levels (police, fire) at a subregional level
in addition to a local level.(4) The
overall development of the East County
subregion needs to be monitored and
balanced.(5) The County, in cooperation
with cities and districts, is the agency
whose political boundaries best matches
the East County subregion.
-4-
Policy 3: Urban Service Line Policy 3: Urban Service Line
Option A: Establish a Growth A Growth Management Line would
Management Line to encompass a 20 define the geographic area within which
year holding capacity and a permanent the East County holding capacity applies.
Urban Service Line beyond which only It should be drawn to include all areas
open space, park, and agricultural uses intended for development within the 20
will be allowed. year period. The Growth Management
Line could be revised if a new holding
capacity is needed or if other unusual
Option B: Use only a temporary, 20 year public benefits are provided. Criteria for
Growth Management line which can be amending the Line would be included in
amended. the General Plan.
Option C: Use only a permanent Urban East County cities have successfully used
Service Line which cannot be amended a de facto growth management line in
the form of General Plan boundaries.
Option D: Determine the appropriateness These boundaries are used by cities to
of converting agricultural and open space balance land uses and to size
lands to urban uses on a case-by-case infrastructure at a local level. An East
basis, without a temporary or permanent County Growth Management Line would
geographic boundary. encourage coordinated land use planning
among cities and the County at a
subregional level.
The Urban Service Line would define a
permanent boundary between developed
and non-developed land. Land outside
this line should be targeted for
permanent preservation using agricultural
incentives, conservation easements, and
land purchases by an East County Land
Trust. All land outside the Urban Service
Line would be given a viable economic
use and/or a financial incentive to
dedicate the land for public use. The
Urban Service Line would provide
assurances for the provision of needed
infrastructure and greater certainty for
development and conservation.(6)
-5-
Policy 4: Jobs/Housing Balance Policy 4: Jobs/Housing Balance
Option A: Provide an approximate A balance of jobs and housing is most
balance between jobs and housing functional at the subregional level within
throughout East County, using the which most commuting occurs. Within
holding capacity established in East County, one housing unit should be
Policy 2. Provide mixed use available to each employed resident
neighborhoods, affordable housing near minus the number of external workers
jobs, improved transit service, and other who can realistically commute into the
incentives to achieve a jobs/housing area on major roads and transit, given
balance within the subregion. projected capacity constraints.(7)
East County cities have successfully used
Option B: Achieve a better balance jobs/housing policies to balance
between commercial/industrial uses and development at the local level. However,
residential uses (1977 LAVPU, p. 13, serious imbalances are projected for
Objective 2) cumulative buildout of city general plans
resulting in constraints to economic
Option C: Provide sufficient land to allow development, tax revenues, infrastructure
an approximate balance between jobs and and services. (8) (9) Studies have
employment. (1989 PC LAVPU, p. III.A- indicated that city's plans for revenue
7, Principle 1.1) producing land uses cannot be realized
without a more balanced provision of
Option D: Allow whatever ratio of jobs affordable housing to attract a local
and housing is provided in the cumulative workforce.(10) The East County
holding capacities of cities' general plans. subregion is the logical area within which
to coordinate city and County plans for
jobs and housing.
-6-
Policy 5: Fiscal J=ade Policy 5: Fiscal J=acts
Option A: Develop mechanisms to reduce Inequities in the existing local tax
the 5scal motive that currently drives structure have led to the "fiscalization" of
land use and planning decisions land use whereby local jurisdictions
throughout the subregion. compete for lucrative commercial
development often at the expense of
regional needs such as affordable
Option B: Rely on a forthcoming formula housing.(11) A new approach is needed
for redistribution of tax revenue to be to equalize the fiscal costs and benefits
established by State or regional agencies. of development. Recent studies have
recommended a credit system to award
Option C: Maintain existing fiscal costs jurisdictions which provide regionally
and benefits of land use decisions. beneficial uses and redistribute the tax
benefits from those jurisdictions which
continue to seek fiscally lucrative
development.(12) A similar system could
be cooperatively developed by East
County jurisdictions to reduce fiscal
inequities. Credits could also be
transferred within the subregion, as long
as regional objectives were met. This
concept is being explored at the State
level as a means to redistribute sales
taxes. Such a system could distribute
more equitably the benefits of growth
and could generate the financial
resources to provide improved levels of
service to East County residents.
-7-
Policy 6: Agriculture Polig6: Agriculture
Option A: Minimum parcel sizes.in Large parcels of land tend to reduce
agriculture and open space areas should development pressures, maintain land
be determined by terrain, access, values, and enable agricultural activities.
agricultural productivity, recreational The 100 acre minimum parcel size is the
potential, and other factors. Minimum standard existing zoning designation and
parcel sizes and allowable uses would best matches the irregular parcels in
vary by area ranging from 20 acres in remote areas which are often defined by
intensively cultivated areas, to 100 acres topography, soils, and other non-linear
for grazing lands, and larger acreage for features. Parcel sizes and use restrictions
sensitive open space areas. may vary from area to area (e.g. 20 acre
minimums for vineyards, 100 acre
Option B: Preserve agriculture in minimums for grazing, larger minimums
undeveloped areas of Class I and II soils for sensitive open space areas).(13)
(1977 LAVPU, p. 20, Objective 10)
The use of a 100 acre minimum parcel
Option C: Designate areas more than 5 size has been proposed as base zoning in
miles from city limits and more than one the South Livermore area with 20 acre
mile from public roads as "Large Parcel minimums for areas which are planted in
Agriculture" using 80 acre parcels. vineyards and which dedicate agricultural
Encourage intensive agriculture within easements.(14) A similar system of 100+
five miles of city limits and within one acre base zoning with smaller lot
mile of public roads using 20 acre incentives for regionally beneficial uses
minimal parcels (1989 PC LAVPU, p. could be applied throughout East
MA-1Z Principle 2.2) County. Parcel sizes and allowable uses
should be defined to promote the
Option D: Designate areas more than 5 economic advantages of various subareas
miles from city limits and more than one (such as wine growing in South
mile from public roads as "Large Parcel Livermore) rather than establishing
Agriculture" using 160 acre parcels. uniform distances which tend to be
Encourage intensive agriculture within arbitrary and ignore local variations in
five miles of city limits and within one topography, soils, etc. These natural
mile of public roads using 40 acre resource factors should be used to define
minimal parcels (1989 LAVPU, as the boundary between Agricultural and
proposed by Supervisor King and adopted Residential uses.
by the Board of Supervisors p. III.A-12,
Principle 2.2)
-8-
Policy 7: City/County City/County Development Policy 7: City,lCoun , Development
Option A: Provide cities with the first Cities generally have infrastructure and
opportunity to annex unincorporated services in place to serve new
land and approve development. Allow development. However, certain
development by the County in certain unincorporated areas which are logical
unincorporated areas, subject to specific for development and which would
level of service standards and special contribute to East County objectives may
service districts. Future development require special service districts outside
should conform to all East County City limits. Level of service standards for
policies, regardless of whether unincorporated development should be
development occurs in cities or in the established to match that of city services,
County. Eventually, most urban areas thereby allowing development in
likely will be annexed by cities. whatever jurisdiction is best able to
provide services and meet East County
objectives. Existing unincorporated areas
Option B: All urban development shall elsewhere in California have successfiilly
be within incorporated areas. Discourage provided unincorporated service levels
new special districts (1977 LAVPU, p. 15, commensurate with those provided by
Objective 3) cities.
Option C: Unincorporated areas should
be largely open space except within
planned urban areas which have
adequate services and utilities (1989 PC
LAVPU, p. III.A-11, Principle 2.1)
-9-
Policy 8: New Communities PoHx8: New Communities
Option A: Allow new communities in City general plans call for far more jobs
specific areas, subject to level of service than housing, a condition which
standards and service districts. effectively constrains economic
development and creates fiscal inequities
in land use planning.
Option B: All urban development shall
be within incorporated areas. Discourage Certain unincorporated areas, such as
new special districts (1977 LAVPU, p. 15, North Livermore, are logical for urban
Objective 3) development (because of good access,
relatively flat terrain, and minimal
Option C: Unincorporated areas should environmental constraints) but lack
be largely open space except within existing facilities and services. New
planned urban areas which have special districts could be easily created to
adequate services and utilities (1989 PC provide "city quality" levels of service in
LAVPU, p. E I.A-11, Principle 2.1) certain unincorporated areas.
A new community within East County
would contribute to a balance of jobs and
housing, would promote additional
affordable housing for workers, and
would serve to contain holding capacity
in urban areas, thereby preserving more
remote areas in open space and
agriculture.
The new communities program would
provide the urban, "infill" component of a
comprehensive growth management
strategy for East County which would
include a holding capacity limit, Urban
Service Line, jobs/housing balance,
affordable housing strategies, revenue
sharing, and revised level of service
standards for new development.
(cl:poopcim122)
-10-
FOOTNOTES
1. Center for California Studies, A Briefing on the Growth Management Consensus PrW=
before the California State Le 'slg lature. October 31, 1991.
2. Alameda County, Issue Paper #5. pages 7 - 9
3. Governor's Interagency Council on Growth Management, 1991 Local Government
Growth Management Survey, September 1991
4, Alameda County, Issue Paper #4. page 20
5. Alameda County, Issue Paper #5. pages 6 - 9
6. Governor's Interagency Council on Growth Management, 1991 Local Government
Growth Management Survey, page 3
7. Alameda County, Issue Paper #5.-pages 4 - 11
8: Economic and Planning Systems, Growth Inducing Impacts Analysis of Tri-Valley
Wastewater Authority_ Fnort FQansio n. 1990
9. ABAG, Jobs/Housing Balance for Traffic Mitigation, 1985
10. Bay Area Council/ABAG, A Consensus For Housing: The Opportunities Posed By
Regional Growth Management in the Bad September 1991
11. Alameda County, Issue Paper #4, pages 23 - 25
12. Bay Area Council/ABAG, A Consensus For Housing: The Opportunities Posed By
Regional Growth Management in the Bay Are September 1991
13. Alameda County, Issue Paper #2. page 9
14. Alameda County, South Livermore Valley Area Plan. March 7, 1991
(cf:pwpt;on-M)
-11-
DEC 11 '91 04:51PM COUNTY OF ALAMEDA P.2i3
ALAM
EDA CCU ONTY PLANKING .DEPARTMENT
Development Planning ' Housing&Community Development ' Policy Planning&Research ' Zoning Administration&Enforeement
399 Elmhurst Street,Hayward, CA 94544 (510)670-5400 FAX (510) 785-8793
December 11, 1991
RECEIVED
Mayor.and Members of the City Council DEC 121991
City of Dublin pUBLIN PLANNING
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
on December 2, the Alameda County Planning Commission held a workshop to
discuss the attached policy option paper. This is the most recent step in drafting a
new General Plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley area (East County). Members
of your staff were present to hear discussion of these policy options.
Alameda County welcomes your participation in its efforts to develop a mutually
agreeable East County General Plan which benefits all local jurisdictions in this
subregion. In order to achieve the best General Plan for East County, we propose
several opportunities for your city to provide input, as follows:
1. Policy Ovtian Comments
Your City Council may wish to comment on the preliminary policy
options described in the attached report. County staff is still refining
these policies and would benefit from comments and suggestions from
you as to how these policies might best be achieved or modified to
meet the needs of your city. We would appreciate your comments as
soon as possible but no later than the end of January 1992. At the
same time, it would be helpful if your staff could provide us with your
most recent land use proposals within your city's planning area.
2. Formulation of Draft Land LI&e Policies and NMan
County staff will incorporate your policy suggestions into an
administrative draft General Plan and land use map covering all of
East County. We propose to meet with your staff to review these draft
policies and land uses in March prior to completing a Draft General
Plan for public review in April. Our goal is to produce a coherent
General Plan which effectively coordinates land use and transportation
among all cities and unincorporated areas in East County.
FRINT:C BY UNION LABOR-LOCAL 444.AFLLCIO•LOCAL 616.c
DEC 11 '91 04:52RI COUNTY OF ALAMEDA P•3/3
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 11, 1991
Page 2
3. Draft Qmeral Plan
Based on your input, County staff will issue a Draft General Plan and
Draft EIR in April. Our intent is to incorporate your city's concerns
in the draft document based on your input from Steps 1 and 2. You
will have an additional opportunity to comment on the draft documents
in written form during the 45 day CEQA review period and again
during public hearings before the Alameda County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Should you have any suggestions as to how we can effectively coordinate input from
the three East County cities, I would be happy to hear from you. Also, should you
wish to meet with me concerning the cities' role in formulating the East County
General Plan, I would be pleased to set up a meeting with you or your staff at your
convenience.
I look forward to working with your city to formulate a mutually acceptable General
Plan for East County. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Adolph Martinelli
Attach.
East County Area Plan-Policy Options Report,
December 2, 1991
cc: Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Laurence Tong, Planning Director
zaoaB
CITY OF DUBLIN
�\'•� �/" PO. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568
President Mary King
Alameda County Board of Supervisors DRAFT
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
SUBJECT: East County Area Plan Update
Dear President King:
The City of Dublin has received a copy of the East County Area
Plan Planning Commission Policy Options Report dated December 2, 1991.
The report outlines eight proposed policy options for subregional
planning, growth management, urban service line, jobs/housing balance,
fiscal impacts, agriculture, city/county development and new
communities. These policies are to be included in an updated East
County General Plan.
The City is addressing these and other issues in amendments to
its General Plan and in the review of large development proposals in
western and eastern Dublin. The regional importance of the above
mentioned issues are clear and the City is more than willing to work
cooperatively toward solutions. The City is currently reviewing the
land use policy issues proposed in the report. At this time, the City
has several concerns with the process proposed for preparing the East
County Area Plan:
1 . The report was delivered to the City on November 27, 1991,
(the day before Thanksgiving) for review before the study session on
December 2, 1991 , the following Monday. The lateness of delivery
allowed no time for adequate review of the report.
2. At the study session, no input was allowed from interested
parties including representatives from the local cities.
3 . The report does not adequately explain the reasons for the
policies set forth in the report or describe their consequences and
means of implementation.
4. Several policies are proposed that could greatly limit the
ability of the City to make land use decisions within the City's
Sphere of Influence and future growth areas.
5. The report states that a "cooperative effort among local
cities and agencies is proposed to provide a "bottom up" approach to
subregional planning as an alternative to the "top down" approach
proposed by recent State legislation and the regional approach
proposed by the Bay Vision 2020 Commission" . The letter from Adolph
Martinelli dated December 11, 1991 indicates only three opportunities
n
Administration (415) 833-6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Ins 6IT-C.
Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415)
Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415) 833.6630 • Recreation (415) 833-6L
to provide city input and in each case, the input would be in the form
of formal comments:
a. In writing based on the policy options report by
January 1992 .
b. At a meeting in March prior to completing the Draft
General Plan (after the policies are determined) , and
C. When the Draft General Plan and EIR are released in
April.
The City will be providing formal comments with regard to the
land use policies in January, 1992 , after the City has done an
adequate review of the report. A "cooperative effort" , however,
typically means more than just formal comments followed by formal
responses. Substantial dialog and discussion on the issues needs to
take place.
If Alameda County truly wishes to establish a cooperative effort
among local cities, the Dublin City Council would request the Board of
Supervisors to establish a process where meaningful dialog and
discussion can occur among the elected officials and Staffs of the
local cities and Alameda County. With this process, we can hopefully
arrive at policies which are acceptable to all.
If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Carrington,
Senior Planner, or me at 833-6610.
Sincerely yours,
Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
City of Dublin
cc: Cathy Brown, Mayor, City of Livermore
Ken Mercer, Mayor, City of Pleasanton
Adolph Martinelli, Planning Director, Alameda County