HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 EDublinGPA&SpecPln
,'t
~.
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 14 AND 21, 1993
SUBJECT:
First and second Public Hearings on the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan
~.
PREPARED BY:
Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator
Draft Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992
(previously sent under separate cover)
Draft Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992 (previously
send under separate cover)
Draft Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, dated August 28,
1992 (previously send under separate cover)
Final Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, dated December 7
and 21, 1992 (previously sent under separate cover)
5. / Eastern Dublin property Tax Exchange Agreement
6. ~ Recommended Planning Commission changes to the Draft General Plan
Amendment
7. ~Recommended Planning Commission changes to the Draft Specific Plan
8. Planning commission Resolution Recommending City Council
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Eastern
Dublin
9. ~ Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption
of the Draft Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment
10. ~Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City council Adoption
of the Draft Eastern Dublin specific plan
11. ~Tentative City Council Public Hearing/Meeting Schedule
12. ~ummary of Findings by Economics Research Associates
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
{oJ)r / /
\}. I ~ ~
~ \(tr
2.
, 3.
~.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
~
. 2.
~ f7r\ /
'~0X 3.
4.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
I BACKGROUND
5.
6.
Hear staff/Consultant presentation on General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan process
Hear Staff/Consultant presentation on General Plan Amendment,
specific Plan, environmental issues and Eastern Dublin Property
Tax Exchange Agreement
Ask questions of Staff/Consultants
Open public hearing; take public testimony on the General Plan
Amendment, and specific plan and hear public comments on
environmental issues and Eastern Dublin property Tax Exchange
Agreement
Continue public hearing to January 21, 1993
On January 21, 1993, hear additional public testimony on General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and comments on environmental
issues and Eastern Dublin property Tax Exchange Agreement
Close public hearing and provide direction to staff regarding
major issues
7.
None
A. Overview of Study Process
The Eastern Dublin study began in 1987 in response to proposals for development of
the Dublin Ranch property within the City's eastern extended planning area. The City
Council determined that a comprehensive planning study should be undertaken
~. r
~;}f) -30
...
--
.
1.
for eastern Dublin prior to acting on individual development applications. In 1988,
the City contracted with Wallace, Roberts &: Todd, a multi-disciplinary team of
planners, designers, engineers, economists and environmental specialists to conduct
the necessary technical studies and prepare the required planning and environmental
documents.
The planning process for eastern Dublin can be divided into five stages. Stage I
involved a massive data collection effort which resulted in a background document
entitled: "Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Studies:
Environmental Setting", dated November 29, 1988. (A copy is available for review
at the City of Dublin Planning Department.) This background report summarizes
existing environmental conditions, related development opportunities and constraints
and recommendations for minimizing potential environmental impacts through site
planning and design.
Using the information in the background report, five land use concepts were
formulated, which initiated Rta~e II of the planning process. (Refer to "Land Use
Concept Report," dated April 19, 1990; available from the City Planning
Department.) Each concept illustrated different densities and distribution of land
uses. During this stage of the planning process, a series of six joint public study
sessions/workshops were conducted before the City Council/Planning Commission
from April 1990 through February 1991. Input from these meetings resulted in the
selection of a preferred land use concept for eastern DUblin, for environmental
analysis.
Sta~e m of the process involved preparation of the draft general plan amendment,
specific plan and environmental impact report for eastern Dublin. The general plan
amendment and specific plan were released for public review on May 27, 1992.
These documents would provide the planning framework for future development in
eastern Dublin. The Draft EIR was released August 28, 1992; the CEQA mandaterl
pUblic review period ended October 13, 1992. However, this review period was
extended two weeks by the City Council to October 29, 1992. Forty-three letters
with over 750 comments were received on the Draft EIR. All have been responded
to and are contained in the Final EIR, dated December 7 and December 21, 1992.
StalZe IV involved a series of thirteen public hearings and meetings before the
Planning Commission to receive input from the community, agencies and property
owners on the General Plan Amendment (GP A), Specific Plan (SP) and Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). On December 21, 1992 the Commission
recommended City Council certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan with revisions. (See Attachments 6 and
7 for the recommended revisions and Attachments '3,9 and 10 for the Planning.
Com mission resolutions.)
Stage V is the current stage of the process. This stage will involve the following
steps (see Attachment 11 for dates and topics of public hearings and meetings)
Councilhears Staff/Consultant presentations; holds public hearing on General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan; hears comments on environmental issues and
Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement.
2
.
.
Council closes public hearing after all testimony and comments are
received and begins deliberation on the Final EIR, Eastern Dublin
Property Tax Exchange Agreement, Draft General Plan Amendment and
specific Plan
council takes action, by resolutions, on the Final EIR; Eastern Dublin
Property Tax Exchange Agreement, Draft General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan
As noted above, there is no public hearing before the City Council on the Final EIR
or the Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement. However, to provide full
public disclosure and ample opportunity for public input, four public hearings were
held before the Planning Commission during September and October, 1992 on the EIR.
During the City Council public hearing, public comments on environmental issues and
the Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement will be accepted.
B. proiect Description
The project, as defined by the Draft EIR, is a general plan amendment for 6,920
acres and' a specific plan for 3,328 acres, which represents about 50 percent of the
GP A area.... Th~ project is located on the eastern edge of the City of DUblin, near
the juncture o( two major interstate freeways - 1-580 and 1-680.
1. Draft General Plan Amendment
The GP A is a policy document which modifies the City's current general plan in
certain sections to accommodate the proposed specific plan. The major change is
to the general plan land use map which currently shows a portion of the project
area as residential/open space and business park/industrial. The proposed GP A
would expand the eastern boundary of the City's Extended Planning Area; would
change the commercial uses from business park/industrial to a mix of office, retail
and residential; and delineate a wide mix of residential densities for the area now
shown as residential/open space.
The result of these changes could be a community of 42,700 people, 18,000 dwelling
units, 11.6 million square feet of commercial space and 29,540 jobs. This would
occur over a 30-40 year timeframe and would depend on market conditions and
other factors. In comparison, the City's current General Plan would allow 21,460
plus jobs with appropriate housing densities to be determined by subsequent studies.
Thus the proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are in
concert with the general planning direction set forth by the City's current General
Plan.
To accom modate the uses provided in the Draft Eastern Dublin GP A and Specific
Plan, certain text and policy changes to the City's existing General Plan are
necessary to ensure consistency between it and the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The proposed text and policy changes are noted on the next page, along with
the appropriate page number from the Draft GP A.
3
-
e
ProDosed C~rn~es to the Existing Dublin General Plan as Set Forth in the
aft Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment with
Additional ChanlZes Recommended by the Planning Commission
Pae-e Number in Draft
Eastern Dublin GP A
Summary of ChaDlte
pp. 20-22
pp. 23-26
p. 27
p. 33
p. 35
Briefly describes the Eastern Dublin project
Modifies and adds land use categories
Discusses buildout; provides a table with buildout
numbers
Modifies policies regarding vegetation and slopes;
(also refer to Attachment 6 for additional changes
recommended by the Planning Commission)
Modifies policy on Williamson Act (refer to
Attachment 6 for the language recommended by
the Planning Com mission)
Adds recreation and school policies
Adds traffic and scenic corridor policies
Clarifies agricultural activities in study area
Slightly modifies text regarding historic resources
Modifies policy regarding riparian vegetation (refer
to Attachment 6 for the language recom mended by
the Planning Com mission)
pp. 5-6
pp. 7-9
pp. 11-13
p. 17
p. 19
The above proposed changes to the City's existing General Plan will be considered
by the City Council at a subsequent public meeting. Ultimately a decision will be
made by the Council whether to adopt the changes, with any further Council
recommendations, thereby amending the City's General Plan.
2. Draft SDecific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides a policy and land use framework for how
development should occur in that portion of eastern Dublin covered by the Specific
Plan. It does not specify or incorporate any detailed, individual development
proposals. Individual development applications would be submitted to the City
subsequent to adoption of the Specific Plan. Such applications will have to
demonstrate compliance with the Specific Plan guidelines and standards or request a
specific plan amendment if the proposal substantially deviates from the specific
plan.
The Specific Plan covers approximately fifty percent of the GP A area (3,328 acres).
The plan expands the policies contained in the proposed general plan amendment
which promote a fully balanced and integrated community consisting of residences,
offices, retail centers, schools, parks and open space. While the com munity will be
connected to central Dublin via an extension of Dublin Boulevard, it will be
physically separated from that part of the City by Camp Parks. Therefore it is
important that it be a full-service community with its own amenities and
distinctive character.
One of the basic premises of the plan is that communities must be designed to
provide truly viable alternatives to the automobile as the primary mode of
transportation. While the plan provides a more than adequate roadway system to
4
e
.
accommodate the many residents who will continue to commute in single occupant
autos, it also offers alternatives that promote less dependence on the auto.
The plan seeks to achieve the following objectives:
_ to provide for short and long term community needs for housing,
employment and leisure activities;
_ to create a com munity which provides for traditional auto-oriented living
as well as other options such as living within walking/biking distance of
work, accessing open space areas from onets home without driving,
walking/biking from work or home to do daily errands and walking through
a downtown area from store to store, rather than driving to each one;
_ to develop the area in a manner that protects and enhances th~ Cityts
natural beauty/resources including ridgelines and ridge tops, creeks and
streams, native vegetation especially along watercourses, and native
animals that currently inhabit the local hills and valleys; and
to build a community that is economically viable and self supporting in
terms of service costs versus revenue generated.
The Specific Plan, if fully implemented, would provide for a population of 27,800
housed in 12,500 dwelling units. Approximately 10.9 million square feet of
commercial space could be built, providing 28,300 jobs. Nine schools and seventeen
parks would also be provided. Residential uses would cover approximately 40
percent of the specific plan land area; non-residential uses - 30 percent; and parks,
open space and rural uses - 30 percent. The timeframe would be consistent with
that expected for the proposed General Plan Amendment - 30 to 40 years. Thus
buildout would not be anticipated until 2020, or beyond.
Generally, higher density housing has been located on the flatter lands near transit
and major activity centers such as offices and retail commercial. The outer-lying
hillier areas support more traditional single family, suburban living. However,
ttvillagett commercial centers have been placed within these residential areas to
define neighborhoods and provide some close-in Shopping opportunities accessible by
foot or bike, as well as the automobile.
The major retail commercial centers in the Plan are located along Tassajara and 1-
580 to optimize visibility from key thoroughfares. These locations provide regional
shopping opportunities with primary access via the automobile. More local
ttneighborhoodtt shopping needs are provided in the ttTown Center" which extends
east from Tassajara Road for approximately 3/4 mile. The Center is situated along
a tttransit spine," which will link eastern DUblin, the future east Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and existing central Dublin. The Town Center is intended as a
community focal point, where people can shop, dine, and enjoy civic events and
other entertainment. Higher density housing is located on either Ride of the Town
Center to facilitate pedestrian access and usage. Civic buildings are also intended
for this area.
The circulation system for the Specific Plan area is based on a grid street pattern
which will disperse traffic over many roadways, rather than concentrating it on a
few. This type of system efficiently accommodates auto traffic while also
5
-"
-^\
'.
encouraging pedestrian access between residential and non-residential areas. A grid
system can actually accommodate a greater number of vehicles than a system
which employs curvilinear streets.
The proposed grid system in eastern Dublin is comprised of smaller, two lane
streets throughout most of the residential areas. These streets are intended to
carry local neighborhood traffic. There are also several four and six lane major
arterials which will carry traffic east/west and north/south through the study area.
These arterials have been carefully placed to minimize intrusion into residential
areas and avoid dissecting the eastern Dublin com munity into isolated, disconnected
neighborhoods. .
The primary east/west arterials for through traffic will be Dublin Boulevard
extension (six lanes) and the extension of Gleason Drive to Fallon Road (four lanes).
The primary north/south routes will be Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (both four
lanes).
Another component of the Specific Plan is the parkland and open space system.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on retention of open spaces for passive
recreation and habitat preservation. An open space framework has been delineated
consisting of visually-sensitive ridge lines, wildlife habitat areas and stream and
drainage corridors. Trails have been designated throughout the open space system
allowing residents close-in access without disturbing sensitive habitat areas.
Provision of sufficient parklands to accommodate existing and future resident
recreation needs is accomplished through the designation of one 56 acre city park
and two community parks ranging from 45-80 acres each. These parks will include
facilities for organized sports activities. In addition, smaller (5-7 acre)
neighborhood parks are designated throughout the residential communities to provide
for closer-in recreational uses. They are centrally located to the surrounding
homes and in most instances, are situated adjacent to an open space corridor to
facilitate safe pedestrian movement.
C. Environmental Review
1 . The Process
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an
environmental impact report (EIR) for any project found to have a significant or
potentially significant impacts on the environment. In order to determine whether
a project could have these types of impacts, an initial study is prepared. The
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and initial study for eastern Dublin were originally
prepared in September 1988. A subsequent NOP was distributed in October 1991 to
clarify certain procedural steps associated with project approval.
Because potentially significant impacts were identified in the initial study,
preparation of an EIR was required. The Draft EIR was released August 28, 1992
and circulated per CEQA requirements. Seven duly noticed public hearings were
held before the Planning Com mission in September and October 1992 for the
purpose of receiving public com ment on the Draft EIR as well as the Draft GP A
and Specific Plan.
6
--
.
Per CEQA requirements, responses were prepared to the comments received on the
Draft EIR and presented to the Planning Commission for their review. These
com ments and responses are contained in the Draft Final EIR for Eastern DUblin,
dated December 7 and 21, 1992. The Planning Commission recommended City
Council certification of the Final EIR on December 21, 1992.
The section below briefly describes the major impacts which, after, mitigation, will
still remain significant. Such impacts will require the City Council to consider
making a Statement of Overriding Considerations at a later Council meeting. It is
important to list these impacts now so that the Council has an environmental
understanding of the most significant impacts of the proposed project during the
public testimony portion of the process. A more detailed Staff report on the Final
EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared for a later
Council meeting.
2. Environmental Imoacts Reauirimr a Statement of Overridirut Considerations
Traffic
This issue generated considerable discussion and is one of the most critical facets
of the project. The Draft EIR identified the following impacts which would remain
significant after mitigation (DEIR, Section 3.5):
Year 2010 with the Proiect
This scenario assumes oartial buildout by Year 2010 of projects currently
under consideration, including western Dublin, Hacienda Business Park, North
Livermore, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley.
a) 1-580 freeway between 1-680 and Hacienda will exceed acceptable
standards
b) Santa Rita/I-580 eastbound ramps will exceed acceptable standards
Cumulative Buildout with the Proiect
This scenario assumes .fJJ!!. buildout of all planning projects currently under
consideration (as listed under Year 2010 above). This is a highly speculative
scenario and represents a IIworstll case event.
c), The following intersections will exceed acceptable standards (at full,
cumulative buildout):
- Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive
- Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road
Ener~y ConsumDtion
An unavoidable increase in energy consumption will result from several aspects of
the project: expansion of gas and electric service, treatment and exportation of
wastewater, and water distribution. (DEIR, Sections 3.4 and 3.5)
7
rt
:.
~
Seismicity
Exposure of future residents to ground shaking due to an earthquake is
unmitigatable. (DEIR, Section 3.6)
visual
Alteration of the site's current visual character is an irreversible unmitigatable
impact. (DEIR, section 3.8)
~
It may not be possible to mitigate all homes from potential adverse noise
intrusions. (DEIR, section 3.10)
Air Quality
The regional air quality district mandates a reduction in air pollutants. Any
increase in pollutants is therefore considered significant. The project will
unavoidably add to the amount of certain pollutants. This impact cannot be reduced
to insignificance given the criteria that regional air pollution must be reduced,
not increased. (DEIR, section 3.11)
II DISCUSSION
A. Major Issues
During the thirteen public hearings and meeting before the Planning commission many
issues were raised about the Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. The council should receive public testimony and public comments on the
following major issues and any other related issues and, after the close of the
public hearing, give direction, by straw vote, to staff:
1. AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA
Issue: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is considering adoption of a
modification to the Airport Land Use Policy Plan to establish an Airport
Protection Area (APA). The APA may include restrictions on residential land
uses, schools and noise sensitive land uses and may require real estate
disclosure notices, noise attenuation construction techniques and avigation
easements.
Response: The City Council has indicated the need for additional time for the
cities to reach a consensus on the APA. If a consensus is reached prior to
adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan, Staff
recommends that the city council direct staff to prepare revisions to the
General plan Amendment/Specific Plan regarding the modified APA. If a
consensus cannot be reached, staff recommends that the City Council direct
staff to retain proposed Eastern Dublin land use policies in the General Plan
Amendment and specific plan.
B
e
.
2. GRADING POLICIES
Issue: A landowner in Eastern Dublin has requested changes in the Specific
Plan text relating to scenic corridors, hillside development (page 69-70) and
to foothill residential area (pages 99-100). These changes would protect
scenic resources, ridgelines and ridgelands and allow development in hilly
areas subject to safeguards.
Response: On review of the above-mentioned sections of the Specific Plan,
staff has concluded that there is some merit to the request and recommends
that the City Council direct staff to prepare alternative policies with regard
to scenic corridors, hillside development and development in foothill
residential areas for consideration by the City Council.
3. CURVILINEAR STREET SYSTEM
Issue: A land owner in Eastern Dublin has requested consideration of a less
specific street system in the Town Center area that would allow for future
consideration of either a grid or curvilinear street layout and potential for
four (4) lanes on the "transit spine".
Response: The Planning Commission recommends that the grid street layout with
a two (2) lane "transit spine" be maintained in the Town Center area as
conceptually illustrated on Figure 7.1 in the Specific Plan. It found that
the grid street system provided a superior mix of traffic flow, pedestrian
access, and neighborhood design. Staff finds that a mixed grid and
curvilinear street system along with consideration for the number of lanes on
the "transit spine" may have merit. Staff recommends that the City council
indicate whether an analysis of such changes should be provided to the City
council.
4. RELOCATION OF HIGH SCHOOL
Issue: Landowners in eastern Dublin have requested that the High School be
relocated to a major arterial roadway.
Response: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the High School
remain in its present location for the following reasons:
1. The location is in accord with the direction given by the Planning
commission and City Council during workshops held previously.
2. Location on a major arterial would pose potential traffic safety
concerns.
3. Provides location of High School separated from Junior High School.
5. AVAILABILITY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND WATER SUPPLY
Issue: Members of the public have expressed concern that there is
insufficient wastewater treatment capacity and water supply to support the
development envisioned by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
9
-
.
,
Response: The Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment and Specific Plan contain
detailed policies with regard to wastewater treatment capacity and water
supply to assure that development in Eastern Dublin will not exceed those
capacities. Testimony by Staff from DSRSD and responses to similar comments
to the EIR support this finding. The Planning commission and Staff recommend
that the city council approve the policies regarding wastewater capacity and
water supply in the Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment and Specific plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
6. FINANCING OF PROPOSED EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Issue: Members of the public have expressed concern over the feasibility of
financing of the proposed development.
Response: The Specific Plan in section 10 addresses financing considerations,
sources, goals and policies. This section of the Specific plan is not a
detailed financing plan but it does reflect the opinion of professional
economists that financing mechanisms exist which can be utilized to
successfully finance the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
plan as proposed. The Planning commission and staff recommend that the City
council adopt the text of the specific Plan relating to financing as proposed.
7. SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX
Issue: The California Department of Fish and Game states that the General
Plan Amendment area is suitable habitat for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, an
endangered species. It states that the loss of habitat will be significant.
It requests that impacts be addressed through the development of a management
plan proposed in conjunction with other jurisdictions in the valley.
Response: The Planning Commission and staff recommend the finding that the
mitigation measures incorporated into the Final EIR reduce the impacts to a
less than significant level. The mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to, 1) a requirement for pre-construction surveys within 60 days prior
to any habitat modification and 2) a requirement that the City work with the
California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and with other Tri-Valley jurisdictions to develop a management plan that
identifies measures to protect viable habitat for the kit fox.
8. TASSAJARA ROAD
Issue: Several comments have been made that Tassajara Road between Dublin
Boulevard and Gleason Road should not be a four-lane facility as proposed by
the Specific Plan but a six-lane facility capable of carrying regional traffic
after the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley developments are built.
Response: The traffic consultant to the city recommends that this road be a
six-lane facility to accommodate regional traffic flows. It will remain a
four-lane facility (with sufficient right-of-way for six lanes) until
anticipated traffic flows demonstrate the need for the additional lanes.
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that Tassajara Road be shown as a
six lane facility between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road on the approved
the specific Plan.
10
.-$
e
e
CbUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: After the close of ,the public hearing, the City Council
should indicate to staff, via straw vote, whether there should be further
consideration of the major issues or any other issues raised through the public
hearing/public comment process.
B. Property Tax Exchange Agreement
During the formulation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the County of
Alameda requested that the City of Dublin consider a mixed use development plan for
the County owned santa Rita Property, instead of the Business Park zoning which had
been adopted by the City Council for that property in 1986. As you may recall, the
City and county entered into a tax exchange agreement at that time which provided,
among other things, that the county would keep all of the tax revenues generated
from the Santa Rita property and the City would be reimbursed for the cost of
services provided to the Santa Rita property not to exceed 50% of the total county
revenues.
The City agreed to consider a mixed use plan on the Santa Rita property,
provided that the county agree to renegotiate the 1986 Property Tax Exchange
Agreement. For the last eighteen months, representatives from the County and City
Staff worked toward drafting a new tax exchange agreement which would be beneficial
to both agencies. This draft agreement was approved by the county of Board of
supervisors on october 6, 1992.
The Agreement covers the following areas:
Camp Parks Property
County Governmental Property
County sheriff Property
Eastern Dublin
Santa Rita Property
Tassajara Park Property
The major provisions of the agreement are as follows:
1. Tax sharing
a. Dublin receives 25.4% of the property tax and all other municipal
revenues for Eastern Dublin (upon annexation), Tassajara Park
Property and Camp Parks Property.
b. Dublin receives all municipal revenues for the Santa Rita
Property, county Sheriff Property and county Governmental Property
and the following property tax allocations for the above
properties:
38.565% for Tax Rate Area 26-012
29.130% for Tax Rate Area 26-013
22.871% for Tax Rate Area 26-021
c. Dublin property tax from the Santa Rita property, county Sheriff
Property and county Governmental Property will be reduced each
year by an amount equal to 35% of the sales tax revenues received
by the City from businesses located on the Santa Rita Property for
those businesses which are not zoned "General Commercial", and an
11
~
e
.
amount equal to 35% of the sales tax revenues generated from the
first 100 acres of General Commercial property to be developed on
the Santa Rita Property and/or Eastern Dublin.
d. Dublin would receive 100% of the sales tax for automobile
franchises which relocate from existing Dublin to the Santa Rita
property under certain conditions.
e. county receives 31% of property tax on the Santa Rita Property,
county Sheriff's Property and county Governmental Property and
that amount that the City's property tax is reduced as described
in paragraph 1c above.
2. SERVICES
a. city provides all municipal services to the county Governmental
Property and Santa Rita Property.
b. county provides all municipal services to county Sheriff's
Property except fire suppression service. City shall provide fire
services to County Sheriff property and be reimbursed directly by
county.
c. county agrees to be assessed for any services which are assessed
on a city wide basis.
3. LAND USE
a. city has land use control over Santa Rita property.
b. city agrees to adopt land uses for Santa Rita Property and county
Governmental Property at not less than 85% of densities shown in
Exhibit I of Agreement.
c. county governmental land uses on county Governmental Property
shall be reviewed by Dublin Planning Commission for conformity to
City's General Plan and shall be subject to Site Development
Review. Other governmental uses on county Governmental Property
shall be subject to full City land use control.
d. Uses by the sheriff's Department on the county Sheriff's Property
shall only be subject to General plan conformity review.
4. FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE
a. County agrees that Santa Rita Property will be subject to
assessments associated with infrastructure which benefit the
property.
b. City will reimburse county for infrastructure which is oversized.
c. county agrees to dedicate right-of-way and easements on major
arterials and utilities across Santa Rita Property if needed for
development of properties in Eastern Dublin.
12
~
.
.
.
5. REDEVELOPMENT
a. No redevelopment will take place on Santa Rita Property without
consent of the county.
If the City does not adopt the General Plan and specific Plan as proposed for the
Santa Rita Property or adopts a plan which has less than 85% of the density yield
identified in the agreement, there will be no agreement. If the agreement becomes
effective and the City later reduces the density of land uses by more than 15% of
that shown in Exhibit I of the agreement without the consent of the county, the City
would lose all property tax for Eastern Dublin and the City shall have no land use
control over Santa Rita property.
The City's economic consultant, ERA, has reviewed the proposed agreement and has
concluded that the new agreement substantially improves the City's economic position
on the Santa Rita Property (see Attachment 12).
C. Recommended Changes to the Draft General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Based on the concerns expressed by various members of the public and
subsequent discussion by the Planning Commission, modifications to the GPA and
Specific Plan were recommended by the Commission. These recommended
modifications are contained in Attachments 6 and 7 of this agenda statement.
The city Council will need to consider these changes during its deliberation
of the GPA and Specific Plan at a subsequent meeting.
13
.'"
....
It
.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY AND CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES UPON ANNEXATION,
PR0VISION OF SERVICES AND OTHER MATTERS
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for identification this ~ day of
~~J~ 1992, is entered into between the CITY OF DUBLIN (CITY),
a municipal corporation, the COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (COUNTY), a
political subdivision of the State of California and the SURPLUS
PROPERTY AUTHORITY ("AUTHORITY") of Alameda County: a public
corporation.
RECITALS
A. COUNTY and CITY are parties to an agreement entitled
"An Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City of
Dublin Regarding Camp parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita
properties," which is dated August 5, 1986 (hereafter "Annexation
Agreement") .
B. The Annexation Agreement sets forth certain agreements
regarding the annexation of the properties described in that
agreement as the "Camp Parks property," the "Tassajara park.
property" and the "Santa Rita property" as well as agreement
between COUNTY and CITY regarding the transfer of property tax
revenues upon annexation of other lands.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
1
August 25, 1992
AnACHMfNT 5
\:::)
\
-C:J
~
--
N
\J.J
~
e
e
C. The properties described herein as the CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY, TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY, COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and SANTA RITA PROPERTY were not within
the city limits of CITY at the time of execution of the
Annexation Agreement but have since been annexed to CITY and are
currently within the city limits of CITY.
D. CITY is in the process of preparing a general plan
amendment and specific plan for the SANTA"RITA PRO~ERTY and other
properties to the east of SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
E. AUTHORITY owns approximately t613 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described herein as the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY, which AUTHORITY intends to develop in a
proprietary capacity. Development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
will benefit both AUTHORITY, COUNTY and CITY through the
provisions of housing, jobs, public recreational amenities and
tax revenues.
F. AUTHORITY owns approximately t214 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described as the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY, which AUTHORITY and COUNTY use and intend
to use for governmental purposes. The use of the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY for such purposes will benefit CITY and its
residents through the provision of governmental services.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
2
August 25, 1992
.
.
G. AUTHORITY owns approximately ~124 acres of property
within the city limits of CITY, described as the COUNTY SHERIFF
PROPERTY which is used by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department
for governmental uses.
H. CITY, COUNTY, and AUTHORITY desire to provide a
framework for the orderly development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY and needed infrastructure for
such development; the provision of-services to the SANTA RITA
PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
PROPERTY; the sharing of property taxes upon annexation by CITY
of lands to the east of CITY's current eastern city limits; the
sharing of property tax revenues from properties within CITY; and
other related matters.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions
shall apply:
a. CAMP PARKS PROPERTY shall mean all property
currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-1-5,
regardless of whether all or part of such property is later
designated by a different Assessor's Parcel Number, and described
more particularly in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
3
August 25, 1992
e
e
b. COu~TY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY shall mean the
property owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately t214
acres, east of Arnold Road, north of Gleason Drive and west of
Tassajara Creek, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
c. COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY shall mean the
property owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately z124
acres used, operated and/or controlled by the Alameda County
Sheriff's Department, which is located generally north of Broder
Ave. and east of Arnold Road extending to Barnett Road, as shown
on Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. COUNTY
SHERIFF PROPERTY shall include any portion of the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY subsequently used, operated and/or
controlled by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department.
d. EASTERN DUBLIN shall mean any and all
property lying within the city of Dublin Eastern Dublin Planning
Area located to the east of CITY's easterly city limits as shown
in Exhibit D.
e. GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (ONE Hu~DRED
ACRES) shall mean the first 100 acres of property designated as
"general commercial" property by CITY's General plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to be developed on the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
and/or in EASTERN DUBLIN for uses other than office uses, which
property shall be shown on a map to be prepared, maintained and
updated by CITY until a total of 100 acres have been developed,
at which time such map shall become a part of this Agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
4
August 25, 1992
e
e
f. SANTA RITA PROPERTY shall mean the property
owned by AUTHORITY, consisting of approximately t613 acres, east
of Arnold Road, south of that portion of Gleason Drive west of
Tassajara creek, and west of Tassajara Road, currently designated
as Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-2, Assessor's Parcel Number
946-15-4 and a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 946-015-1-4,
regardless of whether all or part of such property is later
designated by a different Assessor's parcel Number, and described
mure particularly in Exhibit E, attached hereto anG incorporated
herein.
g. TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY shall mean all
property currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 946-
015-1-6 and 946-015-1-7, regardless of whether all or part of
such property is later designated by a different Assessor's
Parcel Number, and described more particularly in Exhibit F,
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and acts
described herein, the CITY, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
follows:
1. Recitals
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and
are part of this Agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
5
August 25, 1992
e
e
2. Propertv Tax Transfer upon Future Annexations
Upon annexation to CITY of any property within
EASTERN DUBLIN, CITY and COUNTY agree that CITY will receive
25.4% of the full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or
possessory interest tax from such property and shall retain all
other revenues derived from or attributable to EASTERN DUBLIN
normally received by a city on account of property within its
city limits. This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions
of Revenue and Taxation Code section 99 and shall constitute the
agreement for exchange of property tax revenues required by
Revenue and Taxation Code 5 99(b) (6). Both parties agree to
adopt resolutions accepting this exchange of tax revenues, if
required by the executive officer of the Local Agency Formation
commission at the time of an application for annexation.
3. Prooertv Tax Transfer followina Annexation of
Desianated Prooerties
a. CITY shall continue to receive 25.4% of the
full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or possessory
interest tax from the TASSAJARA PARK PROPERTY and the CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY whether such properties, or any part of either such
properties, are held by public or private entities.
b. CITY shall receive the following percentage
of the full one percent ad valorem property tax and/or possessory
interest tax from the portions of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, the
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and the COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
within the following tax rate areas (or any new tax rate areas
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
6
August 25, 1992
e
e
designated that encompass'the same property) and COUNTY shall
receive the following percentage of such ad valorem property tax
and/or possessory interest tax:
Tax Rate Area
citv
Countv
26-012
38.565216%
31%*
26-013
29.130376%
31%*
26-021
22.871071%
31%
*COUNTY shall receive this percentage of the tax following
detachment of the prov~rty from the Livermore Area Recreation end
Park District (LARPD).
c. The provisions of subsection (b) of this
section shall apply regardless of the ownership of the property
included in tax rate areas 26-012, 26-013 and 26-021 or any
successor tax rate areas.
d. The provisions of this section are entered
into pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code sections 99.4(b).
e. prior to the effective date of this
Agreement, CITY shall apply to LAFCO for detachment of the
property included in tax rate areas 26-012 and 26-013 from LARPD.
4. Tax Revenues from SANTA RITA PROPERTY. COUNTY
SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) below,
CITY will receive all revenues derived from or attributable to
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and the COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY normally received by a city on account of
property within its city limits, including the amount of ad
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
7
August 25, 1992
It
e
valorem property tax and/or possessory interest tax specified in
subsection 3(b) above.
b. (1) The total amount of property tax
revenues CITY will receive in any fiscal year from the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY
GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY shall be reduced by an amount equal to
the sum of (1) thirty-five percent (35%) of the sales and
use tax revenues received by CITY during the preceding sales
tax fOl.1r qua.rter period ending with the June state Boaz:u or
Equalization "balance" payment (hereafter "four quarter
period") from businesses located on the GENERAL COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY (ONE HUNDRED ACRES) and (2) thirty-five percent
(35%) of the sales and use tax revenues received by CITY
during the preceding four quarter period from businesses
located on the S~~TA RITA PROPERTY which is not zoned
"general commercial" in CITY's zoning ordinance. This
amount shall be referred to hereafter as the "Property Tax
Reduction."
(2) In the event that the property tax
revenues allocated to CITY from the SANTA RITA PROPERTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY in
any fiscal year are less than an amount equal to the
Property Tax Reduction, the difference between the amount of
such property tax revenues and the Property Tax Reduction
shall be carried forward to succeeding fiscal years and
shall be a reduction in property tax revenues allocated to
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
8
August 25, 1992
e
e
CITY from the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY
and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY in future years until the
difference is reduced to zero. The following example is
provided for illustrative purposes:
City's property Amount of Amount
35% of Tax from Reduction to Car:-ied
Sales Tax Three Prooerties prooertv Tax FOr',oIard
Year 1 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Year 2 200,000 150,000 150,000 50,000
Year 3 250,000 80e,000 400,000 U
Total $650,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $150,000
(3) CITY shall, no later than September 30
of each year, notify COUNTY's Auditor-Controller of the
amount of the Property Tax Reduction for the preceding four
quarter period. For purposes of this Agreement, the amount
of sales and use tax received by CITY during the preceding
four quarter period shall be calculated as of the date of
the June state Board of Equalization payment to the CITY.
This amount shall not include the advance for the month
following the fourth sales tax quarter included in the June
payment. Upon reasonable notice, COUNTY shall have the
right to audit CITY's sales tax records to verify the
accuracy of the amount reported.
(4) COUNTY shall provide CITY with an annual
statement, in the form of attached hereto as Exhibit G,
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
9
August 25, 1992
e
e
showing the reduction of property taxes pursuant to this
subparagraph (b).
(5) Upon reasonable notice, CITY shall have
the right to audit COUNTY's property tax records to verify
the accuracy of the amount of the reduction to CITY's
property tax revenues pursuant to this section.
(6) In no event shall property tax revenues
allocated to CITY from any areas other than SANTA RITA
PROPERTY, COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY GOV~RNMENTAL
PROPERTY be reduced by virtue of the provision of this
paragraph.
(7) In no event shall the reduction to the
CITY's property tax revenues provided for in this section be
used to reduce the CITY's "base" for calculating its
allocation of property taxes pursuant to Revenue and
Taxation Code section 97 nor shall it affect the CITY's
"property apportionment tax factor" calculated pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.5 or its share of the
annual tax increment or supplemental assessments.
(8) CITY and COUNTY agree that the reduction
in property tax revenues provided for in subsection (b) (i)
above shall not be deemed "proceeds of taxes" by CITY but
shall be considered "proceeds of taxes" by COUNTY for
purposes of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(9) As used herein, "sales and use tax
revenuesll shall mean the one percent (1%) sales and use tax
revenues currently received by CITY pursuant to the Bradley-
Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Revenue and
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 10 August 25, 1992
e
e
Taxation Code section 7200 et ~) and CITY's Uniform Local
Sales and Use Tax ordinance (Dublin Municipal code Chapter
3.04) .
c. In the event that the State changes the
current basis for allocation of sales and use tax from an
allocation according to situs to some other allocation basis,
then CITY and COUNTY shall renegotiate the provisions of
subsection (b) of this Agreement with respect to sharing of sales
aIlu use taxes. In renegotiating the provisions of sub~ection
(b), the parties shall attempt to preserve the relationship
between the total amount of the sales and use tax generated from
the properties, the percentage of such tax received by the
COUNTY, and the percentage retained by CITY.
d. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(b) above, COUNTY agrees that should any automobile franchise,
whether currently located within CITY's existing city limits or
hereafter located within CITY's existing city limits (except for
automobile franchises located on the SANTA RITA PROPERTY) ,
relocate to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY within twelve (12) months
from the date the automobile franchise ceased operating in the
city, all sales taxes attributable to such automobile franchise
shall be allocated to CITY. In such event, the property on which
such automobile franchise is located shall be excluded from the
definition of GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (ONE HUNDRED ACRES)
even if it would otherwise come within that definition.
As used herein, "automobile franchisel' shall
mean any business engaged in the sale of new automobile and/or
trucks, whether or not operating pursuant to franchise agreement.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 11 August 25, 1992
e
e
5. Services to be Provided COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) below
and except for services provided by franchise (such as garbage,
electricity, gas and cable television), COUNTY shall provide all
municipal services to the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY, including
police services.
b. CITY shall provide fire suppression services
to the COill{TY SHERIFF PROPERTY and COUNTY shall reiThb~rse CITY,
all as provided in paragraph A of the Letter of Agreement between
CITY and COUNTY, dated March 11, 1991, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H.
6. services to be Provided -- COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
PROPERTY
a. CITY shall provide all municipal services of
the type normally provided by CITY to COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL
PROPERTY.
b. In the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY
requests services for COUNTY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY at a level in
excess of municipal services normally provided by CITY, COUNTY
and AUTHORITY agree that CITY may impose fees, charges,
assessments or other similar mechanisms to recover the cost of
such increased services.
c. As used ~n this Section and in Section 7,
"municipal services of the type normally provided by CITY" shall
mean all services on the date of this Agreement provided by CITY
from funds other than revenues derived from assessments levied on
property."
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
12
August 25, 1992
e
"e
7.
services to be provided
SANTA RITA PROPERTY
a. CITY shall provide all municipal services of
the type normally provided by CITY to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
b. In the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY
requests services for SANTA RITA PROPERTY at a level in excess of
municipal services normally provided by CITY, COUNTY and
AUTHORITY agree that CITY may impose fees, charges, assessments
or other similar mechanisms to recover the cost of such increased
services.
c. COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that the SANTA
RITA PROPERTY will be responsible for any assessments, fees,
charges or special taxes, such as those imposed pursuant to the
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (streets and Highways Code
sections 22500 et.sea.) or the Mello-Roos community Facilities
Act (Government Code sections 53311 et.seq.), for services
provided to all property of a like or similar land use city-
wide.
8. Land Use APprovals -- SANTA RITA PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
follows with respect to the SANTA RITA PROPERTY:
a. Any development or use of the property shall
comply with all CITY rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances
or other enactments relating to land use, including but not
limited to CITY's general plan, any applicable specific plan,
Municipal Code, zoning ordinance, Building code, Electrical Code,
Mechanical Code and Housing code.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
13
August 25, 1992
e
e
b. CITY, COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY may, but need
not, enter into a development agreement of the sort authorized by
Government Code sections 65864 et.seq. prior to any development
of the property.
9. Land Use Approvals -- COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
and COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a California county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree as
f~llows with respe~t to the CO~~iTY GOVE~~ENTAL PROPERTY and the
COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY:
a. Except as set forth in subsection (d) below,
any COUNTY governmental uses proposed for either property shall
be reviewed by CITY Planning commission for conformity with
CITY's general plan in accordance with Government Code section
65402 and shall be subject to site development review in
accordance with CITY's zoning ordinance. COUNTY shall be the
lead agency for purposes of CEQA review. CITY and COUNTY will
share the costs associated with processing site development
review equally.
b. Any governmental uses proposed for either
property, other than COu~TY governmental uses, shall be processed
in accordance with CITY's rules, regulations, resolutions,
ordinances or other enactments relating to land use, including
but not limited to CITY's general plan, any applicable specific
plan, Municipal Code, Zoning ordinance, Building code, Electrical
Code, Mechanical Code and Housing Code. COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY
will assure that governmental uses of the property by any
governmental entity other than COUNTY are subject to CITY's land
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 14 August 25, 1992
e
e
use rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinance or other
enactments by inclusion of a condition to that effect in any deed
to or lease of, such property or other similar mechanism.
c. If the land use designation of any portion of
either property is proposed to be changed or subsequently changed
to allow non-governmental uses of the property, the provision of
section 8 of this Agreement shall be applicable to such property.
In such event, CITY will provide municipal services of the type
normally provided by CITY to suct property, as ~rovided in
section 7, and CITY will receive tax revenues derived from or
attributable to such property, as provided in section 3(b) and
section 4.
d. No site development review shall be required
for any uses of the COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY by the Sheriff's
Department as long as the use is within the perimeter of the
existing County Jail property or other existing Sheriff
Department facilities, such as the existing training facility.
e. CITY agrees to process any review pursuant to
Government Code section 65402 and site development review
required by subsection (a) as expeditiously as possible.
10. COUNTY ownershio of any oortion of CAMP PARKS
PROPERTY
Notwithstanding any rights and powers which it may
possess as a california county, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that
in the event that COUNTY or AUTHORITY acquires any interest in
the CAMP PARKS PROPERTY:
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
15
August 25, 1992
e
e
a. The provisions of section 8 and section 9,
depending on the use, shall govern the land uses of such
property;
b. CITY shall continue to receive 25.4% of the
full one percent ad valorem and/or possessory interest tax, as
provided in Section 3(a); and
c. CITY shall provide services to such property
pursuant to section 6, if the use is a governmental use, or
S€ction 7, if the USE is non-governmental.
11. Future Infrastructure for SANTA RITA PROPERTY and
COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY
a. CITY, COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree in concept
that infrastructure should be constructed as necessitated by
development and to accommodate reasonably projected development
and that costs of such infrastructure shall be borne by
properties benefiting therefrom in proportion to the benefit
received.
b. Notwithstanding any rights and powers which
it may possess as a California county, and in addition to the
provisions of Section 7(c), COUNTY and AUTHORITY agree that SANTA
RITA PROPERTY will be subject to assessments, fees, exactions
and/or special taxes for public improvements, such as but not
limited to streets, roads, freeway improvements, schools,
libraries, parks, police stations and fire stations (including
fire equipment and apparatus), which benefit SANTA RITA PROPERTY
to the extent of such benefit.
c. CITY agrees that any assessments, fees,
exactions and/or special taxes will be imposed or levied in a
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 16 August 25, 1992
e
.
manner consistent with the manner of imposing similar
assessments, fees, exactions and/or special taxes in EASTERN
DUBLIN.
d. CITY agrees that it will provide the same
level of maintenance to the infrastructure as it provides to
other similar infrastructure elsewhere in CITY.
12. Reimbursement for Oversizinq Infrastructure
In the event that COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY are
required to instull improvements containing supplemental size,
capacity, number or length for the benefit of property other than
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY, CITY agrees that it will enter into an
agreement with COUNTY and/or AUTHORITY for reimbursement for such
supplemental improvements in accordance with, and subject to,
Dublin Municipal Code section 9.16.110 and Government Code
sections 66485 et.sea.
13. Dedication of Easements and Riqht-of-Wav
AUTHORITY agrees to dedicate to CITY or other
appropriate agencies or entities such portions of SANTA RITA
PROPERTY located within the ultimate right-Of-way of Gleason
Drive, Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive as are necessary for
utility easements or right-of-way for installation of utilities
such as water, sanitary sewer, communications, gas, electric,
storm sewer and cable television. Such dedication shall occur
when the SANTA RITA PROPERTY is developed or, in advance of such
development, if needed for development of properties in EASTERN
DUBLIN.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
17
August 25, 1992
e
.
AUTHORITY agrees to negotiate in good faith with
CITY to dedicate any other easements necessary for development of
the SANTA RITA PROPERTY and/or properties in EASTERN DUBLIN.
14. Miscellaneous provisions
a. CITY and COUNTY agree to work together to
assure, to the extent legally possible, that appropriate
mitigation measures are required for any development in southern
Contra Costa County that adversely affects traffic circulation in
EASTE~~ DUBLIN and SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
b. CITY and COUNTY agree that it is in the
interests of both parties to provide adequate sewerage capacity
for development of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY and properties in
EASTERN DUBLIN and, to that end, agree to work cooperatively
toward that goal.
c. In the event COUNTY wishes to expand its
existing water storage facility located on Tassajara Hill for
exclusive use of the Santa Rita Jail, COUNTY shall submit such
proposed plans to CITY for review pursuant to Government Code
section 65402. In the event that the purpose of expanding such
facility is for future use in addition to uses needed by the
Santa Rita Jail and other COUNTY governmental uses, COUNTY shall
process a conditional use permit through CITY.
d. CITY agrees to process an application for
planned development rezoning and a development agreement
simultaneously with the general plan amendment and specific plan
currently being processed, provided such processing is at
COUNTY's sole expense and provided, further, that it is
understood and agreed that any such rezoning would be conditional
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl 18 August 25, 1992
e
e
pending completion of the general plan amendment and specific
plan process.
e. CITY and COUNTY agree that there shall be no
adjustment to either party's appropriations limit by virtue of
this Agreement.
f. CITY agrees that it will not include the
SANTA RITA PROPERTY within a redevelopment project area without
the consent of COUNTY.
15. Aareement to Recornc Effective UDon Council Action
a. This Agreement shall not become effective
unless and until the CITY, acting through its city Council,
adopts a general plan and specific plan for the SANTA RITA
PROPERTY and COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY which designates land
use for such properties of not less than 85% by square footage or
by number of units of the land uses shown on Exhibit I, attached
hereto and incorporated herein. CITY shall notify COUNTY and
AUTHORITY of the effective date of the general plan amendment,
which shall be the date of this Agreement.
b. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, this
Agreement, once effective, shall not become ineffective if, upon
application by COUNTY, AUTHORITY or their successors, CITY
changes the land uses for the properties to less intense
development than that shown on Exhibit I.
c. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, once
this Agreement becomes effective, CITY later reduces the density
of land uses by more than 15% (by square footage or number of
units) below that shown on Exhibit I, the provisions of section
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
19
August 25, 1992
e
.
20(b) regarding breach shall be applicable, unless such reduction
is agreed to by COUNTY.
d. Once effective, and except as provided in
subsection (e) below, this Agreement shall supersede the
Annexation Agreement, which shall thereafter be of no force or
effect.
e. The Letter of Agreement dated March 11, 1991,
(Exhibit H) shall remain in effect with respect to the provision
of fire suppression services to COUNTY SHERIFF PROPERTY.
16. Additional Documents and Aareements
The parties agree to cooperate in the execution of
any additional documents or agreements which may be required to
carry out the terms of this Agreement.
17. Successors
This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit
of all successors and assigns of the parties and any associates
in interest, and their respective directors, officers, agents,
servants, and employees, and the successors and assigns of each
of them, separately and collectively, and all its provisions
including paragraph 8, shall specifically bind and inure to the
benefit of any subsequent owners of the SANTA RITA PROPERTY.
18. Construction of Aareement
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced
pursuant to the laws of the state of California.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
20
August 25, 1992
e
e
19. Time of the Essence
In entering into this Agreement, the parties
recognize and agree that time is of the essence.
20. Breach
a. If CITY, COUNTY or AUTHORITY breach any
provision of this Agreement, the non-breaching party may bring an
action for specific performance, declaratory relief, writ of
mandate or other appropriate action at law or equity and may
r~cover damages, i~cluding interest at the legal rate specified
in Code of civil Procedures section 685.010 from the time of
breach, sustained as result of such breach. Damages shall be
recoverable only for tax revenues found to be due to the non-
breaching party. The prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from the breaching party.
b. In the event that CITY breaches Section 15(c)
of this Agreement, the provisions of Section 2 hereof shall be of
no force or effect from the date of such breach forward but such
breach shall not affect the allocation of property taxes and/or
possessory interest taxes to CITY from property already annexed
to CITY. In addition, the provisions of section 8 hereof shall
be of no force or effect and COUNTY and/or SURPLUS PROPERTY
AUTHORITY shall be free to develop the SANTA RITA PROPERTY
without compliance with CITY's land use regulations.
c. If COUNTY fails to remit any tax revenues due
to CITY in a timely manner, COUNTY shall pay CITY interest at the
legal rate specified in Code of civil procedure section 685.010
until such tax revenues are paid.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
21
August 25, 1992
e
e
21. Notices
Whenever notice is required hereunder, it shall be
given to the parties as follows:
To: citv of DUBLIN:
city Manager
city of Dublin
100 civic Plaza
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
To: COUNTY of Alameda:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak street, Room 555
Oakland, CA 94612
To: SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY:
county Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Room 555
Oakland, -9A 94612
22. Warrantv of Leqal Authority
Each party warrants and covenants that it has the
present legal authority to enter into this Agreement and to do
the acts required of it hereunder. If any party is found to lack
the authority to do the acts required of it hereunder or is
prevented from performing the acts by a court of competent
jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be void.
23. Entire Aareement
This document embodies the entire terms and
conditions of the Agreement described herein. This Agreement may
~e executed in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
22
August 25, 1992
\
\
e
e
24. Effective Date
This Agreement shall become effective as provided
in section 15 hereof.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Dated:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
city Attorney
Dated:
co:::; :~w/
/ )'lIM/f- .?
A-S~hairm~ of the Bo
Approved as to form:
vfJJ
County Counsel
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHOR~Y
~ 4/{t;0
.. ,1 /' ' ..
....&"':41...:.1 1./ r ..4' ...L_~ J..
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the President of the
Surplus Property Commission was duly authorized to execute this document on
behalf of the County of Alamedgc~urplus J~operty Authority by a majority vote
of the Commissioners on U I t 19::1.;:. : and that a copy has been
delivered to the President as provided by Government Code Section 25103.
Dated:
OCT 6 1952
WILLIAM MEHRWEIN, Clerk, Alameda
County Surplus' Property Authority,
State of California.
By' 1~ ~",t r-oli). k f!o. La JJvi
Deputy
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
e
e
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Legal Description CAMP PARKS PROPERTY
Legal Description COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY
Legal Description COUNTY SHERIFF
PROPERTY
Legal Description EASTERN DUBLIN
Legal Description SANTA RITA PROPERTY
Legal Description TASSAJARA PARK
PROPERTY
Annual Statement of Property Tax
Reductions for Year Ending June 30, 19xx
Letter of agreement between CITY and
COUNTY, dated March 11, 1991
Proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment And Specific Plan Land Use
Summary by General Plan Use Designation
For Santa Rita Property
/
I
..
,
!
\
i
e
.
PROPOSED
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR SANTA RITA PROPERTY
SUBTOTAL
Santa Rita property
Gross Acres units
103.0 1.217 msf
18.0 .235 msf
135.8 2.924 msf
5.0 .120 msf
53.4 .651 msf
0.0 0.000 msf
315.2 5.147 msf
Land Use Desianation
COMMERCIAL
General
Neighborhood
Campus Office
Hotel
Inc1ustrial Park
Public/Semi-Public
RESIDENTIAL
SUBTOTAL
36.3 1,271 5du
39.5 790 du
64.2 642 du
67.2 269 du
~ 0 du
207.2 2,972 du
High
Med. High
Medium
Low
Rural
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SUBTOTAL
56.3 1 park
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
24.6
80.9 1 park
City Park
community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood sq.
Open space
SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
10.5 1 school
0.0 0 schools
~ 0 schools
10.5 1 school
613.8 EXHIBIT I
Elementary
Jr. High
High
TOTAL LAND AREA:
114\Agree\Annex.Fnl
24
August 25, 1992
<....; ~ IV! P
~
t-' ~ t-<. K.'::>
e
Scale: i" = 1000'
Estate
<>
o
""
.i,..,
05;:
~~
..:c=-
co.
. ..
:0,..
0..,
'.0
~'"
'" .
",,"
Q~
~~~ci~~>>
~ Q.:: ~
",,~'"::t""..n~~,...,..
~ I ~~. tCZ:~
",""~!,QN~~""
.~
(SUi":)
B
(491.61k.)
...
f/8!.66,ld
-"'_ ,.IOTAL AREA
in contra costa
In alameda
to freewa y
~636.12
916.1
2720.0
6.55
127 13.47)
1./.$,,1.
(0)
12S8.54Ac.(;U
SP.RR
@ 872-),-4TI'"-20
I , I
_'if.'~;F" '. .
.' /~.~:;~~~...,...' Sl!M. ..-8i~/- 47c. /6
-,~ I 'iG..., C a 0
.,.;~~~~)'.;' CI (!84.~8Ac.)
1,1.,.., ..
-'''::'::;''~~'-."",
>6;,.:;;--:
"'#."~_.,,,
..
~}.
~CA$TRO V^LLty
~
"
o
4.
o
Cl
't>
o ~/(
~Q
"'\0
o
-::'
,j
O'l
('.l
..- I'"""'<.. '-' r- -=- ~
"&.
'"~~~"~
"1'J 0-.
1 ~J
~~
?;~~"oJ 54\
~~
~ ~~
II -~"
rOo. -i ..J26S33A:.) ..,.--
11ls..~ \
,,','1.9
\ i~:ii :..~
.....w -Ie.
;~~ '"f.,
~;i ~~,
:\~l ~/~6~ \ \ ~: ^
,s....., L-SJ'
U~ '........0..- .' ':. "1-
.r.P'ft-~ ~ ,~, J
,::.~~,~...;.~ It!
'~ f ~i!
~ \11
~ )' :,i
,~ Ii
~
}
13 ,,~
I2jo.~:';') ,"',' 1" ,':
jtf'f~.J. ." .~t
Ii 500.
~/
."., ~
~I!'IJ::J.I~ ~
. If) ,J
~ ,'~
.'
~ \, "s"":' ~ all
l.s"',.'''.. ~~4,*,"'!:'JJ"_,,_,,___,,,____"_._.6 -)- ..,-
_ .. .. ... .. .. ... _ .. _ ... _ _ ... _ _ ';;' _ _ ... _ .~, J'" "t.&ItC';MO
t ,;'f' ,t,' ~
1" ~
7.~,,'r;'1 ~~",:,~?;:f?"'
'.
e
457. ~$ k
\1,
,:'"
'"
,.~
;::...
,
~
~,~'*~' -4
I04-.I",J:
(/o'J.sOA<;.)
1"
".j
,t' .'
,,'
... '"
~" ~.... .l'
~..... ~~ ~ .It'
'-;.-;.. ~..~ ~.:...
.
.
NO. CCiJ'SE OIST,'.~'
I SiSi]~~'E 149 '
2 535'';)3'0 75,~ '
3 :;2,>'25', 117;
4 S 10 103~'~ 57 C'
5 s x:~~i'w 3C
" S~O~~'W IC~
7 S~:~'", J6 .;
6 SJo21't 55...:
9 S,71Q'j4'E J9,<;
10 N 1a~2.9'r 79.,0
,
"'I~
'.'
U.s,,:. ~ ~
If&',!, ~
e
"
I.
13
14
,'>
".
"
III
I~
'10
<1.\
"l'l.
on
'l."-
'l.'>
'l.Co
'2:1
<I..
!. 4p+ ,,,,i
1; I"~ "I.,'e.
S ~ o~.W
OS .,.-......
~ 0/ 11'''''
l>11.''UYe.
!> ,"'. ~"!>'E.
'" Co,' \'!o'l!.
5 1!6' ~'f.
:so 3Y ...,'e.
~IS.' I<:L
'S.\~~.W'
'S."J.-\4"W
!, ". s.&"E.
'So~.o")'t.
s....a..\'3.!:.
...,. "'''I.'~
~""'')<>'w
14
(20'.s1AcJ
covtvT'Y'
e
'$/.8' AC
~\
"
.\
'\
.\~
~l
"'I.
'\
l'\
~\
"
,~:\
~- -\
(26-012)~',.- 1
~)I\,...~:
.~ ~~ ~
4.IT ,Ie. ~Yi
,1'"/ '
, ~~.
'.
~:
.,
/.i'
,'i ".1 ..
t";t';t:..;';t'~I.~.tI
i ,'" _..,.",1I.J',I,1_
-,.,J .~
580
1,-.1 ..I';
~ "-~'#'~~-~ -- ~._.-
( R' 60)
. .- ...t~ - -...
,NrER ;STATE
~~
1:':
J(
'-J4J
E>C.HIBIT
.A..
. :.==-
COUN.V GOVER~MENTAL
pR.C>PERT'"V
"",'
1
H
1
t.v." " ... ...~II
""'.....,..I"-~-."".jl-.""".....1. .'"
,."'S..........."
I.... r,' ~'l'
.....,t....- _........t....., ""\
~.,............UI.I....
- .""
11....ln~ I'.. ......:.4 I"" .,1". "'. ,.:IoC '1:\
1.."..'......11.'."'4.. .....
.. __ .~=-.. _._l-""
..........--...............-..
....-.....-........-...
.......-. .-,. - .... --...... ...-.
)ltIH'" C.1.I'\t.~...t::O~ ~ ,1I.Ii1." ~1J,r\
U\ll11 ~la:nt1C1'
.~ - ~
..-_t. . - -__ ~~. -, ~b
~ ... . c2,~"'3.<.y.,.
- -i.rn ~~~ i&. -. ~'I~~~P.L
E>CHIBIT B
,~//t7/~p~
.. .I''''\\~\\\\ l.J-"". ."
t
H
1
iJ""" " 'I....UI
.IIo"'"'u.."_..uot.c.o.u,,o'..,......-t.- ""I:
"II.....,...... II
'.11III"- .,110
~:"':::::"'..'I-I." ...-...,......,"'\
.. 'f_"
I'''''''''''' .,....--t,.:(_I,.....lilll. n. ,.:101 II'"
'U II"C"., 'I"j~..~
.---_.
_ . __ _ _ _L'"
::.:-::.:. :-=.:.::..':.:~~.,.... ,
..........-.......--..........
lIUltll.. (..~'\I.'Y1t~10~ Of' ,...1." ......1
UUlIfT h.uUOII
~
-~_\
__L~----._---~
--
Rev. 4-7-92
E>CHIBIT <::::
I~ .,,'
-,';';~-' -
I~ ._"'.-'
1
" t.:' -; "~.: . ~
\ i ~I. _ ;~~
'~. ..
"0) - -;' -'-
$ . Q..,~
; c-:- 4:> .
~ '~I';:__
2 ~~
"L:':'~!3'
.. . 'oj--
J;
, <P
t,Z'
-~t--..
_ ~ 1$
" . ~ I ~
;,~i~~' f ~
-
.
0..
.-
...cCf)
~c
Q)l-
c2
S co ~
o 0... j
C
al
E
u
c;;:
al
E
<:
c;;:
ill '"
C,.CJ
<0<
'- >-
al_
e; '=(
al ~
aU)
,..
0)
~
,..
'C
'C
z: ~
0::: Z ~
UJ-=
r- ....J-g
CI) CO ~
4: ::>~
UJ03
-.\'.... .
-~ .
~~
'-'.
-- --.....
z
-
.J
OJ
J
o
.1...
""I]I/l
. 1Il0
,,-~
'F-+'
"I;
z
~
UJ
r-
'IJ
<
UJ
. -i,}'- '-' :"'..::,.' ,....:,
.-~ =.1 -- :--'....,,>3 < . .
~. ..- ~ -- . , .... <
~..e ~~.. ~. ~~' -'" -..-,..! M '.,:
--'~:t.~ -' ....:~:' ~,~'.... :!;",'-.
- c;.. T'.:!-' ..' .~.~.
~ ~,.- " :;.
~::_.',~~ ~":'~{f'~'::~':~'r!" -<~' .<~
...... ':II. ""~',; .....(
.--,'. - a '(". --- . . "1.l
._~~"~:.'. ~~~"~i~"~~, .>.,~~ '. .
'_. . ':'" ~.;. - '. r -"--
, . I"
.;:. "-1'.\'
'. '
.- I ;'
.;-" I L
- ,_:~.
.f
., ~'1;; .,:~~
. r2:~".--: ,.
--c:3Cl- ~ ,.
~'''1*~F--:.~~-;:
, ....- - - . .
'..... '
.;:..
-,~-:,. ': '. .' .,
.' . " ;~~""~~'~ .' '~'Q:'~
" :::\~" ',_- f:l
. ..' C - ~\ t:, -' '::U\- ~ :~:-::-:j r:::-r
'c~:_;-_\j/ ~~-1~'--:~'-;~ ~i~-[
'_,',un ",-t-=\--::; '.? '!I-rt U -- --e-.tr-
-- .~ ':~.. ~ -~'\ " - '... '~I ' -..~ .'
. ."'_ ..-:-..0 ,..' . ,. .lJ'....r .... .
III ''''.t'~'~...\, .<,~:... .
~ 11 ~" ....., ~
. ra.-
-~::'-". ~ ~- ~'~'.
.....: ~1:.:
~ 'Q -- (
u- ~~l
. ] ~
~I
.
,
..
"
.~
~i
~~
;g
." I
Gl
i ' \
I ,
I
.
.
i
.
.-.---~-
\
I
L
'. .
;"~:.:::~
.'<;
, ....,
... \.......;
~,..
-...
~, =
II
i \I
II
c
. - .~-
.-- .-
. I
".....,. t -
-,~.
~:.+_ 7
..:..--.~i .'
~,-:;~'~';
--'~'"
};c i.
.:l"t
r!~.
, ~~ -' ; ut
."3; -:1,- .,~~u
'i -=11'~ :6
. :;ifl..:II.rTff.: i1 .
4i .111 r~ rul1Ur ." i
!!. :5,1 f",....:~ ..."~~ .'. '.)'r';'~
:C_ ~ ",,".~'u';_ . gih
. ~ = ..=::"-i ~~i~:
.i .Iiii: =..~l
. 1---1-1
'J . ,,,a:' ,
'J
- :,;:::
~...~ - - ~ .-
"':'""if"::--.-=..:;
'_ r: J'
;~~~~.~~;<
'.1
.'-
I: .
.-
.
,;
S:
-.....
"--' ..
..-.......-...- -::;
; .~"-;-~?-. -,....
t
,
....
~. -~ . "--
'..::.,.
:..-~;,---.-.::-:: ..:.....;.-
-'
.' .~
,
- ...........
I::E
. ...-
'.' ~
-
=::: . ~ 11
'r.
00: ii'!
..~~: ~> ~\ '....:]
~~.-
".."
. "
~ /.ltr".
:'"".' .
.....~,
i~,............r "
'-
E.:;;;
C".:..~
.-.......:,
.... \ ---v
~':~ -~~
: ',~-- -:i
..,.....j. ~
--~- "<.. .-'
~T<~
,,......
.: :_..: :.: ~':::"':-i-
"',h,
,
I -
",/'
'",
,"''''
",.'"
"
:~
"
I
\ '
.......,,,- .... .. . .. ...
...... ---
.~R.C>PERT~
1-
"""
1
'x
1
~
E>CHIBIT E
'-~SS~J~"A..
~
. I?~
00/
~._~.:::
""...~.-..:
C)
C)
C)
...,
~
<:!l
0\
0\
~
.<:-
<;
i.<:
~
~~l/N .
" ~
_______CASTRO V^llEY
.ROPER~'t
'r COLRS<: rlS
of E. A. Dougherty. (Bk.8 Pg.7S) oJ SJOO~~';; ~ I:'
S:5003'(
S2;'.JOZ5"e:
4 Sl~ 4~''N
s~I:II:(~
is s i'5.0}~"",
't S.;QQ!.~"''V
3, s.'Ja~I' E
9 S'<.<J~';;
:0 N:"e,,)Zo;"f.
P~RK
Scale; 1"= 1000'
Estate
Rancho San Ramon (J.M.Amador) (PaI.2k."A" Pg.l71)
I''':
)
~ 500.
. 5~
. f'.j.~
* ,,-;:,;.It, ~
., .$
. ~ .,1
"
,. \~ !:s~~_&..o.
fjlj.V','1 Z41..;,4_7'!AJ _ ... - - - - .. - ... - - - - .. - - -.1 -)
------.-.-----.--. -- ,~, I' ...coo
t !4.~f,:.f ~
./t~ ~ ..
I"'~'d .~ J!:~2~
v 'JJ'jf~:t"~~
~~~
"" .'
~ '$I
<\,; , .
,; :::;
~2
(SlO2':'~)
e
4S7..J.J ,:.c.
B
(4<Ji6Ik)
...
(18:!.66.MJ
Amended Map of the Town of DoughertY{~~
t-l '"'\ ---< .--- - ,,;)'1
:::.... 00 .." '''.''
c...." C. ..~. ,~~ ",,,.J:;
o ~g ~- ,tI''Pflf.
:~ ~~ ~O?~~C~~~~---<
;0;:: ----.~
I.n ....?it.:) .>> f"-...... .--r~
"'~ ~ 0:"'""",>> -YJ.,~ ~
~ ~~~~~(g~ t..\ \'---~^E-or-
~ . , ' ,'l'" ";''';' I C~"'- t^
. 0 ::~~~N~~~ .....-=;: ~ \.... p...
.2 "'- ' ,'-, . . . " . o,d., --e:: r'
E ~.,. ,,:::....."'"'''' ..oe.:::>"'"' ,<JS0V4
u.. d:I :0 "".....'>" , 't.1'>.(,oo ~~
., ;,p~ e~
~"
I~C\
! to;:
. i?;;
l,i
\
0". ")
<!. \ .-;;~
Q' .~~
....., ~; z::!
'S- '
'is'\-'-- ~ i- J,;
IJ <P "?;;~
~6 \~.o,.
<l; i "-
Sl!RR
@. 8lZ'~' 411".20
I
.+'II.;If#'Ftl. Ow .
. /~..,,- I SP.AA
, _r~4roZ~'___ '~8'2-"'1- 47"E ... 16
::::::.... ' ,;' ~..... c a 0
~ .,~~:;:.)' P IS84.SBk}
,1u.,.f ..
.:?&~~~~~~
-.....,..:--~
.
. ,
, .
h,
i ~:::: ~~
~tI"'~" '. ..
,-.#JtJ. ..
".n. ..TOTAL AR!;:A
in contro costa
In olomedo
10 freeway
::6::6.12
916.1
2720.0
6.55
(27 1 3.471
~;..: .
~~
..~
;,..
IS
06';~C':':')
. ~
:~
1"
,>.t
~t' ,_
,,~
US-A,
(0)
IZS5.S 4AC.( R}
~
~
"~
~
~
~
'0'0
. .
~
~,
~
...
'"t.~
~~
""
..
;i.~
'..1.,-.
......
j(p ',A """
~"".~~.u.
(R.60)
d
,
..
-. -.. .i'
~\::.. l1;
7'"_...-:~ ,,~.
- ~ ~~II
'7f{TCir~'S'T,1.-"i
~2
~~
580
_ _. pO___
'. -- ..'- -..
o
4
o
CJ
r"\
r.J4)
1.9
~!~
l,lSA~~
It&?:. ~
8;
54
II
,.
13
,..,
I~
1'-
I'
16
\ '!I
-:l'"
'%.1
-:....
on
-:...
'I.$.
.<.
7:1
.8
........,0'.:
" \1' 11 'Eo
5 ~ o~;w
'S'l.I-OO'v-(
:;. 0/ lrW
... 1)."2:\' E.
!t,'!,- ~~'E.
,...., ~"j. ,.,..e.
s !e' ~'..
:\. D"""'!.
:\.,.... \<':E.
'S.\C:~'W'
'li."l.\,4'W
:\. \1" SS"e.
...~.",,!>'E.
S..QJli.\'3'~
....,. 'ZXE
~""-.'3.a'w
~~-~
II'!::""~'
roo.,.J25!..J$':'C.J -.---<
Ill!>.- \
.,.19
51..'" ";('
'I~~ ~\ ~
~."'" 'Q\JI
I S'l. ...."1 \ J ....-
I~~~ \ ~c
...."'... 12 <:;
I~."'- (8f.16-<:') ,,-
I s...~ I ..l---
u,:-a. '~.,.' .
J"JJ"'fl".N"fIfI'. . ~
~:!"I 3'*~ .';
:
14
(2C9.<JL44
l~
(<!o,OS":':')
i"
c:r..wrr
8
<J5'.81 Ac
~
(26 'OI2)~~~'~
~'\-
.~ L
4.11 ,.lc. ~..
./.';
I~ ..
l' i: i.}
r;~;; .~~.:-~.;.;>,. ~
; . t . "'~" of.
,. ...'7-
~
T AX ROLL
Current Secured
Current Unsecured
Supplemental Assessment
Prior Secured
Prior Unsecured
Prior Supplemental Assmt.
TOTAL
OVERALL TOTAL
LESS 3590 SALES TAX
REVENUE
CARR Y -FOR W ARD
e
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANiVUAL STATEMENT OF PROPERTY
TAX REDUCTIONS FOR
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 19xx
SAt'lT A RITA PROPERTY
II
I
COUNTY SHERIFF AND I
GOVERNMENT AL PROPERTY I
I
I
$25.000 I
3.00) \
PROPERTY TAX REVENUES
550,000
5.000
6,000
4,000
1,000
1,000
$67,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
$33,000
67,000
5100,000
200,000
S 100,000
NOTE: Tax Revenue reduced $100,000 and $100,000 carry-forward to subsequent year reduction.
A,,~CST"T.LC~I
EX-HISIT G
-:~;-~
e
'e
~
~I~
~I~
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
I 1 '. . . . i Ii
'.
. i . i ~ ."
PO Box 2340 Dut:!!r CalifornIa 94568
Oty Offices. 100 C,VIC Plaza_ Dublin. Caldorr"'-i 9..:563
1.1, ;;~t t~ i ~I) 'f ii....
March 11, 1 991
....
::::;;J
("'>
.::1'..:.
Mary King, president
Board of Supervisors
Alameda County
1221 Oak street, Room 536
Oakland, CA 94612
<--<l
".... ~:: \
,~
~. c' ........'--
-I -c ~""
. ( .:.. -. .........
-.) ""T'1:r. i
.., ~I-
. __ 0"'; (
-. --) ~ . \
.. ..\ -- '-..
'. . ~:~
~\i
".J . '. ~-
c:D
:.J'\
r.<J
~
RE: Letter of Agreement regarding Annexation Agreement
Provision of Fire Services
~
u
'.'1
Honorable President King and Members of the Board:
The City of Dublin and the County of Alameda are parties to an agreement
entitled "An Agreement Between the County of Alameda and the City of
Dublin regarding Camp Parks, Tassajara Park and Santa Rita properties,"
which was signed by the Ci ty and County in 1986, and is commonly
referred to as the "Annexation Agreement. ,. Paragraph 5 (c) of the
Annexation Agreement provides that the County will remit to the City an
amount equal to the City'S costs for providing services to the Santa
Rita property (described in Exhibit C to the Annexation Agreement), as
such costs are determined pursuant to the formulae set forth in Exhibit
F to the Annexation Agreement. Paragraph 5 (f) of the Annexation
Agreement then provides that if the cost of services will exceed 50% of
the revenue attributable to the Santa Ri ta property, the Ci ty and the
County shall reach agreement regarding the funding of the services which
exceed 50% of the revenues.
The purpose of this letter is to set forth our agreement, pursuant to
the provisions of paragraph 5(f) of the Annexation Agreement, regarding
the County's obligation to reimburse the City for the cost of providing
fire services to the Santa Rita property. In particular, this letter of
agreement relates only to the method of reimbursement for the provision
of fire services to the County's Santa Rita Jail (the new Santa Rita
Jail) and other public facilities located on the Santa Rita property, as
described in the Annexation Agreement. This letter of agreement does
not alter the existing method of calculating the cost of reimbursement
to the City for fire services as set forth in the "Illustrative
Worksheet for Calculating Fire Service Costs," which is part of Exhibit
F to the Annexation Agreement, for non-public buildings and structures
which may be constructed on the Santa Rita property in the future.
EX-HISIT J--1,
AdlllinlSlrat10n (415) 833.665() . Clly COline,! (415) 833.6605 · Ftnance (415) 833.6640 . BUIIOlng InspeC\lon (.115) 833.6620
Code Ef'lorcp.mel1l (415) S:J3-6620 . EnG,neenng (415\ 833.6630 · Plannll'<J (415\ 833-6610
- J \ J.66.15
~y. this letter of agreement, the city and Councy aijreo: ,-u 1....<,:: '-'-'-'--'-'.."'---:;1'
A. City's costs for.oviding fire services (a.efined in Exhibi t 1)
to the Santa Rita Jail facility, commencing~lY 1, 1989, shall be.
not less than $55,200 per Fiscal Year, commencing with the Fiscal
Year beginning July 1, 1989, provided that should the number of
calls to the Santa Ri ta Jail exceed 22 calls in any Fiscal Year
beginning with Fiscal Year 1990-91, the City'S costs for providing
fire services for that year and subsequent years shall be $55,200,
plus the "actual costs" per call in excess of 22 calls calculated
as shown on Exhibit 2 hereto.
B. Ci ty' s cos ts for providing fire services on the remainder of the
San ta Ri ta property, as described in Exhibi t C to the Annexa tion
Agreement and more particularly shown on Exhibit 3 hereto, shall be
the "actual cost" per call per Fiscal Year, and calculated as shown
in Exhibit 2. This method of calculating the City's costs for fire
services on the remainder of the Santa Rita property shall not be
applicable upon completion of construction of, and assignment of an
assessed valuation to, any non-public building on the Santa Ri ta
property. The cost of fire services for non-public building shall
be calculated as set forth. in Exhibit F to the Annexation
Agreement.
The City, through the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, will
commence providing fire services to the remainder of the Santa Rita
property on January 1, 1991.
As used above, "ac tual cost 11 shall mean the average cas t per call
for each Fiscal Year of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authori ty (a
joint powers agency through which City provides fire services), its
successor in interest or the City of Dublin if it directly provides
fire services. IIActual Cost" shall be calculated in the manner set
forth in Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
IC,
i
I
,
I
D.
City'S costs for providing fire services, as set forth above in
paragraphs A & B, determine the amount County will remit to City
pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of the Annexation Agreement.
In accordance with the Annexation Agreement, City shall invoice
County quarterlY for fire services. County will pay 25 percent of
the base contract cost ($55,200) for each of the first three
quarters of the Fiscal Year. City will invoice County for the
fourth quarter for the balance owed the City as calculated in
accordance with Exhibit 2. County shall pay City within 30 days of
receiving an invoice.
E.
Approved as to Form
ELIZABE~H SILVER, City Attorney
By: 1. {il-'/-I!t< ii, ~ k
I
Attest:cJ0~1V ~ 9.
Approved as to Form 0J:r ~
KELVIN H. BOOTY, JR., County Counsel
- )n
By: 7/Ci/
B
CoU~ ~F ;AMED/J/~~
//'U~fA T{! / /'
By: ~.. ~
Mary Kg, preside& -
e
e
FIRE SERVICES
The followIng definl tlun of FIre ServIces is for use in the'proposed A111l1\cua
County ^greement.
Flr~ Services _ For the purpose of this contract, Firo Services (or Fire
Suppression ServIces), sllall lJe defined as Fire Authority response to the
following types or Incidents:
1. Aflytypeorf\re
2. lIazardous Ha.tarlals incidents
3, Fire, smoke, or water rlow alarms
4. Veh1cle acc1dents
5. Extr1cations
6. Hescllos
7 . ~I e d I c a 1 a 1 d 5
8. Smoke/odor investigations
9. ^rclng electrical wires and equipment
10. Gas leaks
. \
\
11. Hazardous conditions
Fire Prevention inspectIon activities at the Santa Rita Ja11 are l.l.Q1 included
1/1 the above definition.
EXlllfilT 1
5G07c
. .'
e
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
FIRE SERVICE COST HORKSHEET FOR SANTA RITA JAIL
MID SANTA RITA PUBLIC PROPERTY
A. Fiscal Year
B. ^1111ual Fire Authority Operating Costs
C. Total Calls (F'scal Year)
D. Cost per Call (s/C)
E. Cans to Santa RHa. Ja"
F. Excess Calls (E - 22. 1f less than O. enter 0)
G. Excess Call Costs CO x F)
H. Calls 011 Santa R,ta Property (excluding Santa R,ta Jail)
I. Cost of Calls on Santa RIta Property (0 x H)
J. Base Year Agreement
K. Cost of Providing Fire Service to County Property (G + I + J)
5687c
$ ~5.20Q..
EXHIBIT 2
e
e
r )
, .'
)
.
.i
I
,
:'~'.0:' is .
!' ,.."
':" I
j.:' .
,I
'1:-. , .
..... .... ....
. :. Mop. cl the Properly 01 the.
Es.I~II,cl Eo A, [)QuQhir~Y',\.SI.ll'\llI
Iltn:ho SOIl ncmCfi {J.lum:JOOtI r.\......f 1'\"'1
~Nrod14 ,."'~ ot IN 1Q'o1R 0/ Cw;hI111~~r
..
'.
n;....o!...:1 ~
I ,"".11 111"1
I 111' \II l'\ il
. \1':"11i Ill-
. It' I'" ~I.
. .1...... ~IH
. '''''.11I
i ,.,,,.
I ."u',
I I'rt.;.
14 .,..,...
o~
~11\\l l t 1
HII
1111
,...
""
",.'1'
.,,11
... . I . ..
. 1
I' [
. ,,: ,..
. '.,::::' .
..' d ]1'11:
I :'.~~~n "!,J
'. .\. ,.. ,.
Ii: i";' .. ~: 541
. !J{I, ,,<" '" Ii
\ ';~I; it . .., i. ~ u1 \1g r.;m........
I -l; or .. ~.. ~ I.... ':\'
Ap,-1 .::' .\ . .. ~ B !i .\:~} \!;; ;~, II
II,"~ \ . . ..'" . . . J 01"" Co I:::. .... . \]
I;:~~,"\'\" " 'f . j...," .' -'" /'. \' \...... ,~::;
I \,~ "I .. I' ....~. 'I!', .;. .' .! ,',:.7.7
\ ~\,'I ....,I.....l/i~;<' ..,.' ~~ .l:';~:'\ \~~:-:-,.......JI ~..
.I.!~'\ ..... ...;........~...... " ~ ,." ...1 .
jl l~.lll~ ': \:\t:L:i~")~" .....L.. .:, ~,.~,;~: ....::.. .--. :~.:....'~:' . ~'::1')\<[
I ,0" .' .,_,....., . . (, lP.",T'"
1 ::-d r~...~.! .,.,.....,.. '.': .'. I '\~ i~. flY \)
, .:,:':': '; (;:~':,:':.., ".:':::.' . . I '='-:,'l., ~~ .... ,'//' 1 1 ~
\ -I" "','" .r':\l~' ,~. .. ..::J'?, . .;F.I-" ·
". 'pi...... -""l.'~!"':'~" .' . I ':",,' - ... I'
a Pi,! ,.'/ r~la""\'''''II' 11.11. " ,,~ ......."'1. ,
" "'I~ 'I.;;~'(:. _", y,"- 1/11 . " I
\ ~i~ .:.,;"...';...:....-... I"" .. !iCO.
t,~' .'... ...4.... /. .. ....., - , " . ./
I .- :.'~~. ..u:..~\..\ 'i~:,'. . . . ' "iT!r.~'. . A'P N g' 4' 6"015..1"4' ,,'.'-:' ~! .I"
I ~ ..t.;'~','l:l;:'\" ;'. . ;.
I'. '1\ J .. . ... . .
\ . .:...., 'L\.':"~'~"" .' I' .'
. . l~"~'" ',-.-.' "",~":.'.,I_:'.l'~' '.' . .,'... . .
. ..............----.. .........................~' \'\ ..
'" ,", .,...., ,..,' '" ,'" . .' ,.... .
i . : .:;:,~.\.. '::.,;. ,'. ',. 'r'" . . ~ . I 't '# ! . i
\ . '.. . -:of .'.: ".'.1. 8 ." . . . . ..... \ 1I.HI \:
..:ji~::.~'y...:..::...:._'~I. '. ~', .-' .... \ .::;~It
\ ::' ~ "I' t', Ii j ,"'.' "1' . . . =-.~ .... I' ~,'r'---'J =-.,
~ '.' "r: 'I "W:~' I" ,,, . ..' 'J ." \:.J -' .' ,\
o .1\"A..1..:....:.\.\1.:.,;.: :"'\,;{l'~ ,"\. Ii"~. 0101.1 10 ..t~ .,.,.u,;., '1 " ~
'\ " !. ~"\"I'I\' .f.l' ." ,. , . ..... ,. "~" . ·
, /"':'0;:" ../;..1"';:'. '. ....: .' .., \' .....E.~..~Hl.Bl!' C.'.... . ~ .~.
'~:"@\""Ir""'" \,I'lfl. ..., .~ - : .
;~"tI :.;;~ ~:i;'~:;:;"~I;' (.;. :..' . . :. ~ ..'
\ >1'!I~'-'\:::::';&':"":''''\' ...... .. ~
\ ... , ..0' . " . .' :.. I, t '~, II! .....~:
~ ;;;\:~' :~.!':.~f!~..~... ..:. ..y ~
..' I', "--'1=110':" '.' ..... ...., '.' ·
;!'io',i\,-., :.-:..,.::':.\1,-~;.'. ..' . .':-. \ ..
,.':,j ..'l -........~...;..'.i.~..\:,. .'" .'. . ~ .n
.It....-.:. ....,::::, ~:. : ....' ,.... "- 'I' .'
-;~V~;". ...i,'-r:~~"',::,,' : :i'\. I..... ' . 1 r"
1~\'~ ",+~~.:\,:'.~ ";'. . ....:..j ". ' '.' ..-A'" p. N" g' .4.6.....0 t"'p' .:2....,J.~: '.
1";~\;1f":J'~"r.' '~+ .~,'. '(,:,'~'~; :... ".: :'.'
I:: -.J.- >..,.;.lll.~. .. . . c'. '. ".'. '_ .,.1. ....,.... I.,~'\r \, I. .."'. ~
~,~h"I''''''...-::T1 ~ . . .:' . . -'. .'l>.
'3::( .::~>::!.\':-.~ r,~ ". ,: ':\ .,\ .:.)'.'\.. I' ",~.\ (~:. . /: '.
s:L~~:.':" ',','r ."....'\, \'",' ..(. ..'........ -(~~." ~,if{f' /..'-'....
;\r\!i~ ... ~ ,'.', -. " ._.._<.\Y..._.Fr...f,u. .rr r,.,.rrrr...~r...(.
(:b~:';;:-.. .::.~.:..:;:;;: '1' .'/ . ,. ",';:"JF' -~:...... _I .
_WII' ...,n... 0' ~o .' . \ ~'~
'r;,'''''-,::::'~\,; .:__' .' . ~ ,-'. I_Ill IT~II pi . :..... - l"
\" ,,~,-;-:r.l '. 'i' .'\' ." .' I..: · . · .. ,-, ~., - .' . ~
1\'ll\,\'t'"'r,,,'" ,..,,'1.'. . I~ 1 I,AJ'. I . ,,,. I
V' '/:',,-'._,\." .:' ~..: ", ,.' ":"/'. \ -1.10\ . ~"',~ .1. .,~...... . ~
'\~;'" .1:., :.:;:. ,. .,. .,,:.,,",~~, '. ':'--;"" .~. ,., ,.,'; ,;,. · :",,' .' J 'J!'
h'I~.I\"'I',.'!'''-1 c ~ l-I..(....~: ';.)~ '"','' ..,;0.'.' ' ...... . .. /I
~t" \, -..... '. ," "1 '. ..,', ......... ,..r./" 'I
. :::'1\"" .. l' d "':',':;:","'\'.) .:. ',. .'.\.,. .. ,.~. ..' . ':1 .... ..:. '.
:1" :'{11'.,.;"": ~ a' '/1
'C'",:)\ '. ":{ '. 0 . ".,n vm3IT c, Sanll Kill I'rOPHq. II da/inld II ..
\1 ~,..' . Q t j .' . ..
.,;,;t j'. . '.,;.' I ~ '. thlt HII 1.lntl/l.d \r Ala.,da County <
i:b...\....l1 (' ,"".:, . A.orllor rar~'~ Hu,,\HI 9\6-01}-2 ..d :
~,:1'" ...:..... ,I.. "?"J.! .~." 9'6-01}-\-4 II 01 Ju~1 1986.
\
I
\
\
I
\
\"
\
".
r
.,
-
.e
PROPOSED
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEliT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR SANTA RITA PROPERTY
SUBTOTAL
santa Rita Property
GrosS Acres units
103~0 1.217 msf
18~0 .235 msf
135a8 2.924 msf
5~0 .120 msf
53a4 .651 msf
0.0 0.000 msf
315 a-2 5.147 msf
Land Use Desiqnation
COMMERCIAL
General
Neighborhood
campus Of:fice
Hotel
Industrial Park.
Public/Semi-Public
RESIDENTIAL
SUBTOTAL
36~3 1,271 Sdu
39~5 790 du
6-4a2 642 du .
67a2 269 du
~ 0 du
207.2 2,972 du
High
Med~ High
Medium.
Low
Rural
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SUBTOTAL
56~3 1 park
OaO 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
0.0 0 parks
24.6
80.9 1 park
city Park
community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood sq~
open Space
SCHOOLS
Elementary
Jr~ High
High
10~5
0.0
O~O
1 school
o schools
o schools
SUBTOTAL
10~5
1 school
TOTAL LAND AREA:
613~8
11~\agree\annex.rl
Page 29 of 28
JI..rie 15, 1992
EX-HISI.
.
.
REVISIONS TO THE
Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment
DECEMBER 21, 1992
PREPARED FOR:
CITI OF DUBLIN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 CIVIC PLAZA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
CO~TACT: LAURENCEL,TO~G
Plh'l1HNG DIRECTOR
BRENDA GILlARDE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
(510) 833-6610
PREPARED BY:
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
121 SECOND STREET
SA:'i FRfu,CISCO, CA 94105
(415) 541-0830
AnACHMENT ro
e
e
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
REVISIONS
(12/21/92)
Text Revisions
Text revisions or deletions have occurred in the Draft Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (May 27, 1992) as a result of
comments made during the public review period. These revisions or
deletions can be identified as follows:
Added text is in balded typeface.
Deleted text is ea~ftea-e~~.
These revisions to the Draft General Plan Amendment are provided in
order to clarify or augment existing information. The basic intent
of the General Plan Amendment has not changed.
Pages of the General Plan Amendment with Revisions.
.page 9, second paragraph
.page 17, first paragraph
.page 19, second paragraph
.page 35, third paragraph
GPA. Ji1:e:vislons
1
12/21/92
e
e
[AMENDMENT 1.8.1:
paragraoh:
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION'. oaae 9 . second
e~en _ Sf'6.ee-:- _ _ €>pe!'l- -s-pe:ee-~-ands-- -inc-3..~ -t;:fte- -fe- r :row-i.-r\q-:- - -areas
aea~ea~ed_~e_~ft~~k~~~~~~~-w~~ft-~repe~-eve~
3e%~_5~~eam_a~a-a~a~~a~eway-~~e~ee~~e~-ee~~~ae~B~-weed~a~dB~
v~s~a%~Y_BenB~e~ve--r~r~~-~~~-~~~~~~-fta5~~a~
a~ea5~_~~ra~~~_~~fld~~---e~e~-~-ra~-eftfl-~-e~~fte~
~~5%~e%y-er~~~~~.--in~~erarT~~~~fld~-a~e
~e_~_~~rved-W~~ft-~~~--aeve~epmeft~~--~~~-fte%d
a~~~e~~~~~a~_ra~e~a~~~~~~~~~~-~ed~e~~efl-ana
q~ a 2 ~nq-:- _ -&-e-rtte-e.1.%ree- ~:ret.-ed- ~k.ftese- '6~~~ 'ffii~~~~'6~- aee~v~e~ eB
w~ ~~-5e-perJ!'t~-e~ r- _:Eft-sens-i~""Ife"'~~tifld-6.:r;ea'5-5e~
aS~de_~_~e~ee~-~r~-ft~~~fi--a~-~~,--~~es-~~~--5e
~~m~eea_~e_~asBive-~ee~ea~~en-f~-:-e~7-wa~k~nq7-h~k~n~7-eee~7~
Beve~epmen~__~fl__k~-~-~~rr-~--r}m}~--~e--~~ai~
:tm~~eveme~~5~
open Space.. Open spa.ce lands are those areas shovn. a.s open.
spa.ce on. the land use 1l&.p (Figure :a-B) and other arM.S
dedicated as open. space on subdivision lmps.. The intent of
this desi~ation. is to ensure the protection of those areas
with spec~al significance such as areas with slopes over 30
percent; st:rea.ll and drainage way protection corridors;
~lands; and visually sensitive ridgelands.. The Cit~ 'Day
allow only open space uses on this land.. EqUestrian. r~ding
and hiking trails will be encouraged.. other types of
recreational uses. agricultural and grazing DaY be per:ai tted
~ere appro:priate..
IAMENDMENT 3.0 LAND USE AND CIRCULA ION SECTION: P S AN OPEN
SPACE ELEMENT'. page 17. insert immediately before Amendment 3.1:
open spa.ce &:reas should be preserved for the protection of
p\ll)lic health and s&fety. the provision of rec:r&&tional
cpportuni ties. and the production of natur&l resources..
Methods of preserving open space should be ~lored. including
fee purchase. conservation and scenic ease:aents. transfer of
developaent rights,. &nd special district financing..
IAMENDMENT 3.1: OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL SOURCES
AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY'. paqe 17. top of page:
12/21/92
2
GPA )l:evision..
e
e
3.1 OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Primary Planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Area
Guiding policies - Primary Plcumi ng Area/Eastern Extended
Planning Area
A. Preserva.tion e of oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and
natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value
is of the highest importanc.~ Limited modifications may be
permitted on a case by case basis with adequate mitigation to
replace disturbed resources.
B. Genera.lly M:aaintain slopes l'~ee.el!l.;:fial'i1e3:y over thirty
percent fd~5!!e~a~e.~!'l.~--m-~-st1rf6.ee-~-~-fte-rrew:!tt as
permanent open space for public health and safety. consider
development in area.s over 30 percent slope only it the area to
be developed: 1) is less than three a.cres in siae: 2) is less
tha.n 20 percent ot a l&ri;JO developable are..; and 3) is
surrounded by slopes less than 30 :percent~
rAMENDMENT 3.2:
paraaraoh:
AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE 1. oaae 19 . second
Guidin9 policy - Eastern Extended Planning Area
A. Lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural
preserve can remain as rangeland as long as the landowner(s)
wish to pursue agricultural activities. The city ~el'iera3:%y
does not support the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts,
unless some compelling public interest would be served.
The urban land use designations in the General Plan Land Use
Map illustrate ultimate (i.e., long-term) urban development
potential, and do not represent a call for the cessation of
agricul tural acti vi ties. To pursue develop:aent of their
property. any developill8nt propon.l Dust be c:cmsistent with the
Genera.l Plan and applicable specific plan policies for the
ai te.. A develop:aen.t &p~lica.tion cannot be e.pproved until a.
~perty owner has notified the applicable a~ency of the
l.ntent to fa.ncel. or not :renew. any preva.iling Wl.llia.:ason Act
contract on the subject property. A~--~~eft--e~l!I.e7--a5
3:ane.ew!'l.e!!f~t-w4sft-~~~~~~~~~~~~-ae~~~~~~e:!t-ee
~~~s~e~~~~_~fteir-~~epe~~YT~~~-I'~e~eea3:
l!I.~5~_~_~~~__W~~ft-k~-6e!'l.e~ft~--Pr~~-~-ap~3:ieae3:e
s~ee~~ie_p~afi_~r}e~-~~~~~.-;-~4~~ftft~-5pee~~ie
~~ e~e s a 3: 5 _ -!~ -eel'tvel:"':!t~ - ~e- -urban- -l:t5'e - eef'tS~:S-t.-eftt.- -w-:8!:ft -:eRe
Sel"le!! a 3: -P ral't..:may- -be- et'>'!'l"54 .e.~eti-fte~-s-eel'te'r ~ -t:wo-1'-etl.~'5- P!!~ e!!
~e-eel"l:e~ae~-e~pirae~el"l~
GPA ll..vision..
3
12/21/92
e
e
rAMENDMENT 8.2.3: FLOODING1. naqe 35. third naraqraoh:
Implementing policies- Primary Planning Area 'and Eastern
Extended planning Area
(See also Conservation Element policies7-~a~es-%e-3e.)
B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition
of subdivision approval.
C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of
woodlands wherever possible.. Replant veget.ation a.ccordinq to
the standards in the Eastern Dublin specific plan (also s.e
General Pla.n. Guidin~ Policy 3..1 A). Re1l\eva:r-e:f-a-l't-:i-ftd-~~
ea~_~~~~eefi~~de~ed-~ft~e~~ft-~~~-~~~~~~eeess~
GPA 'R@visions
4
12/21/92
e
e
REVISIONS TO THE
nRAFf
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
DECEMBER 21, 1992
PREPARED FOR:
CITI OF DUBLIN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 CIVIC PLAZA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
CO:'-iTACT: LAURENCE L TO~G
PLANNING DIRECTOR
BRENDA GIllARDE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
(510) 833-6610
PREPARED BY:
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
121 SECOND STREET
SA:~ FRAi~CISCOJ CA 94105
(415) 541-0830
ATIACHMENT 7
e
e
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISIONS
(12/21/92)
Text Revisions
Text revisions or deletions have occurred in the Draft Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (May 27, 1992) as a result of comments made
during the public review period. These revisions or deletions can
be identified as follows:
Added text is in balded typeface.
Deleted text is ea~hee-e~e.
These revisions to the Draft specific Plan are provided in order to
clarify or augment existing information. The basic intent of the
specific Plan has not changed.
Paqes of the Soecific Plan with Revisions.
Sp@cific pian Revisions
1
12/21/92
e
e
CHAPTER 4: LAND USE
.paqe 27.
POlicy 4-5: Concentrate residential development in the less
environmentally constrained portions of the plan area, and
encourage cluster development as a method of reducing or
avoiding impact to constrained or environmentally sensitive
areas. Also consider the use of Transfer of Developaent
Righ.ts: (TOR! s) in rural ~siden.t.i.l or open. space areas..
.page 28.
Program 4F: Develop an inclusionary housing program fer
eas-eerl'i~:eJ:-:k-:rt-which requires a minimum percentage of all
approved units to be affordable to very low, low, and
moderate-income households.
Program 4G: Explore the possibility of establishing an
in-lieu fee to support the development of below-market-
rate housing.-wi~ftift-eas~erl'i-B~e~in~
.page 30.
pOlicy 4-26: Ma~l'i-ea~l'i--be-i-enced--q-:~'ow..eft-e-i-~~i:-a-r-a:l'id
em~%eymel'ie_~el'iera-e~l'i~-~ses-as--ehe-eae~ern-B~e~~l'i-area-e~i%ds
e~~7__~_e~6e~__~_~~~e--efter~-~~-~mea%anee3~ Naint.ain
sufficient. land for housing in reasona.ole relationship to jobs
(employment) qeneratinq uses) in the Eastern Dublin area..
.Paqe 32.
pOlicy 4-29: Ensure, as part of the approval process, that
each new development provides its fair share of planned open
space, parklands, and trail corridors, as shovn on Figu~ 4..1.
.Paqe 32.
Program 4N: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based
on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credi t
toward parkland dedication requirements will only be
given for ~eve~_-oi?""-EJen-e~y-S're~:i:-n~-~~:k-~:re--ie~
ae~ive--l"'ee~a-1=-~--us-e-:- areas which meet. the city's
st.andards a.nd policies tor park and recreation land.. The
amount of credit allowed m&.y vary depending u~n the
physical features of the land offered tor dedication.
Program 40: Require developers to dedicate public access
specific plan Revisions
2
1"/"1/92
e
e
easements along ridgetops and stream corridors vhere
necessary, to accommodate the development of trails and
staging areas.
.. ProgTaJl 4,P: The c.i t.y shall work vi th EaSt. Bay Regional
Parks District. regarding the provision of sta.ging areas
in the Specific plan a.rea..
Specific Pian Revisions
3
12/21/92
e
e
.paqe 32.
4.8.1 RESIDENTIAL
Rural Residential/Aq:riculture ( .01 units per gross residential
acre). Accommodates agriculture and large lot rural
residences in areas constrained for more intensive
development....
CHAPTER 5: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
.page 50.
Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain
Level of Service D or better as the average intersection level
of service at all intersections within the Specific plan area
during AM, PM and midday peak periods.
.paoe 54. column 2. nara. 3.
Tassa lara Creek Trail. Trail construction materials and
methods shall conform to the East Bay Regional Parks District
standards for trail construction. The trail shall be
constructed for minimum visual impact. There should be a
buffer with an approximate minimum width of 3ee 100 feet
between the trail and nearby development.
.paoe 55.
POlicy 5-20: Encourage on-street parking on aB: collector and
local residential streets. Allow on-street parking on lower
volume arterial streets within commercial areas.
.page 56. column 1. para 3.
Measures such as transportation systems management (TSM)
programs or the provision of park-and-ride lots can provide
additional information and incentives which help to reduce
automobile use. Also the use of fiberopties or other "work &~
home" methods is encouraged to reduce daily commuting to work.
.Paqe 56. column 2.
Program 5FG: The city shall establish a citywide
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. The
program would require employers with 50 or more employees
Speei~ie plan Revisions
..
1.2/21./92
e
e
to prepare a TSM program for submittal to the city.
Program 5Sll: Work with developers at the freeway
interchanges to provide park-and-ride lots between 1-580
and Dublin Boulevard on the west sides of Hacienda Drive,
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The parking lots will
provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces and will include
lighting and landscaping.
.page 57. Fiaure 5.1.
[The figure has been revised to show (6) lanes of right-of-way
reserved on Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and
Gleason Road.]
CHAPTER 6: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
.page 62.
pOlicy 6-2: Locate development so that large, continuous open
space areas/corridors are preserved. Avoid creating open
space islands. E:ncourage single loa.ded s~ts in a~s
adjacent to open space or rural residential.
.paqe 63.
Program 6B: The city should explore options for
ownership and management of areas set aside as open
space. Ownership of these areas by public agencies, such
as the East Bay Regional Park District, is preferred. In
particular, the city should encourage East Bay Regional
Park District to accept ownership of the Tassajara Creek
open space corridor. 'The City should also work vith the
Park District to develop guidelines for llanagenent and
useS in oPftl\. space a.reas..
.Paqe 64.
Policy 6-9: Natural stream corridors, ponds, springs, seeps,
and wetland areas as shown on Figure 4~1 shall be preserved
wherever possible. Prior to submittal of development
applications, the appropriate a.gencies such a.s the California
Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers
must be consulted to determine whether they have jurisdiction
over the watercourse or wetland area.
Policy 6-10: Riparian and wetland areas shall be incorporated
speci~ic p~~n Revisions
5
12/21/92
e
e
into greenbelt and open space areas as a means of preserving
their hydrologic and habitat value. Unavoidable loss of
riparian habitat due to development should be replaced with
similar habitat on a 3:1 inkind basis. Loss of wetlands must
be mitigated consistent with the COE's une-ne~-~essu-current
policy.
Policy 6-11: All stream corridors. as shown on Figure ~~l.
sfteti~e. shall be revegetated with nati ve plant species to
enhance their natural appearance and improve habitat values.
Revegetation must be implemented by a professional
rev~etationspecialist. e~~revee.~k~€a~irernia~~~
er-F~sft-ane.-6ame~
POlicy 6-12: Maintain natural open stream channels to carry
storm runoff wherever feasible, rather than replacing with
underground storm drainage systems. When extra capacity is
necessary, retention basins are preferable to channelization,
if the channelization would disturb riparian habitat. When
channelization is necessary, the channel should be designed
and constructed to accommodate both the projected flows and
the growth of riparian vegetation, and to have more natural-
appearing contours. Flood control llaintena.nce practices vill
M designed and perfonMd. to :t:If& responsive to public safety
while preserving the unique riparian coaauni ty ~ Maintenance
agre...en.t.s tlle:aoranda af understanding) between the city and
responsible agencies will address, but not be li.Di.ted to, site
access. cri taria far det.eraining the need for JM.intenance
(i.. e.. , assessnent and JlOnitoring), and the tiDing and
:frequency af actual lla.int&nanc& practices ~
.page 65.
POlicy 6-14: Enhance public enjoyment and visibility of
stream corridors by avoiding. or minimizing. development that
backs directly onto the stream corridor, and ensure safe
public access to stream corridors by providing frequent access
points within each development area.
ACTION PROGRAM: stream corridors and Wetlands
Program 6E: The city shall require all project
applicants to submit a multi-parameter wetlands
delineation ~e___~fte___€eE___fer___veririea~ien---ane.
jtiri8e.ie~iena~--es~aB~i8ftmen~7 and 8tiBmi~ plans for
proposed alteration to any watercourse to ~he-~~~~
~heir--review--ana--a~~revax appropriate agencies in
accordance wi th formally adopted regulations of those
agencies~ Applicants wlll be required to submit these
agencies determinations, any required permits, and
approved mitigation plans as part of the final
development plan submittal.
specific P18n Revisions
6
J.;>/;>J./9;>
e
e
program 6F: The city should work with zone 7 and the
Department of Fish and Game to develop a comprehensive
stream corridor restoration program that identifies a
detailed set of criteria for grading, stabilization and
revegetation of planning area stream channels. The
program would provide guidelines for plant species,
planting densities, and long-term maintenance
requirements and responsibilities. such a program will
facilitate development approvals and insure a consistent
standard for stream channel improvement throughout the
planning area. The program should identify the
procedures to be followed by applicants for development,
permits to be obtained, and improvement and revegetation
practices to be implemented. Th" progr"'" should l:le
r..vi..wed by East llll.Y 1'."",ion8.1 parks Oistrict.
program 6G: The city should require dedication of land
and improvements (1. e., trails, revegetation, etC.) along
both sides of stream corridors (as shown on Figure 4.1)
as a condition of subdivision approval. The width of
dedicated corridorS will be established in consultation
with the regulatory authority since these may vary with
specific sites (The california Department of Fish and
Game typicallY recommends a minimum buffer of 100 feet on
each side).
policy 6-19: Where roadways divide open space areas,
underpasses or other .....ans of access shall be provided to
facilitate the movement of wildlife without barriers.
.:p"ac::te 66.
.paae 61..
program 6L: The city shall require development
applicants to conduct a pre_construction survey within 60
days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction
and road site, etc.) to verifY the presence or absence of
sensitive species, especially the san Joaquin kit foX,
nesting raptorS, the red-legged frog, western pond
turtles, the california tiger salamander, and other
species of special concern.
.Eaae 69. column 1. para 3.
The most prominent ridgeline in the area actuallY lies just
outside the planning area. This ridge, which wraps around the
north and east sides of the planning area plays a significant
role in the scenic character of the planning area in that it
provides a visual backdrop for the lower foothillS located in
1.2/:n./92
7
specific pl.an Revisions
e
e
the planning area. with average elevations close to 900 feet
this ridgeline forms the horizon line from most viewpoints to
the south.
Wi thin the planning area, two parallel ridgelines, wi th
elevations ranging from 600 to 800 feet, extend across the
northern portion of the planning area in an east-west
direction. The west and south facing slopes of the
southernmost ridge are highly visible from 1-580 and Tassajara
Road, and from points within the planning area actuallY form
the horizon line. The second, parallel ridge located to the
north, is alsO highly visible from Tassajara Road, but is
screened from views from 1-580. Both of these ridgeS are
spurs of the larger ridge located just east and north of the
planning area.
In the southeastern portion of the planning area, a narrow
band of low-lying hillS has been designated for open space.
This band of hills, while much lower in elevation than the
ridgelines to the north, forms a distinctive visual feature
which will serve as both a natural visual backdrop to proposed
development along the freeway and as a buffer screening
development to the north from freeway views and noise. xt is
intended that th.. f..ce of these for"'iJTound hills. r........in
undisturt>ed (fronting X-SSG). Rowever. the b&cl<side could b&
developed. consistent with ..11 specific Pl..n policies. xn
particul.a:r. no devel.opment shan extend abOve the natural.
ridqeline of these lOV lying hillS,
.r..aoe 70.
po li cy 6 _ 3 0 : 5 ~"" e~ ""e s _1-1-""""" -be- -l. eea't.,e-..lle"e-'eheY """"Id
ebs~""e~_See"ie_~~~~~~~~~~efi-ide"~ified
eee"ie__~~~--r~~~,-_Si~lle"e~~ed7--~-~~--f"eM
desi~na~ed-5eefi~e-~~ strUctures bQil.t near design..ted
scenic corridors sh..n b& l.oc..ted SO th..t vi.."" of the
bacl<droP ridge (identified in figure 6.3 ..s "visuall.Y
sensitive ridgel..nds - no development") ..re gener..l.l.Y
....aint..ined when viewed fr01l the scenic corridors.
.r..aae 70.
policy 6-34: Alterations of existing natural contours shall
be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topographic
contours as much as possibl.e. Grading beyond actual
development areas shall be for remedial purposes only.
.~aae 70.
policy 6-39: Tassajara Creek and other stream corridorS as
12/21/92
I'
spec!fic pl.an ~ev!sions
e
e
shown on Figure 4..1 are visual features that have special
scenic value for the planning area. The visual character of
these corridors should be protected from unnecessary
alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be
sited to maintain visual access to the stream corridors.
.page 71.
Program 68: Establish technique(s) for implementing the
long term preservation of visually si~nific.nt portions
of hillsides. Options to consider ~nclude: densi ty
transfers (through the Planned unit Development process)
and homeowner association maintenance; private ownership
wi th public maintenance supported by assessments on
homeowners; or dedication of land to a public agency,
such as the East Bay Regional Parks District or the city
of Dublin, with maintenance being the responsibility of
the agency holding title to the land.
.page 72. para 3.
Levels in the planning area were evaluated in a field survey
conducted as part of the background research. That survey
indicated that the major noise source in eastern Dublin is
traffic along Interstate 580 (1-580). The 60 dB contour for
noise levels, the maximum level considered normally acceptable
for residential uses and other uses that are noise sensitive,
extends as much as 2,000 feet north of the freeway. For this
reason, the plan has generally located residential uses away
from the freeway. However, uses such as hotels and retail
development that are located near the freeway will be
concerned about establishing environments that are not
unpleasant due to ambient noise levels. Development along the
freeway will be required to meet the city's requirements for
noise mitigation as set forth in the city's Noise Element, and
consistent with the requirements of Title 24, Part 2 of the
California Administrative Code.
.paqe 73. Fiqure 6.1
[The legend in the figure has been revised to show the correct
designations for Parks and Rural Residential (they were
swi tched) . ]
.page 75. Fiqure 6.2.
[The location of the golden eagle's nest has been corrected.]
.page 77. Fiqure 6.3.
[The boundaries of the Golden Eagle Protection Zone and the
12/21/92
specl~ic P1an ~e~isions
9
e
e
designation of intermittent streams feeding into Tassajara
Creek have been corrected.]
CHAPTER 7: COMMUNITY DESIGN
.paae 80. column 2. 2nd para from bottom of page.
Use low hedges, shrub masses, ana walls and landscaped
berms to screen parking lots from street views, as well
as to give a defined edge to the lot.
.Paqe 86. Caption for Fiaure 7.8.
Gener&lly b locate entries to upper floor offices and housing
on the transit spine.
.paqe 88. column 1. ~ara 4.
Buildings should be built with a ~n~re~m setback that is close
to the sidewalk to create a well-defined and more intimate
street space. Internally oriented units :may be acceptable &s
long as buildings do not back onto the street.
Setbacks:
Provide a landscaped ~5-~ee~-Mi~iM~m-~~~}mum setback
of 10 to ao feet from street ROW
Side yard setbacks are not required (see Figure 7.16).
provide a_-6-G--~i=--m-ni~-bl:i:i:3::a:i:n~--ee-~ adequate
set.b&cks along with. other mitig-ations for high and
medium-high density residential buildings along Gleason
and Dublin Boulevard to buffer them from arterial traffic
noise. Setbacks can be used to accommodate parking areas
(see Figure 7.17).
Orient parcels and buildings a~-~9~~-~~~~~
~a~he~_~han_~~en~:i:fi~-fer-baek:i:n~7-en-a~~e~:i:a3::~~ so that
the main access does not front onto high volume
arterials.
.paqe 90. caption to Fiaure 7.16.
provide a ~5L 10-aOf landscaped setback for Town center and
village center residential buildings.
12/21/92
speoifio P18n ~ev1sions
10
e
e
.paae 90. caption to Fiaure 7.17.
set back high and medium-high density residential buildings
from arterials to protect :residents froll undesiroable arterial
traffic noise.
.paae 91. caption to Fiaure 7.22.
Generally P provide ground-floor units with individual entries
from the street.
.paae 91. caption to Fiaure 7.24.
Generally B design residential buildings with porches, windOWS
and balconies overlooking the street.
.paae 94. column 1. para 1.
Tassajara village is sited at the junction of Tassajara Road
and Fallon parkway, next to Tassajara creek in a semi-circular
valley bounded by gently sloping hills. A historic
schoolhouse stands on the plain between the creek and
Tassajara Road. specific design guidelines for Tassajara
village are intended to ensure that village development
respects the local setting and maintains a strong sense of
place. An illustration of -eRe a development concept for
Tassajara village is shown in Figure 7.28. Th.is figure is for
illustrative purposes only,
.page 94. column 1. 2nd para from bottom of paqe.
Incorporate Tassajara creek as a natural backdrop to the
commercial area, giving the Village a distinctive image.
Be__~~_~r~-~-e~~ver~--~fte-~ Nini.i:e
channelimation and culverting of Tassajara creek to the
greatest extent possible.
.page 94. column 2. last paraaraph.
Site buildings on the junior high school site to avoid
grading of the string of hills in the open space preserve
to the south. si te buildings in the village neighborhood
south of the Transit spine so that they are not visible
~!'\-"~ew3 -e~_-efte~-epece-~-f~k;fl:e-Seti~h-;- frem.
areas south of the open space preserve wh.ich front I-S80,
12/21/92
11
specifio plan Revisions
e
e
.~age 99. column 1. para ~.
Generally site streets and building sites to conform to
the natural topographY, minimizing areas of major
grading.
.paqe 99. column 1. para 4.
Maintain the ex~S~~ft~ pattern of natural drainages ~~em
~fte_ft~~~s~ae-a~ea~ as shown on Figure 4~1 and 6~~.
.paae 99. column 1. para 7.
site buildings on the downslope side of streets vn&re
feasiDle, so the main masS of the building is beloW
street level, allowing views over roofs from the street
(see Figure 7.31).
.page 99. column 1. para ~.
~e S feet minimum from side property lines for single-
family detached housing, except in zero-lot line
developments.
.paae 99. column 1. last oaraoraph.
n~m~~~r~~~~e5~de~~~e~-paree~s~~~-e.
~fte_si~e_e~-975ee-S~7-Wft~efteve~-~s-~ess~
.paae 99. column 2. para 2.
~&re feasible, terrace steep slopes; avoid high
retaining walls. Plant spilling plants at the top of
retaining walls and vines at the base to soften edges and
blend walls into the landscape.
.pa~e 99. column 2. last paragraph.
provide a minimum building setback of 25 feet from the
edge of des~~~a~ed drainage corridors as shown in Figure
4.1 and 6.2 (see Figure 7.33).
.paqe 105. column 2. para 9.
~eL 10' minimum setback from curbline to ROW line may
include pedestrian/bike trail along one side. (See Figure
7.38)
12/21/92
12
specific P1an Revisions
e
e
.paqe 105. column 2. 4th paraqraph from bottom.
A%x-~~~~~~-~~~~ signalized intersections
based on current and project.ed traffic flows and Calt.rans
Traffic signal Warrant. standards~ -
.Paqe 112. column 1. 4th ~aragraDh from bottom.
i%L lOt from curbline to ROW line includes 6L st sidewalk
and 5' planting strip with canopy trees.
.page 116. column 1. para 5.
28' median accommodates natural drainage swale. Plant
informally with native riparian vegetation. Includes 6L
~:i:e.ewa%k-eft-eaeh-e-Ne--o-f-~ adequat.e set.ba.eX.s for a
sidewalk or trail~
.page 117. Fioure 7.54.
[The figure has been revised to correspond to text
modifications.]
CHAPTER 8: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
.paqe 119. column 2.
policy 8-1: Reserve school sites designated in the Specific
Plan Land Use Map (Figure 5~i 8.1) to accommodate the future
development of schools in eastern Dublin.
Policy 8-2: Promote a consolidated development pattern that
supports the logical development of planning area schools, and
ensure that adequate classroom space is available ~~~e~-~ek~
ae'fe%ep1ftene-e~-nevr-homeS in coordination with occup&.ncy of new
homes.
.paqe 119. column 2.
Policy 8-3: Ensure that-i"l.ew-;:leve:l~--:i-n-~-Dufrr:i:n-;
:i:ne%~a:i:n~_~fl_~~~-~-ft6R-~~~~~}a~-ae'fe%e~Men~7
f~%xy_mi~~a~~-:i~e{-3~efl~~~~~eft~-~ae:i:x:i:~ie~
<a.dequ.<a.t.e school f<a.cllities ;are available prior t.o developaent
in east.ern Dublin ~
12/21/92
Sp~clf1c plan B@vislons
13
-
e
.page 120. column ~.
(Action program 8C). lln=uraqe 1:he Scl>.ool District(a) to ua..
tlOSt ..fforts to qu...li~ for and obt..in st..te funding
..aaiat....c.. for conatruction of ...... achoola. In ..ddition. """l<
vi1:h 1:he diatrict(a) to ,.sstablish appropriate. funding
mechanisms, such as a Mello RooS community Facilities
District, development impact fees, or a general obligation
bond measure, to fund new schOol development in Eastern
Dublin.
.raae 121. column ~.
policy 8-5: Time the construction of new facilities to
coincide with new service demand in order to avoid periods of
reduced service efficiency. The first station will be sited
and he~'n construction eoneHrreft~-W'~h-}ft,~~r~~~~
~he-t>i-~-f>o/- compl..t<>d prior to cowpl..tion of initi&!
developll\en.t. in. the plann.ing area.,
.page 121. column 2. nara 3.
(program 8G). Coordinate with DRFA to identify and acguire
specific sites for new fire stations. The westernmost site in
the specific Plan area must be aeqH,red asaured prior to the
approval of the first development plans in Eastern Dublin.
Timing for acquisition of the subsequent sites will be
determined by DRFA.
.page 121. column 2. nara 7.
A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are
contiguoUS with the wildland area. This buffer zone is
to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or
equivalent fire-resistive vegetation or oth.......ia..
maint.a.in.ed,
.paae 121. column 2. nara ~.
compliance with DRFA and City minimum road widthS,
maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and
secondary access road requirements.
.paae 123. column 1. nara 5.
(policy 8-10): prov,de llncourag" ....d aupport 1:he efforts of
the U.S. poat..l s....vic.. to ..at..blian a post office within the
eastern Dublin Town center.
12/21/92
1"
S~oi~io ~lan R@visions
.
e
.paae 123. column 2. para 3.
(policy 8-11). p~ev~ee Encourage and sup~rt the efforts of
the Alam.eda County Librllry System to estllblish a library( ies)
and associated services for Eastern Dublin as determined to be
appropriate given the size and population of the planning
area.
CHAPTER 9: WATER. WASTEWATER AND STORM DRAINAGE
Page 126. column 1.
Policy 9-2: coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service
boundaries to encompass the entire Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area. Expansion of the DSRSD water system into eastern
Dublin should be coordinated wi th e~pftn:!!l:i::en-<< the Zone 7
wholesale water delivery system. The city should support Zone
7 s capital improvement program and water management plan as
it relates to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Paae 126. column 1.
(program 9A). Water Conservation. Require the following as
conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin:
Use of water-conserving devices such as low-flow
shower heads, faucets, and toilets.
support implementation of the DSRSD Wft~er--B~e
Reetie~:i::el'l.--+}efl. urblln Wllter Mana.gemen.t Pla.n.
Amendment where appropriate.
.. Require all develop:aents to D.Mt the Best
ltan'3.~t Pra.ctices (8ltPS ) of the lte1lOrandUll of
understa.nding Regarding urban Nater Conservation. in
California. t of which. DSRSD is a signatory..
water efficient irrigation systems within public
rights-Of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas (see
Program 9B on Water Recycling).
Drought resistant plant palettes within public
rights-of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas.
.page 127. column 2.
Policy 9-4: Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service
boundaries to encompass the entire Eastern Dublin specific
Plan area. Also coordinate with the District ~..rdinq the
possiblQ neQd for lMsteV'3.te.r storage fa.cility in ..stern
12/21/92
specific plan ~evlsions
15
e
e
Dublin, The expansion of the DSRSD wastewater system should
be coordinated with proposed TWA wastewater facilities. The
city should also support the wastewater management efforts of
LAVWMA and TWA as it relates to the Eastern Dublin specific
Plan area.
.paqe 127. column 2.
(Policy 9-5). Require recycled water use or landscape
irrigation in a.~<a.nce with. DSRSD's R~ycled W<a.te:r Policy,
P~e:m.e1;e -reeye l-ecl: ~ ~:s-e- fel'-1-a-ncl:5-eape -~i:-qet-i-on- -i. -fl- ea ~ t:.el'n
B't15% :i::R-'eft~~ft ~i:ng- -of-"=-'f"ee.~mefl."=--a8' -~}.~ -frt.- "4:.fi-e- BSRSS
Was'1;eWa~e~_~-pran~-~~~~~~~~-~-~-l'eeye%ee
wa~e~_a:i:~l:.l':i:5't1e:i:en-ane-~eera~e-~y~eem-:i:fi-ea~ee~~-B't15~:i:n~
.paqe 128. column 1. oara 4.
program 91. Wastewater Collection system Master Plan.
Request that DSRSD update its wastewater collection system
master plan computer model reflecting the proposed Specific
Plan area land uses to verify the conceptual proposed
wastewater collection system presented in Figure 3.5-B.
Consistent with DSRSDts current policy. it is assumed th<at
proposed development within the Project <are<a will De
responsible for the costs of preparing a design level
wastewater coll&ction system master plan computer model,
Program 9J: Recvcled Water Distribution System. Re(~ft:l.e8'-e
BSRsB-~e-~-e-~k~~ Require development within the
Project to fund & recycled water distribution system computer
model reflecting the proposed specific Plan land uses and
verify the conceptual backbone recycled water distribution
system presented on Figure 3.5-C.
Program 9K: Wastewater Recycling and Reuse. Support the
efforts of the Tri-Valley Water Recycling Task Force study.
DSRSD. and l:.ftr0't19ft Zone 7,~ra<J~ to encourage wastewater
recycling and reuse for landscape irrigation wi thin the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
.page 128. column 2. para 1.
Program 9P. Connection to public Sewers. Require that all
development in the Specific Plan area be connected to public
sewers. Exceptions to this requirement,-~n-~&~~be~1-&~~~ie
l:.ank-~~~~~7 will only be allowed on a. caso-by-case b4sis
upon receipt of written approval from the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department and DSRSD.
Sp@cific plan Revisions
16
12/21/92
e
e
.page 129. column 2. Dara 9.
Detailed analysis of effects of development on water
quali ty of surface runoff t consistent with applicable
standards ~ .
.paqe 130.
~____p~e~~am-~~-W~~~~-~r~~-~~~~~~__-~~-a
s pee~ f ~ e- we.'t~- -que-3..~-t-y--~~:i:-on-~ -S"tiBlft.k-et:ed -W~~ft
eaeft_~~_app~~ea~~en--~-e~ae~-k~-aemens~~a~e
ex:i: s1: :i:1"l~- we.'t~- -que-3.. ~ -t-y- -}nve9t-:i:-qe't;-:i:-on- ~ -!tl:tb1'ft.k-e-~ -w:i: ~ft
eaeft_~~_app~~ea~~en--~-e~ae~-~-aemens~ra~e
ex:i:s~:i:1"l~_~~~r~-and-~mpae~6-k~~~-p~e~ee~
rl:tne~f~_~~_have~--~-we.~~-~r}t~-~nves~:i:~a~~en
sftel:t:l:a- ~- k-he--ct'c:ta-ft'-e~-E-y--e~ _~-!-~-t:he-ef~ ee~s
~~em_~~~-~~~~~-frem-~~~-~~--~n~e
e~eeks-ana-ae~en~:i:en-fae:i::I::i:~~es~
Program 9BT: Coordination with other Agencies.
Coordinate modifications or enhancements to creeks or the
abutting riparian areas with the required permitting
agencies as necessary.
program 9~U: Implementation Responsibilities. Require
the Developer obtain proper approvals; refer to attached
Table 9.3, storm Drainage Matrix of Implementation
Responsibilities.
.page 131. Table 9.1. first row (phasinq). last column
(developer).
-consults with DSRSD on current and planned DSRSD water
facilities.
-prepares phasing plan for - water facili ties in
conjunction with submittal of development plans for
review by Dublin and DSRSD.
-Secure permits in conjunction with DSRSD for recycled
w&ter~
CHAPTER 10: FINANCING
.Paqe 145. column 2. last Daragraph.
In addition to these city of Dublin impact fees, the Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority (DFRA) currently assesses a fire
impact fee for new development projects. With a current fire
impact fee set at $600 per residential development unit and
Specltlc Plan Revls~ons
17
1'/21/92
e
e
$600 per 2,000 square feet for other types of occupancies, the
eastern Dublin and Santa Rita fire impact fees would total
more than $11 million. ~fte-ee5~-~~4~~€-~~k~~~~
s~a~~e~s_~~-~ft-ea5~er~-~r~-~e~ar-~~~~rr~-a~
B&sed on 199a costs t the cost esti-.te for the f:l:re stations
:requi:r@:d in. eastern Dublin is based on. a projected cost of
$2.3 million per each fully equipped fire station. Fire
stations must be provided for in advance of most residential
development. Fees collected by the DRFA at the time of
issuing building permits will then be used to partially
reimburse the developer (if private financing is used) or an
assessment district to pay for upfront fire station
construction.
.paae 146. column 1. insert after oara 3. before section
10.3.2 ONGOING COSTS.
DSRSD... !lONE , AND tWA FEBS
ut.ility fees vill be levied by the Dublin sa.n RUlOn services
District... 'These fees inclu.de &. vater connection. cha::rqe based
on :aet.er siae and a ~st.e~t.er connect.ion. charge calcu.lated on.
the Nsis of dlMllings and equ.i valen.ts..
Also lone '71 ch.a~s ~t.er connect.ion fees.. Thue:aay also boa
fees associated with iDplenent.ation of the preferred 'NA
Pro jeet. Al. t.ernat.i ve..
APPENDIX 4
.page A4-6.
[Total acreage for #21 TMI, has been revised to 135.6 acres]
Speolflo plan R@visions
18
12/21/92
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 92-060
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECoMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the city of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The city council and planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshopS relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda county). The "Town centerll concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of town center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
1
ATIACItMEHT 8
e
e
3. with the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the city prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres and a Draft specific Plan for
approximately 3,328 acres.
4. The City completed an Initial Study on the project and
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
A Notice of Preparation dated September 12, 1988, was prepared,
published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to
Responsible Agencies and various other interested parties. A
subsequent Notice of preparation, dated october 16, 1991, was
distributed in the same manner.
5. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the
project, including the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
sphere of influence changes, prezoning, annexation to the city and
the Dublin San Ramon Services District, detachment from the
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and approval of
specific development projects. The Draft Environmental Impact
Report consisted of two volumes -- a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Part I) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix
(Part II), both volumes dated August 28, 1992. A Notice of
completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources via the
state Clearinghouse on August 28, 1992 (SCH No. 91103064).
6. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was initially
circulated for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on
August 28, 1992, and ending on October 13, 1992, and was extended
for an additional 16-day period to October 29, 1992. Public notice
of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted on and
off the project site.
7. The city of Dublin Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on
September 21, 1992, which hearing was continued to september 23,
1992, september 29, 1992 and October 1, 1992. At these hearings,
and through submitted written comments, the planning commission
received comments on the Draft EIR from the public, responsible
agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as
from city staff and its consultants and property owners and their
consultants.
8. The City prepared responses to comments on environmental
issues received during the public review period and at the public
hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information
contained in the Draft EIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis
supported by factual information. The comments and responses to
comments were published in two parts, on December 7, 1992, and
December 21, 1992, and were distributed to or otherwise made
available to the Planning Commission, Responsible Agencies, and
other interested parties.
2
e
e
9. The planning commission reviewed specific text revisions
to the Draft EIR, and directed that portions of the comments and
responses be incorporated into the Final EIR.
10. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the
ci ty, which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(parts I and II) dated August 28, 1992, and Responses to Comments
dated December 7, 1992 and December 21, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
B. The Planning commission has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report. The Planning commission hereby
finds and recommends to the city council that it certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in
compliance with CEQA and the city of Dublin's Environmental
Guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES: commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and
Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
114\reeol\29\certi~y,elr
3
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 92-061
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the city of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The City council. and planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sess~ons and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of town center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
1
ATTACHMENT 9
e
e
3. with the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the city prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a
mixed use community of single- and multiple-family residences,
commercial uses (general commercial, neighborhood commercial and
campus office), public and semi-public facilities (including
schools), industrial park and open space.
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of land.
5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of
standards of population density and standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. pursuant to the provisions of state planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the planning commission of the
city of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the city's General Plan.
7. A staff Report dated september 23, 1992, was prepared for
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment, which report
described the amendment and identified issues related to the
amendment.
8.
hearing
October
October
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on
1, 1992, which hearing was continued to october 6, 1992,
12, 1992, and october 15, 1992.
9. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning
commission on December 21, 1992.
10. The Draft General Plan Amendment was
accordance with the provisions of the California
Quality Act through the preparation and review of an
Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by Resolution
the Planning commission recommended certification
Environmental Impact Report.
11. The Planning commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings.
reviewed in
Environmental
Environmental
No. 92-060 ,
of the Final
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning
Commission recommends city council approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment dated May 27, 1992, as revised by the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and recommends that the council
2
e
e
make all findings regarding significant and potentially significant
impacts as required under the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and
zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ll4\r~sol\29\adopt.9pa
3
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 92-062
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the city of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area.
2. The city Council and Planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda county). The "Town center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed curculation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, location of town center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jObs/housing balance.
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to existing Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
1
ATTACHMENT ( 0
e
e
3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the city prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a
mixed use community of single- and roul tiple-family residences,
commercial use (general commercial, neighborhood commercial, and
campus office), public and semi-public facilities (including
schools), industrial park and open space.
4. The Draft specific plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including
pOlicies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of
development projects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin
covered by the Draft Specific Plan.
5. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan
amendment.
6. A Staff Report dated October 6, 1992, was prepared for
the Eastern Dublin Draft specific Plan, which report summarized the
specific Plan and identified related discussion topics.
7. The Planning
hearing on the Eastern
1992, which hearing was
15, 1992.
commission held a duly noticed public
Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6,
continued to october 12, 1992, and October
8. Based on comments received during the public hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning commission on
December 21, 1992.
9. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through
the preparation and review of a Final Environmental Impact Report.
On December 21, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-060 , the Planning
Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
10. The Planning commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The Dublin Planning commission recommends the city
Council find the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan cbnsistent with the
Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment.
B. The Dublin planning commission recommends the City
council approve the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan dated May 27,
2
.
e
1992, as revised by Revisions dated December 21,
recommends that the Council make all findings regarding
and potentially significant impacts as required
California Environmental Quality Act.
1992, and
significant
under the
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 1992,
by the following vote:
AYES: commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and
Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
114\reaol\29\adopt.ap
3
January 14
Thursday
January 21
Thursday
February 11
Thursday
February 23
Tuesday
Note:
.
.
Tentative City Council
Public Hearinq/Meetinq Schedule for Eastern Dublin
Council Chambers
7:30 p.m. (unless otherwise noted)
Public Hearinq #1
staff/Consultant presentation
Open public hearing and receive public testimony on
General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan and
public comments on environmental issues and
Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement
Continue public hearing to January 21, 1993
Public Hearinq #2/Public Meetinq #1
Receive additional public testimony on GPA and SP, and
public comments on environmental issues and
Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement
Close public hearing
Council begins discussion/deliberation of Final EIR,
Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement,
GPA and SP, and provides direction to Staff
regarding major issues
Public Meetinq #2
Council continues discussion/deliberation of Final EIR,
Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange Agreement,
GPA and SP
Council indicates, by straw vote, recommendations for
Final EIR, Eastern Dublin Property Tax Exchange
Agreement, GPA and SP
Public Meetinq #3
Council takes action, by resolutions, on the Final EIR,
Eastern Dublin property Tax Exchange Agreement,
GPA and SP
These dates are tentative and subject to change. Contact
the Dublin Planning Department at (510) 833-6610 during
regular business hours to confirm meeting dates.
ATIACMNT 11
.
e
Economics Research Associates
ERA Property Tax Exchange Agreement Analysis
16 October 1992
Page 4
Affiliated with Drivers Jonas
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Under the current land development scenario, the fiscal surplus accruing to the entity or
entities providing traditional municipal services to the entire General Plan area would have a net
present value of $61.4 million (see Exhibit A). Under the 1986 annexation agreement, the County
would receive $44.1 million of this value, and the City $17.3 million. Under the system agreed to
by the County on October 6, 1992, the County's share would be reduced to $16.8 million and the
City's share would grow to $44.6 million.
The difference is even more dramatic when only the fiscal impacts of development on the
Santa Rita parcel are examined. Moving from the 1986 annexation agreement to the new system
approved by the County shifts the City from a significant net deficit situation with a present value
of ($14.6) million, to a substantial surplus of$12.7 million, when Santa Rita is viewed in isolation
from the rest of Eastern Dublin. The conclusion from this analysis is that renegotiation of the 1986
annexation agreement has clearly been in the City's best interest.
AnACIMMT 1 L