HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Village Action Plan
CLERK
e
AGENDA STATEMENT \
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 16:2005
SUBJECT:
P A 04-025 - Village Site Identification and Recommended
Action Plan.
Report Prepared by: Jeff Baker, Associate Planner .~
1. Village Action Plan
2. Village Policy Statement
3. Village Development Background Study
4. City Council Staff Report - Village Policy Statement (Dated
September 7, 2004) (Without Attacbn1ents)
5. Fallon Village Center Land Use Plan
6. City Goals for Development at Camp Parks
7. "Top 3" Camp Parks Land use Alternatives
8. West Dublin BART Specific Plan Land Use Plan
9. Downtown Core Specific Plan Land Use Plan
10. Village Parkway Specific Plan Land Use Plan
11. City Council Staff Report - Wallis Ranch Study Session
(Dated October 5, 2004) (Without Attacbn1ents)
12. City Council Meeting Minutes - Wallis Ranch Study Session
(Dated October 5, 2004)
13. Schaefer Ranch Lot Reconfiguration Plan
ATTACHMENTS:
e
l.
2.
Receive Staff presentation; and
Either:
a. Approve the Village Action Plan (Attachment I); or
b. Direct Staff to modify the Village Action Plan and
return to a future City Council meeting with revisions;
or
c. Do nothing at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No financial impact at this time. Implementing the
recommendations contained in this Staff Report will have an impact
on Staff time. The impact on Staff time is discussed in the
Implementation sections of this Staff Report.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City Council, as a part of the 10-year Strategic Plan, instructed Staff to develop a policy that defines a
village concept for use as a Planning tool and to identify opportunities to create new villages in DubJin.
Staff conducted research and prepared a Background Study (Attachment 3) on the village concept. This
.
________.______.-~____________w________________________~____________________---------------------~--------..
COPIES TO:
In-House Distribution
ITEMNO.~
CoIPAIII2004'IJ4.025 Village Concept\ccsr 8-16-05 a.doc
tUb'!>
Background Study was used to develop the Village Policy Statement (Attachment 2). This poJicy
provides direction on.what characteristics comprise a village in Dublin. This Policy can be used to refine
and enhance special areas within the City of Dublin that contain some of the characteristics of a village.
The Village Policy Statement identifies the following as characteristics of villages in Dublin:
1. A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding land
uses and topography. It should respect constraints, roadways and environmental considerations;
2. A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and should support a
range of age and income groups; .
3. Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should be
easily accessible;
4. Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements of the Village together;
5. Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
servIces;
6. The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7. Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkabiJity, permits a sufficient
mixture ofresidential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas; and
8. Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design elements,
public plazas etc.).
e
On September 7, 2004, Staff presented the Background Study and draft Village Policy Statement to the
City Council for review (Attachment 4). The City Council approved the Village Policy Statement after
making modifications to the document. The City Council then directed Staff to identify potential village
sites and prepare an action plan for implementing the Village Policy Statement within these areas. e
Staff utilized the Village Policy Statement to identifY and evaluate potential village sites and to create a
Village Action Plan (Attachment I). Nine potential village sites were identified by Staff. Five of these
sites were determined to be infeasible for villages. The following is a list of the feasible village sites
followed by a list of the infeasible village. sites as discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff Report.
Feasible Village Sites:
.:. Fallon Village Center
.:. Camp Parks
.:. Transit Center
.:. Area G
Infeasible Village Sites:
.:. T assaj ara Village
.:. Scarlett Court Specific Plan
.:. Tralee (Former Pak 'N Save site)
.:. Downtown Village
.:. Schaefer Ranch
ANALYSIS:
The following is an analysis of each of these potential village sites. This analysis includes a table that _
identifies village characteristics at each of the potential village sites. The analysis also includes Staff
2 aü(;'
recommended action items and the anticipated fiscal impact to the City from implementing these action
items.
I. Feasible Village Sites
e A. Fallon Village Center
Staff is currently working with the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) to amend the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and prepare a Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed Land Use and
Development Concept include9 a revised village location known as the Fallon VHlage Center
(Attachment 5).
The proposed village would he internal to the project site and serve as a social and commercial
hub to the residential neighborhoods in the hills surrounding the village. The 99 acre village
center is proposed to be located at the intersection of Central Parkway and Croak Road and abuts
the open space conservation area to the south. The conceptual land use plan includes
Neighborhood Commercial, Medium and Medium High Density Residential, a Neighborhood
Square, Community Park and an elementary school. The village center would be accessible by
automobile, due to its location near the intersection of Central Parkway and Croak Road and by
pedestrian traffic through sidewalks and use of trails in the open space.
I ',". ,t~I:r;:' ï' ,I
~~, I... "I' 1
Does the location have a strong 'edge" defining the boundaries (i.e. mejor streets,
architectural or landsca ed areas?
Is the location compatible with the local environment including SUlTounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constraints, roadways end environmental
consldsrations?
Does the size of the area reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permit
a sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial
areas?
Does/will the location have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordablllty and
support a range of age and inoome groups?
Arelwill activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private faollities)
be easily accessible?
Are/will trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages be e5tabllshed to bring the parts
and elements of the village together?
Are/will there be pedestrian linkages to transportation spines including buses and transit
services?
Is/will a specific identify be fostered for the village area (i.e, special signage, unique
design elements, public plaza5, etc.)?
x
x
e
x
x
x
x
x
x
The draft Specific Plan concepts proposed for Fallon Village encourage compact development that
integrates a variety of housing types and land uses with an emphasis on pedestrian accessibility.
These attributes are consistent with the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy
statement.
e
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to continue working
with the Eastem Dublin Property Owners on the Specific Plan Amendment and the development
of a Stage 1 Development Plan that includes the proposed Fallon Village Center. Staff
recommends that the City Council further direct Staff to incorporate the concepts ftom the Village
Policy Statement into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Eastern Dublin
Property Owner's Stage I Development Plan.
3Ðbl ;;
Fi$cal Impact: None. The cost of Staff time to prepare the Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1
Development Plan can be billed to the Applicant on a time and materials basis.
B. Camp Parks
Staff is currently working with the US Army on a General Plan Amendment application for the e
future development of approximately 182 acres at Camp Parks. The area under consideration is
bounded by Camp Parks to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Arnold Drive to the east, and
the Iron Horse Trail to the west. On July 20, 2004, the City Council approved goals for private
development at Camp Parks to guide the City through the Strategic Visioning Process which took
place in the summer and fall of 2004 (Attachment 6). The following is a list of these goals;
-> Plan should provide a strong connection between the eastern and western parts of the City
while also evaluating a ''village'' concept.
.:. Plan should link to the Transit Center and BART.
.:. Plan should provide a unique feature - either publicly or privately funded - which strengthens
the image of the City and further increases the quality of life for residents and/or strengthens
Dublin's position as a destination.
.:. Plan should accommodate some unmet public agency/public facility needs (i.e. school facility,
maintenance facility, park or community facility, etc.).
The Strategic Visioning Process included a design charrette with community leaders to solicit,
discuss, analyze and evaluate design alternatives for the property using the established goals as a
framework for discussion. Five conceptual altematives for the property were developed through
this charrette. The attendees ranked these alternatives in. order of preference. Staff further
analyzed the ''top 3" alternatives that received the highest number of votes (Attachment 7). The
City Council held several· public meetings (on February 15, March 15 and April 5, 2005) to discuss
various components of the ''top 3" Camp Parks Master Plan alternatives. The City Council
provided Staff and the Army with direction intended to aid the Army and their developer in
creating the land use plan that will ultimately become the formal project proposal.
e
, ,..J, I Iii
Does the location have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries (I.e. major streets,
architectural or landsca d areas .?
Is the location compatible with the local enviromnant Including surrounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size 01 the area reflect development that promotes padeshian walkabllity, parmit
a sUfficient mixture 01 residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial
areas?
Does/will the location have a mixture 01 housing types, densities and affordability and
support a range 01 age and Income groups?
Are/will activity nodes (commercial areas, community lacilitles and public/private facilities)
be easily accessible?
Are/will trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages be established to bring the parts
and elements 01 the village together?
Are/will there be pedestrien linkages to transportation spines including buses and transit
services?
Is/will a specific Identify be fostered for the village area (I.e. spacial slgnage, unique
design elements. public plazas, etc.)?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Each of the ''top 3" design alternatives have a mix of land uses that include low to high density
residential, mixed use, neighborhood commercial, campus office, parks, and public/semi public
-
4Pf}~
e
e
e
spaces. The plans also include pedestrian linkages between land uses and to the surrounding areas,
including the Transit Center which is located tQ the south across Dublin Boulevard. . These
pedestrian linkages are provided through parks/openspace, the Iron Horse Trail and City
sidewalks. . The attributes of the alternative designs are consistent with the village characteristics
identified in the Village Policy Statement.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to work with the
United States Army to incorporate the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy
Statement into the formal land use plan application for the future development at Camp Parks.
This includes creating a strong pedestrian linkage between the Transit Center and the future
development at Camp Parks. The Village Policies would supplement the results of the Strategic
Visioning Process and City Council's subsequent direction to Staff and the Army regarding the
formal land use plan application.
Fiscal Impact: The cost of Staff time to work on the future development at Camp Parks is billed
on a time and materials basis to the Army.
C. Transit Center
On November 1, 2002, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment
to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow for future development of High Density Residential
uses at the Transit Center. The Transit Center is a well defined area bounded by Dublin Boulevard
to the North, I~580 and the DublinIPleasanton BART Station to the South, Arnold Road to the East
and the Iron Horse Trail to the West.
The Land Use Plan in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Section 4.9.10) states that development of
the Transit Center is intended to maximize the transit opportunities presented by t!;Ie BART station
and the associated bus hub. The Land Use Plan is intended to create a vibrant, pedestrian-rnendly
and high density mix of office, residential and retail uses within easy walking distance of the
BART station. Residentiàl densities average 50 units to the acre, and office densities have over a
1.0 Floor Area Ratio.
IH~ ",I.
Does the location have e strong "edge" defining the boundartes (I.e. major streets,
architectural or landsca ed areas ?
Is the looation compatible with the local environment Including surrounding land uses end
topography? Does the locaticn respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size of the erea retiect development that promotes pedestrian walkablllty, permit
a sufficient mixture of residentiai and publlclprtvata uses and convenient commercial
areas?
Does/will the location have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordabillty and
support a range of age and income groups?
AreJwllI activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and publiclprtvate facilities)
be easily acoessible?
AreJwill trails, pedestlian walkways end street linkages be established to bring the parts
and elements of the village together?
Arelwill there ba pedestrian linkages to transportation spines including buses and transit
services?
Islwlll a specific identify be fostered for the village area (i.e. special signage, unique
design eiements, public plazas, etc.)?
5~1:3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The parcels within the Transit Center have received approval of Stage 1 and in some cases Stage 2
Development Plans. These Development Plans require pedestrian linkages between the various
land uses, the BART station and the Iron Horse Trail. The Development Plans further require
activity nodes such as public plazas to be incorporated throughout the Transit Center. The Transit
Center will have a variety of housing types that include high density affordable rental apartments, ...
market rate rental apartments and ownership units. A village green will also be located central to ..
the residential portion of the Transit Center. The attributes of the approved Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans are consistent with the village characteristics identified in the Village PoJicy
Statement.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to work with the
individual property owners to implement the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and incorporate·
the concepts from the Village Policy Statement into the Stage 2 Development Plan.
Fiscal Impact: None. Staff time will be required to review and process individual project
applications. However, the cost of Staff time· will be recovered through application fees and cost
recovery for the. required entitlements
D. Area G - Dublin Ranch Town Center
The Area G Town Center project is located between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard,
Keegan Street and Brannigan Street. It features a mixed-use project, including a commercial
center, public spaces, parks and pedestrian linkages between the residential areas and the Town
Center area. The 86-acre site contained 1,396 units, 25 acres of commercial and public uses. It
contains urban design standards that create a strong architectural identity, a defmable "edge"
bounded by major streets and a recognizable character as a self-contained area for upwards of
3,000 people. Commercial development is anticipated when the critical number of people are East .
of Tassajara Road area.
'f'" . , . 'I I"" .11' I ·
" ,\ I ~j I ! "i', I \, ~, I . ~~ , ! 'n ,. ,1".# ."
Does the location have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries (i.e. mejor streets,
ard1itectural or landsca ed areas ?
Is the location compatible with the local environment Including surrounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size of the area reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkablllty. permft
a sufficient mlxtura of residential and publlc/prlvete uses and convenient commsrclal
areas?
Doeslwill the location heve a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and
support a range of age and Income groups?
Arelwill activity nodes (commercial ereas, community faoilities and public/private feoilities)
be easily accessible?
AreJwlll trails, pedestrian walkways end street linkages be established to bring the perts
and elements of the village together?
Are/will thera be pedestrian linkages to transportation spines including buses and trenslt
services?
Is/will a specific identify be fostered for the village area (i.e. speciel slgnage, unique
design elements, public plazes, etc.)?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The parcels within Area G have received approval of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans.
These Development Plans require pedestrian linkages between the various land uses. The .
Development Plans further include activity nodes such as the neighborhood park to be included in
the plans. Area G will also have a variety of housing types tha.t include affordable and market rate
6 Vbi;
medium high and high density rental and ownership housing. The attributes of the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans are consistent with the village characteristics identified in the Village
Policy Statement. Staff will continue to work with the individual property owners to implement
the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans.
.
Recommended Action: No additional action is required. Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans have
already been approved for this site and require the project components noted above. These project
components are consistent with the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy
Statement. Staff will continue to implement these policies as the individual property owners apply
. for Site Development Review permits.
Fiscal Impact: None. Staff time will be required to review and process individual Site
Development ReviewappJications. However, the cost of Staff time will be recovered through
application fees and cost recovery for the required entitlements.
II. Infellsible Village Sites
A. Tassa}ara Village
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as originally conceived, envisioned the development of the
Tassajara Village. The 270-acre village site is located at the Tassajara entrance to the City ITom
Contra Costa County. The site was intended to provide a higher density, socially active, pedestrian
oriented zone. which functions both physically and symbolically as a center for the outlying
residential area. The uses within the proposed village were anticipated to include retail, office,
mixed use and public facilities such asa school and a park.
.
The proposed Tassajara Village doesdernonstrate many of the village characteristics identified in
the Village PoJicy Statement. The size of the area would accommodate a village with a variety of
use types and activity nodes. Open space corridors would facilitate pedestrian access within the
village and from the surrounding neighborhoods outside the village core. .
Feasibility Con$traints: As a result of the identification of endangered species, refined
engineering, limited allowable creek crossings, land otherwise planned for development within the
Tassajara Village Center is no longer suitable for a village. On October 5, 2004, the City Council
held a Study Session in order to review these issues and provide Staff with direction (Attachments
11 and 12). The City Council discussed the Village Concept as it related to this project and agreed
that it would not be a feasible concept for this location.
Recommended Action: No further action is recommended.
Fiscal Impact: None.
B. Scarlett Court Specific Plan
Staff is currently preparing the Scarlett Court Specific Plan. The approximately 52-acre plan area
is bounded by Dublin Boulevard to the north, 1·580 to the south, the Iron Horse Trail to the east
and Dougherty Road to the west. The properties within the plan area currently have a Light
Industrial Zoning designation. The existing uses include auto repair and service, automobile
e dealerships and other light industrial uses.
7 c'1}!t
Does tha location have a strong 'edge' defining the boundaries (i.e. major streets,
architectural or landsca ed areas ?
Is the location compatible with the looal environment Including surrounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Doss the size of the area reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkablilty, permit
a sufficient mixture of residential and publlcJprivate uses and convenisnt commercial
areas?
Does/will the location heve a mixtura of housing types, denslües and affordebiüty end
support a range of a e end income groups?
Are/will activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and publlcJprlvata facilities)
be easily accessible?
Ara/will trails, pedestrian walkways and street Ilnkagss be established to bring the perts
and elements of the village together?
Are/will there be pedestrian linkages to transportation spines inoludlng buses and transit
services?
Is/will a specific Identify be fostered for the village area (i.e. spacial signage, unique
design elaments, public plazas, etc.)?
x
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
The Scarlett Court Specific Plan area does demonstrate many of the village characteristics
identified in the Village Policy Statement. The plan area is well defined and the size would
accommodate a village with a variety of use types and activity nodes. This area is also located
directly to the west of the Transit Center and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and adjacent to
1-580. This location would facilitate linkages to BART and the bus terminal, as well as provide
convenient access to the freeway. The Iron Horse Trail also provides opportunities for pedestrian
trails that link to the plan area.
Feasibility COT/$traints: Location and compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important .
characteristic of a village. The existing light industrial and auto related land uses are not
compatible with the village characteristics. Redevelopment of the plan area would be necessary in
order to have uses that are consistent with a: village and foster many of the characteristics of a
village, such as pedestrian plazas, linkages and activity nodes. The recent approval of Dublin
Honda and several other auto dealerships makes redevelopment of these large sites to non auto
related uses unlikely in the foreseeable future. .
The Scarlett Court Specific Plan area does not currently include residential use types. However,
the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy Statement include a mixture of housing
types. A traffic study was prepared for the plan area to evaluate the impact of alternative land
uses, including residential uses, within the plan area. The traffic study indicates that the level of
service at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would drop to an unacceptable level
ifresidential use types are included in the Scarlett Court Specific Plan area.
The Scarlett Court Specific Plan area demonstrates many of the village characteristics identified in
the Village Policy Statement. But the surrounding auto and Jight industrial land uses are not
compatible with the village characteristics. The plan area also does not provide opportunities for a
mixture of housing types that are characteristic of a village. Therefore, Staff does not believe that
a village is feasible at this location.
Recommended Action: No further action recommended.
Fiscal Impact: None.
8 ðb I.!t
e
·
C. Tralee (former Pak 'N Save site)
On July 20, 2004, the City Council approved a Planned Development Rezone Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review Permit for Tr!1lee. The
10.61- acre parcel is located between Dublin Boulevard to the south, Dougherty Road to the east
and Sierra Lane to the north. Surrounding uses include a gas station, two strip commercial centers
and an auto dealership to the south, a strip commercial center and landscape irrigation business to
the west, an auto service and commercial/retail center to the north and a gas station to the east,
across Dougherty Road. Immediately adjacent to the site, in the south east comer, there is an
existing service station and car wash. Interstate 580 is located to the south of the project site.
The development consists of 233 residential units (including 16 affordable units) in mixed-use mid
and low rise buildings and townhouse-style condominiums. The mid rise buildings are proposed
on the southerly portion of the site and would consist of four buildings containing retail and office
space on the ground floor facing Dublin Boulevard, townhouse-style condominium. units on the
ground floor facing Tralee Village Drive and apartments/condo units within the three-stories
above. A fi:eestanding commercial building pad is proposed in the southwest comer of the site,
which combined with the ground floor retail and office space in the mixed-use buildings would
total 34,950 square feet of commercial space. The plan also includes townhouse-style
condominiums in the northerly half of the site. The project includes a Village Green that provides
common open space and recreation area, and contains a clubroom, restrooms and swimming pool
for the use of residents.
¡
Does the location have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries (I.e. major streets,
architectural or landsca ad areas?
Is the location compatibla with the local environment including surrounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constiaints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size of the area reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permit
a sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial
areas?
Does/will the location have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and
support a range of age and Income roups?
Are/will activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/privata facilities)
ba easily accessible?
Arelwill trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages .be established to bring the parts
and elements of the village together?
Are/will there be pedestrian linkages to transportation spines including buses and transit
services?
IS/will a specific Identify be fostered for lI1e village area (i.e. special slgnage. unique
design elements, public plazas, etc.)?
x
·
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
·
Feasibility Constraints: The 10.61-acre site is smaller than the typical villages discussed in the
Village Development Background Study (Attachment 3) and is not large enough to promote a
mixture of residential and public/private uses tlw,t are characteristic of a village. The surrounding
land uses, including the gas stations, auto dealership and light industrial uses, are not characteristic
ofthe pedestrian and street oriented commercial uses that support a typical village.
The project does not include public plazas, activity nodes or gathering spaces that would help
foster a unique identity for the area. A village green and recreation area are planned but this is a
private space intended for residents ofthe project.
9~\3
Tralee does demonstrate some of the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy
. Statement. However. the project does not have a sufficient number of characteristics to be
identified as a village. Most notably, the size of the project area inhibits the ability to create the
necessary amenities that constitute village characteristics. Therefore, Staff does not believe that a
village is feasible at this location.
Recommended Action: No further action recommended.
e
Fiscal Impact: None.
D. Downtown Village
Downtown Dublin is a well defined area bounded by Amador Valley Boulevard to the north, 1-580
to the south, Village Parkway to the east and San Ramon Valley Boulevard to the west. The
Downtown area consists of approximately 200 acres of existing commercial, office and light
industrial land uses. The City formerly had a Downtown Specific Plan that encompassed this
entire area. However, the City Council directed Staff to develop three specific plans for portions
of the original Downtown Specific Plan, after learning of the potential development of a West
DublinIPleasanton BART Station. On December 19, 2000, the City Council adopted the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan and the Village Parkway Specific
Plan.
Future development of the West DublinIPleasanton BART Station is central to the West. Dublin
BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans. These areas are intended to bea high intensity mixed-
use transit oriented village that capitalizes on the regional transit linkages provided by both the
BART line and supported by nearby freeways 1-580 and 1-680.
The land use mix within the Downtown area includes office, commercial, restaurant, retail and
limited residential uses (Attachments 8, 9 & 10). These uses are intended to supplement the .
existing "big box" retailers and capitalize on the existing and future transit linkages. All three . .
specific plans encourage redevelopment with a pedestrian oriented scale. The maximum amount
of development in the Downtown area is anticipated to be over 3.5 million s.f. of non-residentiaJ
space and 591 residential dwelling units. The Specific Plans anticipated this redevelopment to
occur over a five to ten year period.
, ¡j¡
Does the location have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries (I.e. major streets,
architectural or landsca d areas?
Is the location compatible with the local environment including surrounding land uses and
topography? Does the location respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size of lt1e area reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkablllty, permit
a sufficient mixture of residential and publlcfprlvate uses and convenient commercial
areas?
Doeslwlllthe location have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordablllty and
su ort a renge of age and income roups?
Are/will activity nodes (commercial araas, community facilities and publicfprivate faoilibes)
be easily accessible?
Are/will trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages be established to bring the parts
and elements of the village together?
Are/will there be pedestrian linkages to transportation spines Including buses and transit
services?
Is/will a specific Identify be fostered for the village area (Le. special signage, unique
design elements, public plazas, etc.)?
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X e
10 'b~
.
The Specific Plans for the Downtown call for redevelopment of the Downtown area in a manner
consistent with some but not all of the village characteristics identified in the Village Policy
Statement. This includes the creation of a compact, pedestrian fiiendly environment that is linked
together by pedestrian pathways and linkages to public transportation. The Specific Plan Design
Guidelines further encourage building facades, streetscapes and plazas that are inviting to
pedestrians.
Feasibility Constraints: Development of the future West DublinlPleasanton BART Station has the
potential to change the development pattern of Downtown DubJin. The Downtown area may
evolve into a transit oriented village once this new station is complete. However, the full impacts
to land use patterns in the Downtown resulting fi:om the future BART station are not yet known.
The current Specific Plans lack some key village characteristics. For example, Downtown Dublin
does not have public parks or activity nodes. Additional consideration should also be given to the
variety of housing types that are proposed for this area.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to evaluate land use
changes for the Downtown area once the BART station has been constructed. Staff could review
the existing Specific Plans and determine what changes/updates should be considered. This may
include revising the existing Specific Plans, or repealing these Specific Plans and creating a new
Specific Plan for the entire Downtown. Staff further recommends that the City Council direct
Staff to evaluate the future potential for a Downtown Village when the Specific Plan documents
are updated. Staff recommendations and a work program would be brought back to the City
Council once the BART station is complete.
.
Fiscal Impact: The amount of Staff and consultant time will depend on the extent of the revisions
to the Specific Plans. Further analysis of the amount of Staff time will be determined based on
the scope of the update when the work program is brought back to the City Council.
,E. Schaefer Ranch
Schaefer Ranch has previously been granted approval of various entitlements for development of
the property. The approvals include a General Plan Amendment, PD District Rezoning, Land Use
and Development Plan, Development Agreement and a Vesting Tentative Map. The 138-acre
project is located in the hills of west em Dublin. The property is a well defined area located at the
current western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and is bounded by 1-580 to the south and the urban
limit line to the north and west.
e
Schaefer Ranch was designed as a low density residential project witb an upscale rural community
theme. The project as approved, includes 465 residential lots (451 residential lots and 14 estate
lots). However, the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map and the mitigation measures
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report required the developer to obtain permits from
the various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other
environmentally sensitive areas within the project. Approval of the project by the various agencies
has resulted in a reconfiguration of the project as it was approved during the entitlement review
process. The reconfigured project results in 302 residential lots (284 residential lots and 18 estate
lots) (Attachment 13).
The project also includes a 5.3 acre commercial site, a parcel reserved for a day care and a
potential fire station located south of the Dublin Boulevard extension. The site amenities include a
Il"bB
10 acre neighborhood park, East Bay Regional Park staging area and open space preservation
areas.
Does the locetlon heve estrong "edge" defining the boundaries (i.e. major streets.
architectural or landsoa d area8 ?
Is the looation compatible with the local environment Including surrounding land uses end
topcgraphy? Does the location respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations?
Does the size of the erea refiect development that promotes psdestrian welkability, permit
a sulfiolent mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial
arees?
Does/will the locatlon have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordablllty and
support a range of age and income rou s?
Are/will activity nodes (commercial areas, community faomUes and public/private facilitias)
be easily accesSible?
Arelwlll trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages be established to bring the parts
and elements of the villa e together?
Arelwlll there be pedestrlen linkages to transporietion spines Including buses end transit
services?
Is/will a specific Identify be fostered for the village area (I.e. special slgnage, unique
design elements, public plazas, etc.)?
x e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Schaefer Ranch does demonstrate some of the village characteristics identified in the Village
Policy Statement. The plan area is well defined and the size would accommodate a village with a
mixture of residential, commercial and public/private uses. The project includes Design
Guidelines to create a rural community theme throughsignage, landscaping and building
architecture.
.
Feasibility COl'lStraints: The hills, canyons, vegetation and environmentally sensitive areas of the
proj ect site create considerable topographical constraints. These constraints lend themselves to the
low density nature of the project in which home sites are spread out along the ridgelines. As a
result the project does not have compact development that supports walkability. The
topographical constraints result in grade elevation changes throughout the project site that further
limit pedestrian accessibility. Therefore, activity nodes such as the commercial area and parks will
not be easily accessible to pedestrians.
The project does not include pedestrian walkways and linkages that bring parts of the village
together and link pedestrians to transit service in an efficient manner. The project does include a
staging area and trails that connect to the East Bay Regional Park trail system. But these trails
connect to open space areas and traverse significant grade elevations.
Housing within the project is limited to single-family residential. The project does not include a
variety of housing types, densities and afforoability, such as high density rental and ownership
housing to support a range of age and income groups within the project. Therefore, Staff does not
believe that a village is feasible at this location.
Recommended Action: No further action recommended.
Fiscallmpact: None.
12 O'.Q ß
.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council; 1) receive Staff presentation; and 2) either: a) approve the
Village Action Plan (Attachment I), or b) direct Staff to modifY the Village Action Plan and return to a
future City Council meeting with revisions, or c) do nothing at this time.
.
e
e
13lJQ ~
Ita1
·
VILLAGE ACTION PLAN
Fallon Village Center
I. Continue working with the Eastern Dublin Property Owners on the Specific Plan
Amendment and the development of a Stage I Development Plan that includes the
proposed Fallon Village Center.
2. Incorporate the concepts ITom the Village Policy Statement into the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment for the Eastern Dublin Property Owner's Stage I
Development Plan.
Camp Parks
1, Work with the United States Anny to incorporate the village characteristics identified
in the Village Policy Statement into the forrnalland use plan application for the future
development at Camp Parks. The Village Policy Statement would supplement the
results of the Strategic Visioning Process and City Council's subsequent direction to
Staff and the Anny regarding the forrnalland use plan application.
2. Create a strong pedestrian linkage between the Transit Center and the future
development at Camp Parks.
·
Transit Center
I. Work with the individual property owners to implement the eXlstrng Stage I
Development PJan and incorporate the concepts ITom the Village Policy Statement
into the Stage 2 Development Plan.
Area G ~ Dublin Ranch Town Center
I. Ensure that development confonlls to the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans to create
a cohesive village.
Downtown Village
I. Evaluate land use changes for the Downtown area once the BART station has been
constructed. This includes a review of the existing Specific Plans to detennine what
changes/updates should be considered. This may include revising the existing
Specific Plans, or repealing these Specific Plans and creating a new Specific Plan for
the entire Downtown.
2. Evaluate the future potential for a Downtown Village when the Specific Plan
documents are updated.
·
"iS~I~~OS" 7.2-
ATTACHMENT [
·
·
·
CITY OF DUBLIN
VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT
WHT tLE"...1jO~
~OH~ iW""UON
SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
2.øQ ~ "'I
1
ATTACHMENT J-
$'l)
VILLAGE POLICY
.
Introduction
The Policy described below is not a Planning legal requirement for new development. This Policy
Statement is a definition of a Village used to refine and enhance special areas in the community that
already contain some of the characteristics of villages. In addition, this Policy provides direction on
what characteristics comprises the Dublin Village Concept. This concept can be used as a template
for the development of new villages in the future. The development of this Policy is based on a
Background Document dated September 7, 2004.
Avvlicabilitv
This Policy will be used by the City to identifY possible Village sites in both new development areas
and redeveloping sites. An Action Plan will be developed by Staff with specific recommendations
on:
1 . Possible Village Sites
2. Later modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plans to mandate the location
and characteristics of Villages.
Only when changes are made to the Planning documents noted above will this Policy become a legal
requirement. .
The Vìllat!e Policv
A Village is defined as a physical development of land that has been
designed to encourage compact development of an area which integrates a
variety of housing types and densities with community facilities, civic and
educational uses. Commercial and industrial uses may also be located in
Villages. An emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design should be required.
Villages should have these characteristics:
1 A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surrounding
land uses and topography. It should respect constraints, roadways and environmental
considerations;
2 A Village should have a mixture ofbousing types, densities and affordability and should
support a range of age and income groups;
3 Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should
be easily accessible;
4 Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements of the Village together;
5 Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
services; e
~',," ;> ,<" "".,
, ,~
.,\: '"("
. .
. Ii' ,,'
2
e
.
.
91Jó ~
6 The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
7 Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkability, permits a
sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas.
8 Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design
elements, public plazas etc.)
Implementation
An Action Plan to determine potential Village sites and appropriate modifications to the City's
General Plan and Specific Plan to include development of Villages in appropriate locations in Dublin
shall be prepared by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.
0;\1" A#'V.004\04r025\Vìlla¡:es Policy StateIDl:mt ~cvi!ijon¡; from CC mtg.doc
3
·
.
r; '6'7
~LAGEDEVELOPMENTB^CKGROUNDSTUDY
Definition of a Villafle
A Village is a form of settlement that contains residential homes, businesses, public uses in a compact
readily definable area where people can interact easily and where the mixture of uses and pedestrian
linkages foster a sense of community to those who live there. It is a smaller settlement than a Town or
City, and is often in modern times located within larger urban areas. The Village has existed as a form of a
neighborhood settlement since beginning of civilization. Villages have been an integral fonn of settlement
in Europe for hundreds of years. European settlers brought with them, this style of settlement to the new
world. These settlements served as the home for agricultural communities along major roadways, and
often included churches, shops, village greens, and schools for the large agricultural areas. They were
settlements covering only small areas in size. Later, in America, Villages functioned as the essential living,
working and social centers for people, particularly in the East and mid west areas. They became not only
community centers, but in many cases local political centers, specifically recognized as estabJished local
governmental units in many states. .
In most suburban communities developed over the past, 50-100 years, the Village has nearly disappeared.
The automobile, sprawl development, the rise of the subdivision, multiple builders and the desire for single
family housing have created an urban. pattern that favors the shopping center, specific apartment areas and
scattered public parks. The alternative to sprawl is simple and timely: neighborhoods of housing, public
facilities and schools placed in walking distance of shops, civic services, jobs and transportation - a
modern version of the traditional Village concept. The Village Concept has thrived only with the advcnt of
the visionary large scale developments in the 1950's and 60's where land planning efforts fostered the
· development oflarge scale villages.
In modern times, the Village Concept has been used as a specific planning tool in the development of
various areas in America. Some examples include: Greenbelt, Maryland; Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles;
Columbia, Maryland; Irvine, California; Laguna West, Sacramento County; Reston, Virginia; and in San
Diego, California.
·
In summary, the Village has existed as a form of settlement since the beginning oftime, and now is re~
emerging as a part of contemporary development in cities.
Research
The idea of the Village concept as a part of future development in Dublin, while not new, has surfaced as a
public policy issue that the City Council would like to pursue. The definition of a Village Concept is an
important objective that Staffhas been asked to complete in 2004-05, so that the City Council may identifY
opportunities to create new Villages in the future development of Dublin.
This research effort covers the history of Villages, what characteristics they exhibit, how they function and
their applicability to Dublin's situation. Conclusions were developed from this research that formed the
basis for a recommended Village Policy for the City.
Investigation of Village activities throughout the West and in national literature has revealed that the
Village Concept may be coming back. Notable is the resurgence of new infill Villages being established as
public policy in San Diego (1999), the continued development of Villages in Irvine (1970 to the present),
1
ATTACHMENT 3
loft 317'
new Village development at Laguna West i!J the South Sacramento area, South Brentwood and beginning
efforts at Mountain House in San Joa.quin County.
Several directions were noted:
.
. Development oflarge Villages on undeveloped land as a. part of major master plans with significant
transportation Jinkages between areas. Examples are the1rvine villages (600-1200 acres in size)
with compact neighborhoods linked to major commerciallpubJic uses at the Center corridor ofthe
Village. Designed to have significant boundaries such as major streets, benns and architectural
styles that define a boundary for the Villages urban edges. These large Villages contain from
15000·25000 people, and a mixture of housing types and facilities. The character of these Villages
is noted by distinctive architecture, landscaping and defined community identity. Additional
examples in California include Laguna West, Sacramento (800 acres). The City ofIrvine's newest
Village, Westbury, is comprised of eight neighborhood districts for a total of 4,270 residential units.
Westbury also features two schools, commercial centers and common open space areas. Specific
village characteristics of Westbury include individual architectural styles for each neighborhood, a
mix of housing products, landscape promenades, a definitive open space spine along the major
transportation linkage and a large centralized open space area, The Commons.
.
. Development of large to small infill Villages in established neighborhood areas (San Diego). As a
part of their 1999 Strategic Element, the San Diego City Council adopted an element that was
designed to leverage new growth in ways that provide amenities for new development and adjacent
neighborhoods that already exist. Emphasis was placed on loTeating street level activity and vitality
with new public art and public spaces, parks and plazas to enhance a sense of community and
neighborhood identity. Emphasis was on walkable, street oriented, urban design for new housing
and public facilities. Since 1999, the City has defined numerous Village areas and specific .
programs are underway in many parts of the City (Pilot Village Programs, 1994) - North Park, The
"
2
7zt> 3D¡
·
Boulevard Marketplace, Mi Pueblo, The Paseo, Village Center at Euclid and Market), which vary in
size from 40 - 400 acres in size. The Village Center at Euclid Avenue and Market Street provides
an example of an infill village in San Diego. This village has a mix ofresidential, commercial and
industrial uses with a total of 839 residential units. The public space within the village includes a
community center and pavilion, a 500-seat amphitheater, skate park and a passive park adjacent to
the creek. Pedestrianlbicycle trails link to the transit spine that supports the trolleylbus service. A
graphic showing the development on Euclid Avenue is illustrated on Page 3.
·
I¡',.,
'.",'
:. 'i·: ";"'::~ , "
.. ::;':',~:;::,;,y:'i:"':: ::
"",,,:';"".;,:)<-:,:;:;
'<,;:/i':::::'1:; :':', ..::
.0":0
",·;,::'.::',ii:','·,':'1 :':~;:;J,;;:S~2:.¿::;,d
. ..;,;'....';<::-.
.... "·1
-.
;'::"",:,
'·:',\,'/<i\"" /,:,
:.,,':':;":,:::.":>..', :':.:. "':,'".":. ';','.'::''-::',i,',:,::'':''':,:'''',:,:':"';,''":;:;::':,:
:,··i.œU~I~~::~~~'S.·······'···~~;~~.·.··...i····,
" ,..,':.!"....,,:.:...' :, ,,-...' ,.(I/'::,"~ l~óI~¡æß'r,: . ", ,,'!",' .,,:. ':~;~~,f.~~ ":,',
."..,.., ",',.,,,.,.,,,.,,,,
....'.. ."', " 'cre!ik:8,.,~¡'~~I~~.~~rk
";' ;;';"';':::""';::';::':":.:.::,::,; ".' ."'''' \ ."'¡
:,:-::::::;:",..::',..':::',.:'::::'....,<'):::-':;-:<'::::::",:,: "'i,'::"",
::;:"':,:')' ":~,;~:,:{:'?,~H7~~·yl}r(:::,',:' '::\,.,:,::'
:' : ";."':':':, ;':;:":'::'::',;::;;;':,
," ·::;"<::'~':':;,i<,::;';"\
J""""
"
". ,'~ ,i
;:':1
'.,,,,,,,
, ' ". ~ . C':,:
",:¡,
L",'
:¡
I
."""
"",'.
".."
'," .
,'..
1'., .
"..,,<
"'"'''''''' "
:,:':',:,''',.::';:';::'':;:'
',;::;,:',:;j'::I,':',
",·,"'''''1''
':,}:,::',.
"'.,' ""."'"
., g::Y:;:i'"
::':j':';::::;""<
"',,''',''
',:':";:,:';':;':'
:,:",,;:,'1
',"'"
,:",.,¡::-,:".:.;.,..:,,:,:.
¡:, ::,:' :: ::.,' ':;, '::'~:~'; :::::
'::::;';:::::,:::':::.::':;+:::::::;1',','
"""1.,:,,,.,,.;';;1'),
.. ""''''',\,^,,\;'.'
·
. Development of small Villages in undeveloped areas such as South Brentwood Village (140 acres)
Camarillo Gateway Villages (200 acres). In smaller City (J 0,000 - 50,000 people) urban areas, the
emphasis has been on a pedestrian scale village development. Brentwood is a recent example of
several Village areas that have a mixture of housing types, schools and public facilities within an
easy pedestrian scale walkable area of a quarter mile in circumference. Standards in this village
included neighborhood design based on wakable area distance of a quarter mile, a Village green
surrounded by retail, day care and 30% of the site set aside for office and commercial development
Major streets, walls and benns form urban edges that define the Village areas. The "new urbanism"
3
'$% 3>þt.
approach of the project has been developed by Peter Calthorpe the noted architect. Emphasis has
been on design of pedestrian access, tract linkages and architecturally different housing projects.
Several builders have been involved in this project. The City of Roseville has a concept plan for a
Village Center on undeveloped land. This plan calls for the village to have a walkable scale with
streets laid out in a traditional grid pattern. A mixture of land use types will surround a village
green at the center of the village. The Village Center will include 405 townhouses, 407 apartments,
14-acres of commercial uses, an II-acre church/school site and a 9-acre park site with ball fields.
Major streets and a village streets cape plan will define the urban edge of the village. A graphic on
City of Roseville concept Village Plan is shown on Pages 5.
·
·
Camrillo Gateway
South Brentwood Village
·
4
·
·
·
;
,I
"
",:<:)!!.:?¡ii;:'"
""',.¡" i
".
'¡"
":":",:,:110
\;';:1'~ ';":~
':'~ .; , ·':"¡,::,'"::Ji: ·t)~
'.\!
5
t1'#þ ~
IO~!~
Examples of Villa/!e Characteristics
Village Large Size Mixture of Activity Trails / Boundaries/Edges Future
Small Housing Nodes/Uses Pedestrian Applicability
walkabilitv to Dublin
Westbury - Large 640 Yes, 8 Open Space Yes; Major Streets Too large
Irvine Acres neighborhoods spines parks/trails
4270 units major retail
area.
School .
center
commons
Village Small 115 Yes, 839 units Commercial Pedestrian Maj or streets Possible use
Center - acres / Industrial bike trails creeks
San Diego uses to transit
community trolley /
center bus
South Small 140 Yes, 522 units Retail / Pedestrian Major streets Possible use
Brentwood, acres mixed Industrial / trails, park
CA Church
Camarillo Small 250 1200 units Retail / Park, Major streets Possible use
Gateway - acres mixed Commercial Linear
Camarillo community trails
center,
school,
community .
lI:ardens
Village Small 140 Apartment / . Commercial Park site, Major streets Possiblc use
Center - acres Townhomes area, church Pedestrian
Roseville 812 units / School, trails
Village
Green
Summarv of Research
The review of various Village development recently completed has demonstrated that certain attributes
should be considered in developing Village Characteristics for Dublin:
·
Very large Village projects (i.e.: Irvine, Laguna West) may not be possible in Dublin, because
large flat undeveloped sites that can handle the scale of 600 and up acres are in limited supply in
Dublin.
Smaller sized Village areas can be possible in Dublin, as sites smaller than 600 acres are still
available.
All Villages have a mixture of housing types that are interrelated.
All have some form of activity nodes (retail, open space, community centers, church, schools,
village green, etc) that contribute to the character of the Village.
Pedestrian trails, bike trails, linear walkways are found in all examples that link residential areas .
to activity areas, transit and other public uses.
·
·
·
·
6
·
·
·
II Øb ~.
. Major streets serve as boundaries for the Villages and activities and public access within the
Villages are focused inside the Villages.
Analvsis of Dublin's Past and Current DeveloDment
In the beginning, Dublin was "Village" in the classical sense. Serving as a stop on the San
Jose/Sacramento route for both, the Spaniards, Mexicans and the emerging Californians, the early days
found Dublin as a small settlement where traveler could find water, a resting place and a settlement along
the major route north to south. The City's History reflects the early Donlon settlement located at Dublin's
present historical sites. For many decades in the late 1800 and early 1900's, Dublin served as a major
stopping point on the East/West and North/South routes through the Tri Valley area.
In the decades before incorporation, development in Dublin was guided by the policies of Alameda
County. The community served as a commercial crossroad for the Tri-Valley area and as residential
development occurred in the late 1950's and 1960's, separate subdivisions were developed along
San Ramon Road. Since that time, individual developments (both single~family and multi-family) were
built throughout the western section of the City. After establisbn1.ent of the City and adoption of the first
General Plan the City continued to develop in the typical suburban fashion.
In 1993-94, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted for the area east of Camp Parks. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan speaks of two "Village Centers", Fallon Village and Tassajara Village (Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Document PP 52-54). These Village Centers were mixed-use areas that would
provide commercial centers for the outlying residential areas that would be located outside the Town
Center (Area G). Their purpose was to provide a higher density, socially active pedestrian oriented zone to
serve as a center for the outlying areas. Located along major streets (Tassajara Road and Fallon Road),
they were proposed to provide commercial convenience shopping and services closer to nearby residential
areas, as well as public facilities, schools and higher density residential areas. Characteristics proposed
were:
Size
DwellinllUnits .
Commercia] Sq. Ft.
Schools
Parks
Tassa.iara Village
(Tassajara Road at
Fallon Road)
273 acres
1,132
112,000
I
2
Fallon Village
(Central Avenue, East
of Fallon Road)
142 acres
1 118
149.000
2
2
A conceptual map of Tassajara Village Center and Fallon Village Center is shown on Pages 8 & 9.
7
12'b
Tassajara Village Center
8
.
e
.
e
e
.
r~'b ~
Fallon Village Center
These Village Centers were not envisioned to be directly separate contained villages, because their original
purpose was to serve as commercial and public service areas for the more suburban outlying residential
areas (North Tassajara Road and East of Fallon Road). Now due to environmental considerations and the
realigrunent of Tassajara Road, the future Tassajara Village may be difficult to build in the exact location
identified in the Specific Plan unless the General Plan and Specific Plan are modified in the future. The
Fallon Village concept may be possible when the area east of Fallon Road has been evaluated in the
upcoming EDPO General Plan/Specific Plan Study.
Villafles and Dublin in the Future
As noted in the research above, Villages can be large or small. Many of the large Village Concepts exist in
cities or areas that have large areas of undeveloped land (Columbia, Irvine) or are in areas oflarge cities
that are using infill techniques to create Villagcs in already developed areas (San Diego). Dublin has
specific characteristics that suggest that a smal1er size area for the future may be better if new Villages are
to be estabJished here. These characteristics are:
1. The development of the Dublin Ranch and Santa Rita properties by two major landowners has left
only a few large undeveloped areas in the City for potential new Village sites.
2. Several redeveloping areas which could lend themselves to a compact, pedestrian scale mixture of
9
14e'b ?17
residential, commercial and public uses in the future (Transit Center areas, Downtown Specific plan
areas)
3. Sites currently undeveloped and which are not in. the Dublin Ranch or Santa Rita area have .A
topographic, environmental and physical constraints which may limit the size and numbers of new ..
Village opportunities.
As identified above in the chart (Examples of Village Characteristics) and in the summary of the research
done, specific Village characteristics have been developed by Staff that fit the scale of potential Village
areas in the future in Dublin. These characteristics could be used for both new and redeveloping sites.
1. A Vmage location should be compatible with the local environment including topography. It
should respect constraints, roadways and environmental considerations.
2. A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordabiHty and should support a
range of age and income groups.
3. Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities and public/private facilities) should be
easily accessible to areas in the Villages.
4. Trails, pedestrian walkways and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements of the Village together.
5. The Vmage should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major streets,
architectural or I andscaped areas.
6. Village size should reflect development that promotes pedestrian walkabiHty, permits a sufficient
mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient C01l.1mercial areas.
7. Specific identity should be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design elements,
public plazas etc.)
Town Center - Area G
.
Staff evaluated recent projects to determine if they had been designed with the Village characteristics noted
above. One project fits the characteristics of a Village.
In 2000, the Town Center project between Central Parkway and Dublin Blvd, Keegan Street and Brannigan
Street was approved by the City Council. It featured a mixed-use project, including a commercial center,
public spaces, parks and pedestrian linkages between the residential areas and the Town Center area.. The
86-acre site contained 1396 units, 25 acres of commercial and public uses. It contains urban design
standards that create a strong architectural identity, a definable "edge" bounded by major streets and a
recognizable character as a self-contained area for upwards of 3000 people. Commercial development is
anticipated when a critical number of people are in the East of Tassajara Road area. In 2004, an adjacent
parcel (Fairway Ranch) containing 930 units, of which the majority were affordable rental units was
approved and is under construction.
.
10
·
·
·
16~
n
~
-
"'d
!
~
Town Center Project (Area G)
Fairway Ranch
Neighborhood Park
Conclusion
The characteristics for potential new Villages in Dublin as noted above, were developed fÌ'om written
descriptions of modem Villages that Staff researched, and modified to fit within Dublin constraints. A
Village Concept can be an important planning tool in the development of the City in the future; offering the
ability to create a sense of place which allows a mix of residential types, densities and land available for
convenient commercial, public and private facilities and park areas. A critical mass ofresidential
development can foster some possible commercial uses as well as the opportunity for public uses, small
park areas and possible pedestrian scale to create the establishment of good pedestrian access between the
parts of the community where possible. The size of the Village should reflect the use ofmajor streets, open
space and or environmentally sensitive areas to form a strong identifiable "edge" to separate it from nearby
areas.
C:\I!.,I<ground '" on 8 -27·04em.rtf
11
l lP&'b ~
Bibliography
I City of Irvine Urban Design Implementation Plan, 1977 Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd e
2 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended to Nov 1, 2002 Wallace, Roberts and Todd
3 General Plan for the City of Irvine, 1973 Wilsey and Ham
4 Crossroads, Hamlet, Village Town. 2004 Randall Arendt, American Planning Association -
Planning AdvisolJl Service
5 Strategic Framework Element, City of San Diego, 1999 City of San Diego
6 Strategic Framework Action Plan, City of San Diego. 1999 City of San Diego
7 Guidelines for Future Development. City of San Diego, 1992 City of San Diego
8 City of Villages Public Involvement, City of San Diego, 1999
9 City of Dublin, General Plan, as amended to November 1992, City of Dublin
10 Dowtown Core and West Dublin BART Specific Plan, City of Dublin, 2000, City of Dublin
11 City of Dublin Ten Year Strategic Plan, adopted 2004 City Council of Dublin
12 The next American Metropolis, Peter Calthorpe, 1993
12
.
.
r
~r
. w: .......... _.LIA&'
Fn~.,
.~ :)- ,j. ~.
II,. '.......... .f
.J,i ) I
nao ~1
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004
SUBJECT:
PA 04-025 - Village Policy Statement
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody Jr" Community Development
DirectQr
A TT ACHMENTS:
1.
2.
Village Developme:ot Background Study
Village: Policy Statement
4.
Hear Staff presentation
Comment on and Approve Village Policy Statement;
Dir¡::ct Staff to develop an action plan and return to a future
City Council Meeting; or
Instruct Staff to modify the Policy Statement and return to a
future City Council meeting with revisions
RECOMMENDATION:
~
1.
2.
3.
~NANCIAL STATEMENT:
The Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget allowed adequate resources to
develop a policy defining the Village Concept. Additional work
beyond the development of the Policy will require addiûonaJ
resources. If this Policy is approved and Staff is directed to
implement it, Staff will return to the: City Council with an Action
Plan with Staff and/or Consultant costs.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, as a part of the J O-year Strale:gic Plan, instructed Staff to develop a policy defining a
Village Concept for use as a Planning Tool and to identify opportuniûes to create new villages in Dublin.
Staff conducted research and prepared a Background Study (Attachment 1) on the concept of Villages in
order to develop a working defmition and develop a policy that would be: consistent with the City
CounciJ's direction. The Background Study conta1ns a brief summary of the history of Villages in
America and the development of modern Villages the United States. Based on this infofUJation, Staff has
prepared a Vi1lage Policy Statement (Attachment 2) to guide the creation of Villagl':.S·in the City of Dublin.
Background Study and Policy Statement:
The Background Smdy examined a variety of village-type developments in the westem United Stales.
The term "village" is used rather liberally to describe both large and smaller development areas. Staff
~w.~_~____________.~----------__.-._--~~_---_---_-.-__-_____________R__________~___________~______·_·____··_~
.
COPIES TO:
Interna1 Distribution
File copy
G:\PAiI\2004I04-(12~\ÇC SR Vlllos",,·dOC
\ ùbZ-
ATTACHMENT ~
. I ~'1
then anaJyzed what were the common elements contained in these "villages" in order to synthesize th~Db
concept into a working definition that was comprised of certain characteristics. The: characteristics were
then refined to address how the village concept would fit into rotisting deve!opment in Dublin, as well as
the planned villages and possible villages in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. These charucteristics
are set forth in the proposed Policy Statement. Additionally. the Policy Staterrent includes under what .
circumstances the development of a Village: should be considered.
Implementøiion:
Once the City Council has considered the Background Study and Policy Statetnent and provides Staff with
direction as to the content and the applicability of the draft Village Policy, Staff Could return with an
Action Plan which would idemify potential new Village Sites 'and what actions would need to be taken to
modify the City's General Plan and Specific Plan Policies to allow for the location offuture Villages.
Staff would also identify methods to work with property owners to strengthen the identity of ex;isting areas
that are presently accepted as Villages.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council; 1) Hear Staff presentation, 2) Commmt on and approve Village
Policy Statement, 3) Direct Staff to develop an action plan and return to a futuIe City Council Meeting; or
4) InstrUct Staff to modify the Policy Statement and return to a future City Council meeting with revisions.
.
.
:;lrfb';;).
.
¡q'b~
~e:
c.~o..\t !i
" ~3I
, .
, ...
, -
,
"
"
"
,
.
".
~
~ð
II
ATTACHMENT ÞJ
1-Ð~!/1
e
Draft City Goals for Private Development at Camp Parks
.
1. Plan should have a net positive fiscal impact on the City.
2. Plan should provide a strong connection between the eastern and
western parts of the City while also evaluating a "village" concept.
3. Plan should link to the Transit Center and BART.
4. Plan should provide a unique feature - either publicly or privately
funded - which strengthens the image of the City and further
increases the qual ity of life for residents and! or strengthens Dublin' s
position as a destination.
5. Plan should accommodate some unmet public agency/public facility
needs (i.e. school facility, maintenance facility, park or community
facility, etc.)
6. Analysis of the land use plan should look at the property itself as well
as the impact of developing the property on other parts on the City in
relation to traffic, market d=ands, fiscal impacts, and schools.
7. Plan should consider a new route between Dougherty and Arnold
Roads to accommodate new development.
8. Plan should provide an attractive trans ition between the Camp Parks
RFT A and private development.
.
ATTACHMENT (¡;
r
~ ~
f: 'aAlpadSJad uoneln:JJp :JlJJeJ~ e 1
N WOJJ a5ua elp e 51 ~nq Anen5!A a::>!U S> 001 AeM) Jed leJ~ua:> JO alPPIW alj~ UI ~uaWala Je n:JJp a4.1 · ~¡
's5UISSOD ~aJ~S aJes JOJ ueld ~ pue wa~sÁs UOI~eln:JJp UelJ:¡sapad ~
alj~ O~UI ) Jed aq¡. a~eJ5a~u! o~ :¡saq MOlj O~ uaAI5 aq Plnoljs uo!~eJaPlsuoJ 'pawweJ5OJd ->
~ou S!/S! MOlj uo 6uIPuadap "a:Jeds pa:¡seM\\ JO f4!uawe ;':!:)IU e aq Jalj~la Plno:J ) Jed JeaulI alj.l · ~
'paWIOS! amll e S! ~11fi4l1peJ leUOl5aJ e aq 01 +
papua~ul SI11 J! 05 IJa1uaJ 1!5UeJ.l alj:¡' pue pJeAaln08 u qna WOJJ JJo ~n:J 51 a~IS ) Jed :¡sa5JeI alj.l · -c{:
:SMa!^aJ pax!w
'weaJ:¡S alj1
ul SMOIJ Ja1eM 5u!~enpnlJ lH!M a1eJado ~ ~1n:>1»!P pue asua~u!-a:Jueua~ulew aq Plno:J a) e alj.l ·
'leJI50111 aJe 5d!J:¡S ÁeM) Jed news alj1
JO awos pue seaJe 6UISnOlj Jasuap alj1 UI paxlw pue ) Jed JO a::>eds uado ljJnw ÁJaA 10U Sl aJa4.1 ·
'6ulSnOlj I4lsuap
Jaljfillj lj~!M paJeldaJ JO pa1e:JOl'u aq PlnOl. s pJeAalnos ullqna uo le!~UapISaJ ÁllweJ a fiulS alj.l ·
'SUOI~eu!:¡sap le:J1501 BU!AJas JOpPJOJ uep:¡sapad
e 01UI pa~eJfia1u! Ja~aq aq Plnoljs U 'sBu!SSOJJ :¡.aaJ:¡S snOJawnu Áq pa1uawfias Álpeq iilq o~
SJeadde pue 1uauodwoJ J!:¡'alj~sae 6uOJ:¡S e ~ou S! a~!s alj:¡' lj6noJlj:1 6u!Japueaw neJ1 ue!Jedp alj.l ·
:suo:>
'saJnseaw 10J:¡,uOJ paads leJn~eu aJe ~aaJ1S paAJnJ alj.l ·
·s:¡.uap!saJ (parOJdMuou) :¡.ua:Jerpe O:¡. ~yauaq e aq PlnOM peo}!
~aljônOa pue aA!Ja ~a Je:JS fiuole a:¡'IS alj:¡' JO JaUJOJ :¡saMlj:µou alj~ :¡.e a~!s ) Jed lIews e 6u!AeH ·
") J ed
alj:¡' pue aApa PlouJV uaaM:J,aq Ja»nq po06 e sap!AoJd pue aA!Ja PIOUJV JO ap!s :¡sea alj~ uo sasn
lep:¡snpu! ~lj6!1 pue aJWo alj:¡' ~ :¡.uawlldwoJ pooB e S! aAµa PIOUJV 6uole sasn aJ JJo fiU!AeH ·
'JIJJeJ:¡' Je nJlljaA pue sawolj uaa~aq S:PIIJUOJ lel:¡.ua:¡.od
alj:¡' saZIWlU!W 4J!ljM 'ÁeM) Jed leJwaJ ~UO :¡'UOJJ :¡.elj:¡' sasn puel le!:¡.uaPIsal ou aJe alalj.l ·
"Ja~uaJ ~!sueJ.l ¡;)4~ o~ pJ2Aalnos ullqna ssoJ:Je lIaM s:pauuo:J ~elj:¡' alO:J asuap e punoJe p¡;)dnoJfi
aJe pue ÁeM) Jed leJ~uaJ JO q¡nos pa~eJOI ;;ue Sasn puel asn-paxlW pue lepJawwoJ alp JO IIV ·
'sal:¡'lu~oddo
6UIWWeJ60Jd JO l4alJeA e JOJ SMOlle :¡.elj:¡' a:¡ s paroJd al ~ JO Uo!pas :¡.sealj:µou alj1 UI )fled
al5uIS e 111:\5 S! aJalj:¡' la:¡.!s alj:¡' :¡.nOl. 6noJlj:¡' pa:¡.nqp:¡.s!p lIaM ÁIl!eJ SI uO¡:¡'eJ0lle puel) Jed alj:¡' a 4M ·
:SOJd
~..,,,.~~
E a^!:¡eUJonIV
r--
S3H::JVO~ lOOH::J$
S3H::>V~S 3:J'lfdSN;JdO'
.:J5'>I&I7L (lNn"¡::¡IAIO
. . .:JS)lL9~(I'IV.:J So) 13iOHI3St.:J~O
.', "¡'Ii' ; ,.:JS>l86L.· (HV" s'). 1IV,1;:19"
; ., 'SiIN00l53HQW017 :h1Ilillv.:J,u.inllli
. .c.SiINn 09!i·;3H::>WPl :S31i110HNMOi·
SiINnlJE3\J::JV/8 :A.1I1i11V.:J 319NIS
. ..'r s,na Z:6£~ l'I1l!N3C:HS31:1
I-
Z
I.&J
:ä:
'!-i:,;:,~>!$.,!;i(:v.á\~I':' ~;:'',.Ii;\;\''''IVt~'''':;¡:wç,,::!:~' I:
le;i':.~: .m!r.~I_ .' ~jT.:t.;., ~ur''1';\';¡!!:I.'..'':,;.I''';j)~
;~~rl~""~,lï 1;"\j·tmwh'::,Ûl£;¡¡~:t:;,{,:!
.",~b",rr IDJ: .,J;I;,\IIi.'~
1l1\i~1INI
1Ii!.<iI.¡¡, ¡
C_,
~
t'''':I<-
lid'
~
I .... ....
". '. . .. .. .',1o,i. .'.' "'.I.~
I ".'''''(~'
; ¡ I" ''''''' W .,. , ' ,~,\"' J
I \1'~¡ji\n¡j¡\i
1Iv.19~r (~.U~'IJ·'IU 3J.V!l:~( OW) sJ.:mu.slo J.3NU.SIO :g 3AliVN\J3i1V
.
.
.
1;
~
~
'AWN a4~ o~ pafwd a4~ JO ~!IIqe:}IJoJd a4~ :¡sooq o~ papaau J! le 1UaplSaJ o~ pa:µaAUOJ aq
PlnOJ (saJJe 9I~SI uo s5uIPllnq JO :¡aaJ aJenbs ooo'osz JaAo) asn puel Jnqnd~lwasÞnqnd a4l. ·
">lJed alj:¡ JO seaJe 1112 cq SQ!:¡\ qedeJ aJuelllaAlns po05 aJe aJaln :¡eLl: ,
aJnsua o~ aAe4 PlnoM f40 a4~ ') Jed alp o:¡ eUJa:¡uI ueld UO 1elnJJp len:¡uaAa alj~ uo ßu!puadaa ·
:SMB!Aa.t paX!W
':PP:¡SIP asn-paxlw/lepJaWwoJ pue POOllJoqljßI3U e!:¡uap!saJ aAISallOJ
aJOW e ap!AoJd o:¡ paJnBIJuOJi3J aq Plnoll5 seaJe asal J. 'OM:¡ U\ PP:¡SIP asn-pax!w/lepJi3WWOJ
all: , s:¡nds oSle pue SPOOllJoqllßlau Állsuap Jallß!lI awos SaplA!p AeM) Jed leJ:¡u<!J ·
'JêI: ,UaJ :¡!5uejJ. all: , pue 'Hlva
'pJeAalnog unqna WOJJ pa:¡elosl 51 pue 'leap! :¡ou 5! lIJllIM 'i3Apa PloUJV O¡ ¡uaJefpe pa¡eJOI 5!
pUel) Jed all:¡ '051V 'êI: ,!5 all: , ¡nOllBnoJlI:¡ S) Jed POOllJoqll6!au leUO!:¡IPpe JOJ paau all:¡ aAa! aJ :¡ou
5aop :¡! :¡ell: , sueaw lIJllIM 'a:¡!5 pafoJd all:¡ uo uo!:¡eJOI auo O¡U! pasuapuoJ Áp!eJ 5! pUel) Jed alll. ·
:suø:)
'aseq all¡ : ,e ßUl5noll Al!weJ·a\ßuI5
alj: , O¡ ¡uaWlldwoJ poof) e S! pafoJd all: , JO UOI:µod le 1UaplSaJ ÁI!WeJ-aIßU!S all: , JO uo!:¡eJo alll. ·
'E '¡IV UI uel :¡ pauyap ';!Jow SllIJ!l M 'pJeAalnog
unqna o:¡ 4:¡nos pue a: ,IS )lJed 64:¡ lI5noJl :¡ sunJ : ,elp JOP!JJOJ uepedp elwe: ,sqns e 51 aJelll. ·
'a5eq all: , pue pafoJd all: , uaaM¡aq Je! .nq poaf>
e sap!AOJd 05112 :n pue '~edoJd el : , JO eZls ell:} uaAI6 eJeld >lJed lepeds e JOJ A)lun:µoddo P009 ·
:SOJd
to BA!1B'UJriQIV
I.···· '''¡¡¡iIiW'''[!E,q ','J;éi'.'~..'.."'.
" I;,", .~¡~~,'(, ';¡ .1"" J'_
~1";""'·""",~¡;,:J1 ^ ¡l~;rii~;¡l'~'l¡; ;:ft.r.i\'
. t,l~t4:i.W\',"'" , M ".., siD.'\1
S3~::>1t 8 ·lOOH;)S
S31:10'lit'L . 3DVdSN3dO'
015 >I£t£ (1:I1t: e" , ,DIAI¡)
:IS '>lZst (I:IVd So) 13.l0H/33Io1~O'
:lS>lliøit U: V:I g') lIV~¡,
SilNn ow 3101:)\1/09 ;A11II\IV:I"1.L1rt.1I\I
S.LINn 0093H::>V/01: :S3V'10HNMO.L
S.LINn 17l7t 3KI'(f/9 :Al1V'1ltol 315)NIS "
s,no I781>'t . lVI.LN301S:!ij
I
i
,I
I
.!
I ' '
.!íI;¡¡ti
\lV, (þ(þ' CU.lS!>è~ml~iHmll~)·O-O:J.r)fH'dd ONW9 :11 3MLltNI:I3.Lllt
.
.
.
~
\P
¡{'
~
'¡uaWUOJ!AUa fiUIAlI JO adA¡ anblun ¡eln fiuPlaas aJe OltM as0lt¡ JOJ f4luawe ,,) .led
leJ¡ua:>" ueqJn eaJ e aq Plno::> :11 JO } Jed alt¡ a::>I?J s:uun as0ltM s¡uapISaJ am¡nJ WOJJ s¡uleldwo::>
aSlou pue :> JJeJ¡ JO <:I:>Jnos e aq Plno:> ¡! 'pawweJ60Jd S! a:>eds alt¡ MOlt uo fiuIPuad<:lO
'<:Ifiuallelt:> e pue A¡!un:µoddo ue It¡oq Sl a:>eds } Jed a6Je al ¡ JO UOneJn6uuoJ pue UOIWJola4.1 ·
:SN\B!^aJ PBX!W
'pJeA<:I]n08 unqnO )0 <:IPIS I.f.lnos al ¡ UO J<:I¡uaJ ¡!sueJ]. al ~ o~ uo!pauuoJ lenS!A fiuOJ s
e <:IAel O¡ Jeadde ¡OU saop U 'pa:mnouoJd ssa pue Jallews S! aJOJ asn-paxlw/lepJaWWoJ al ]. ·
'eapI pool5 e :}OU S! aseq all:} O¡ ¡sasop a:}!s 100llJS Ã.I\?:luawa a all:} l5ul:}eJOl ·
's¡u!od UOI:}eUI:¡S¡:¡p leJ160 Aue aAell :}OU op pue pa:¡elos aJe S> Jed JeaulI a4.1 ·
'to- pue
£ 'S¡IV U! æf!l a¡IS al ¡ l DnOJl ~ p<:lpua:tXa aq Plnol s pue l ¡6ual U! pa~lwlI 51 JOP!JJOJ ue!Jedp al ]. ·
'eap! poo6 I? ¡OU s! :}aaJ:}s aLA wOJJ AI?Me sawol al :} pUIl aq sPlêlU lIeq e!:}ua:¡od 6u!P!l
PUI? 'asn pOOD e :}OU 51 :¡aaJ:}s :}saM-¡sea :}SOWUJal :µou al :} fiuole sasn lel:}U~P!SaJ Ál!weJ-al6uIS ·
'nee e:m:l e:}ues pue asnol :µno:> aJn:}nJ a4:} JO : aaJ:¡5 al : SSOJJe sasn ep:¡snpUI
:¡l 6 pue aJUJo :¡uaJefpeall:¡ l :¡!M alq¡:¡edwoJ :¡ouaJe aA!JO PIOUJV BUOle sasn lel: U¡;)P!sa~ ·
:SUO:)
'aseq ðlfi pue pafOJd
al ¡ UaaM: aq JêlMnq poofi I? sap!AoJd a:¡!Sal ¡ )0 JapJoq UJal :µou al ~ :¡e peOJ :¡5aM-:¡sea all]. ·
'aAIJO :¡:¡a JeJS m spauuoJ peOJ ¡SêlM-:¡seêl ue êlJallM saJe d OM:¡ ale
aJal :¡'UOn!ppe UI -(4:µOU Jal :µn) paAow JI JaUi3q i3q Ui3Aa PlnoM uOlpaUUOJ S!l : ) i3Apa uosealÐ
o:¡ Ji3S0P pue qµou Ji3l :µnJ UO!Pfluuo:> JalfiOUe se !laM se ÁeM) Jed le.quaJ lfioq o:¡ a:¡!S pafOJd
i3l :¡ JO ap!s :¡sei3 êllfi uo SUO!Pi3UUOJ i3Je aJêll :¡ pue 'speo~ PIOUJV pue A:µal 6noo uaaM:¡aq
UO!Pi3UUO:> paJ!p e 51 aJaltl. 'suolpaUUOJ ÁeMpeOJ :¡saM-:¡sea JO A¡i3peA e pue sueld Jal : o al :¡ UI
uel : Á:¡!unwwoJ am )0 :¡saJ al ¡ l : !M ë): S pafoJd al : 6u!:pauUOJJ<:I:¡U! uOI:¡elnJJP Ja:¡:¡aq 5! aJêl4.1 ·
'.ŒVB pue'08S-I 'Ja:¡uaJ :¡ISUeJ]. aLA 'pJeAalnOB ullqna
LUQJJ alq!s!^ 5! a¡!s ) Jed Jofl?w all:} pue a:}IS al :} :}nol 5noJLj¡ paSJadslP \laM ÁIJleJ S! pUel) Jed .
:SOJd
5 B^!:aeUJiqIY
*M!::.'Þ¡:>I:,:;.:%\,:\ti.~f~d;-¡¡¡¡';i~~¡·ill\'~,,'~'¡$~}~.i¡;'-:;Y'~:,::J¡
l~~r!.'" ':'¡'~~"¡"~~'\'!
'''·''''.'''''!'·1'''·'' "J,I"""",":"""
^\:~-I!¡'i"¡'¡¡.' ¡'.ì"';¡¡', II...~~'II
, ,I i¡ , S3101:J\I 8 lOOH3S
S31:13\1 OS 33VdS N3dO
'I
='S >lLU (IN:! E·~3IAI:J
~S ) 96~ (8\1::1 g') 131DHl331;HO
='S>l96~ (I:IV~ 9-11I\113101
S.LINno009 31:1;)'0'109 :AlIIAIV:!-l.L1nVII
_ S.LINO OBll3H3V/OZ:S.31A10HNM.Q.L
,S.lINn 9lZ 3H3V18 :AlIV11V=' 31ÐNIS
. s,nG966~ 1\I1.LN3GIS3H
" .~ ~',. i\t
t;
T~,¡~,':~~~~i
tí'ìr~fr}";": :"~;
- ':,
~,~~·,,;-:,;:-·r,:<f
.
.
.
~ ~. .'.
. .
CS¿}
or JO
ß
cJ
o
BOUIE-lARtl
.
~'
....~ '.
to)
~' 00111'8)
f'
~ ! (0)
(!VO)
(COM~
.......
(0)
.
(COMB)
..
.-
:J
LEGEND
(MU)
(COM B)
(0)
(RIO)
(RÏ
(PIA)
. (COM A)
_ - - - SP¡¡CIFlO PlAN BOUNDAAY
~ ... 'use AS NoTED
"* POT5NTw. PL,AZI>. WCATlON
~ oPPORTUNITY SfIE
(p) PAÁKiNG·
. (L) H01EL,
.." 11/:l nol the Inlent oj this amendmenllo make
~ e:dsling "sd on thde specific siles non-conjomúng.
. Cu.rrently operallng permit/cd uses 011 these properlks
will remain permitted uses alid be aUowed /b expand
.OPO"~:~Ch time aslhe property is redeveloped.!
LAND USE PLAN JUNE 2001
, WEST DUBUN BART SPECIFIC PLAN
."
(?)
-.
MIXED US!>
.coMMeF!OIAI.- Ii!
Oi"FIO!>
f!ËTAI!.JOi"FIOS
RælD8>ITIAL
AETAII)AUTO
COMMEACIALA
~
.1
1.000 B) <I<
~\
'\
r
'L
~.
l
J.I~l
\ '/
J
C \ TY 0 F 0 US L IN
ATTACHMENT ~XH!BIT 9 ,..
2X'r('<S~%' c-:;t;;[J/--r! N /1' I'" ' $"Dh?1
...á.,/ \. (~. . i-iJ. \\ \\\~' .~::>~ y -V
/'" :s;::\ y ~ "". J"- y\1 \ \, f!£- ¡ \ y' Li
/~;/'o~v' 1/\ .../Xf;/"i'-...'/ "'0/." i'---! 'T.......... \'\ \ \ \ \ :--¡~6'ûRYJ.U~.-\ (.-=:1
" ,-À~>-..--": ,...~'<:t;;'" ,/,), t-.., I \ '"'-.\ . \' ('" I 1 I
. '-tJ' . 'C I ' \ /" " '-^, ~ I \ " ' )-1 i-'
_\~~\\ i' i ,-.-r-i§:~.5E,..\lb,' /'y~ \).' (" \ \ I. \ /'\\ \. \'\\~ .,1 I.
),¡~ '- c-; , ~ ' /" , \ ~~ "
j~~i\~.! ' ~\',I II ~\\\\µ~Jð
Î\I i i = ~~~OJ [,0 0 I'~ \\\ ýì I' '
\\ñ\ \ \ Ú· \r\, / ~b I rP '3l, Ü rt0 \~ \~I 'ç:;-. \ \11 \r):
,~, I c::::J~/ "0 ) \:?'1= ~\ '1 -'\ ~ I \' " ,~
'-- ",.."""" -:¿ '</ ..- ,.- "",,,,,,,, \ 1\ I I
\ ' ' -/ __-- ',I" Ie' '
[I. }--¡n I -- \ ~ I~I\, \\ \ \;.~
, " ¡0Y (01 '" ~~ \~~'
\. \ \'/" / / 0 & "t!\ \ \~\.-J. "'-
, ' } / /¡ "i I I '. ,I
~~' ~ < ,I\\\' \ \..
_ ~ 1\ n ~ "'" ,,,,"- ~\ I I'\- . \'""
n \' , , ' ' '. _" ' ,II, ,,\ 11'\1
r \ \ l0 \\ \ i, ~ 'I '. '. I "I ,\
----:1 ,..-,," ,1111/1
---" ' , iT' ,__.'" ,,- '. 'I ------
JO/I 'I 1 ....-' ,1\'.1,
/' ,\ , ~ ",,"" .1 ' , \\--.1.-<'
~II ' ,"1'1
I' ,--------r:'; ... '~\\ 1\ \ \ ~
r;' \,,' ' \
qLCJ\ ,c.-J; 1\11,
----¡, I' I -, ~ \1 II ,\
\\\ \ \ ..., !ffi \ 1\
------1 , ' \ (COM A). (RIO) ". ~\ \. \
º--\"i~~ '- J ~: ~\\ \\ \
_, \9'" \ -- \I.: "
-c-,~t:~¿ \ ~~----- .-- -- ~ -- \\ \
DUBLIN BOUt.ÐIAf1D " - \ '
~i írL I, I(f \ ! I' (- ~'il \\,[J \\
:GEND _ -----' \ I' L-----' \w\ \. l;:;==JfÎ . \ \ \ "r-ì \ \
__ !. li§l \ '-' L \-," \ --3' \
__ ,~,,~'OO 0" ' I' " ,'\
, ~~~~' ~" .=~ \~\' I e\! \-'~\ L..--~ \
.... (RI 'd " I ,-, ~ '^ \
_ ""'"""""'~ " ~NC""" i.1 U ,\ ' I'l>.l--- ~
e OPPORTUNITY SITE CATION (COM B) COMMERCiAL B 1 ~'t!\- ------ii 0 \!,\
(RIO) R. ET AlUO"""'E (0) OFFICE .-1.. " \ ~ \ \.
rn__ (C --- I Ie, '
OM A) COMMERCIAL A i'l \ \ ,-' .
.'T;=J~'f~!I
DEC~~~R2000- l \, ~ I
LAND USE PLAN
DOWNTOWN
CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
UBLlN
EXHIBIT 9
J
, I~
I:
'II
, ,
, I
, I
II
:1:
f::
I' ..... .. .' .I.\f:
,I
:1
~ ;.
I,·
11
I;'
I'
"
{;
IV
11:1
~;Ii
'I
îl
I"
1"
j',
:~
'l:t
..,
"¡ii
t
",I
w
.!i:
(1\
'j
"1:
\',1'
~'I:
1'1'·
¡.!
¡"i
)1
~.
I
¡
11
"
,.
,
!
I'
['¡
I,:
!,
i
.1
II
,
11
"
¡,
'I
,I
11\
'I
i
"
I'
r
,.
I,
I
,..
I
,
,
,
r¡ I~"'--'
~i: ) 1 \
1) \ I-...J
1
H
It
Ii
'\n
! "-;,.........)
LEGEND
~ . OPPORTUNrTY SITE
I, . POìENTIAI.- PI..AZA LOCATION WI D~OPMENT
(RIO) RETAllJOFFICE
~.. (R/O&A) RErAllJOfFlCE AND AUTO SERVICE
elAND USE PLAN
U VILI..,AGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
N.T.S.
DECEM8ER 2000
P'!I"'~'~I":""~''':'.:'
~'." ""·r'.~,I"·~'·''''~.'''''_''''_~''~"'"''''·'' "".."" '.,:':.".'." .. ,.,
CITY OF DUBLIN
EXHIBIT 9
ATTACHMENT 10 ..
- - -.....--
-t~""""'--___
F--
-- -"
e
:n~ ~'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2004
SUBJECT:
STUDY SESSION: PA 02-028 Dublin Ranch West (formerly
Wallis Ranch)
Report Prepared by: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. East Dublin Specific Plan Tassajara Village Center lllustrative
with Tassajara Creek/Tassajara Road Constraints;
2. East Dublin SpecifIc Plan Land Use Plan with Road & Creek
Constraints;
3. East Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan with Constraints
(Blow-Up);
4. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan with Constraints
(more detailed Blow-Up);
5. East Dublin Land Use Plan with Impacted Land Use Areas;
6. Proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Plan with Corridor and
Setback Impacts;
7. List of Property Owners;
8. Neighborhood Commercial "White Paper";
9. Public/Semi Public Calculation Dublin Ranch;
10. Public/Semi Public Calculation - Dublin Ranch West (Wallis);
1 I. Letter from Martin Inderbitzen with a specific parkland proposal;
12. Letter From Martin Inderbitzen regardir1g the provision of Public
and Semi Public Lands;
13. Commercial Access Diagram; and
14. DUSD Resolution Releasing Wallis School Site.
15. City of Dublin Village Policy' .
16. Figure 7.28 - Tassajara Village Concept Plan
17. Northern Section Parks and Dwelling Units
18. City of Dublin Semi Public Facilities Policy
.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide Staff direction in the following areas:
A . WI.
/'{/V" 2-
3.
Application of Village Policy;
Provision of parks in the northern section of the City;
Neighborhood commercial site in the northern section of the
City; and
Application of?ubliclSemi Public Policy.
4.
-------------...-.......
-------_.."'-------
--
.
COPIES TO:
\nt~
ATTACHMENT /1
~"",:"
FINANCIAL STATEMENT;
No fInancial impact.
2~
DESCRIPTION:
e
In 1993, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) es1:llblished land use areas for Tassajara Village Center
with 142 acres of mixed use including 8.6 acres of neighborhood conunercial, 1 neighborhood park, I
neighborhood square and 1 elementary school. (See Attachment I; EDSP Tassajara Village Center, and
Attachment 2: EDSP Existing Land Use Plan).
In June of 2002, the Community Development Department received a fonnal application from Jim Tong
for "Dublin Ranch West". The application was for an Annexation, Genc:ral Plan/Specific Plan
Amendments, Stage 1 Planned Development Plan and an Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch
West. The lands associated with the application include a portion of the TassaJara Village Center.
During the time period in which this project has been under review, the City has adopted new policies that
need City Council direction in relation to this project. These policies include the Semi Public and Village
Policies. In addition, DUSD has voted to eliminate the elementary school site on Wallis, m!':ing up 9.7
gross acres for possible d!':velopment (see Attachment 14).
As a result of this new infonnation, Staff is reque:sting City Council direction on several issues as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Application of Village Policy;
Provision of parks in the northern section of the City;
Neighborhood commercial site in the northern section of the City; and
Application of Public/Semi Public Policy.
.
An analysis of these issues and a request for policy direction follows below:
ANALYSIS:
1. Aoolication ofVillalle Policv:
Village Policy:
The City of Dublin's Village Policy (Attacbn1ent 15) sta1es a desire of the City Council to create new
villages that would encourage compact development of an area, integrating a variety of housing types and
densities with community facilities, civic, educational uses, commercial. and industrial uses with an
emphasis on pedestrian friendliness.
Tassajara Village Center:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as originally conceived clearly envisioned the development ofa village
w be located at the Tassajara entrance to the City from Contra Costa County. As a result of the
identification of endangered species, refmed engineering, limited allowable creek crossings, land
otberwise planned for development within the Tassajara Village Center needs to be reprogrammed while
still meeting the goals of the Specific Plan to respect the local setting and maintain a strong sense of place
(p. 139 EDSP). .
21JCf
The characteristics of a village include:
~IÞb ,1
A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including sunounding land
uses and topography. It $houId respect constraints, roadways and environmental considerations:
A Village should have a mixture of housing types, densities and affordability and should support a
range of age and income groups;
Activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilitie$ and public/private facilities) $houId be
easily accessible;
Trails, pedestrian walkwaY$ and street linkages should be established to bring the parts and
elements of the Village together;
Street and Pedestrian linkages should link to transportation spines including buses and transit
services;
The Village should have a strong "edge" defining the boundaries. This could include major
streets, architectural or landscaped areas;
Village size should reflect development that promotes pede$trian walkability, permits a .sufficient
mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas; and,
Specific identity mould be fostered for the Village areas (special signage, unique design elements,
public plazas etc.)
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The Tassajara Village concept as conceived in the EDSP (Attachment 16 - Figure 7.28 of EDSP) is
different than the newly adopted Village Concept Policy (Attacbn1ent 15). The Tassajara Village Concept
Plan shows a village that is interrupted by a 6 lane arterial and creates a portion of the project across
Tassajara Creek which at some points is 500 feet wide. The Tassajara Village Concept was not the
walkable village currently envisioned by the City Council - it was more of a commercial node concept in
the northern area of the City.
e
A modified Tassajara Village Concept can be created, but due to constraints would have to be smaller in
size and scale and located away from the intersection of Fallon and Tassajara Roads. Rather than
spanning Tassajara Road, the Village could be based on the westerly side of the Road. All other
characteristics of the Tassajara Village Concept and the City Council's new policy could then be
implelIlented on a slIlaller scale. The project coùld contain a slIlaller neigbborhood commercial site,
parks, a Semi-Public site and a mix ofn::$idential uses.
City Council Direction:
The decisions the City Council makes in the following sections and the direction that is given to Staff and
the Applicant on the locations of the neighborhood commercial site, parks and semi-public land uses will
determine whether a portion of the Wallis Project implements the EDSP's TallSlJjara Village Concept as
modified by the City Council's Village Concept Policy.
2. Provision of Parks in the Northern Section of the City:
In accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update recently approved, Wallis Ranch is
required to provide 10.5 net acres of parkland. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identified a
neighborhood park and neighborhood square in the Tassajara Village Center and a neighborhood park
internal to the subject property (Attachment No.2). The neighborhood park and neighborhood square in
the Tassajara Village Center are both unbuildable because in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan these uses
are at the bottom of the Tassajara Creek bed and this area has been removed £rom development as a result
of mitigation tradeoffs for Dublin Ranch on Wallis Ranch and the widening of Tassajara Road.
e
3~t'[
Sinc~ adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, l.g acres of th~ 10.5 acres of parkland
identified for Wallis Ranch has been provided for on other D\lblin Ranch holdings leaving II balance
needed of 8.7 acres. ~ ~ 3"
In addition to reviewing the park needs for the Wallis Ranch Development, Staff has also evaluated the
park needs for the neighborhoods east of Tassajara (pinn Brothers, Mission Peak and Moller Ranch see e
Attachment 7). As shown in Attachment No. 17, there are no parks currently planned east of Tassajara
Road with the exception of Ted Fairfield Park, which was built as part of Dublin Ranch Phase 1. Pinn
Brothers is approved and under development. Mission Peak and Moller Ranch have both been discussing
annexation and development potential with the City. As discussed. Mission Peak will be required and has
shown a vehicular connection to the Pinn Brothers Development. Because there are no parks within safe
walking distances to the Finn Brothers, Mission Peak and Moller Ranch properties; it might be
appropriate to look for some parkland east of Tassajam Road to serve these neighborhoods.
In calculating the potential population on the Mission Peak and Moller Ranch properties, the required
parkland would be approximately 1.34 acres, however the minimum standard for a neighborhood square
in the recent update of Parks and Recreation Master Plan is 2.0 acres. Therefore, itmight be appropriate
to consider a 2.0 acre neighborhood square to be placed somewhere on the Mission Peak and Moller
fulnch properties if they develop. This would leave II requirement of 6.7 acres of parkland to be provided
on Wallis Ranch. However, if Mission Peak and Moller Ranch do not move forward as proposed. ø.nd two
acres is removed:trom the Wallis Ranch required acreage, there would be a shortfall of .66 acres (based on
the parkland needed for Mission Peak and Moller Ranch).
The original submittal for the Wallis Ranch project included a 5.0 acre site for a Neighborhood Park
intt=.a.l to the development (See Attachment 6). Subsequently, the Applicant has made an alternate
proposal (see Attachment No.11) to group parkland on two sites together for a combined total of 7.66
acres with a remaining land area of 1.27 acres to be available for either Neighborhood Commercial or ..
Semi-Public land uses (see discussion below). The total land to be provided would be 8.93 acres. .
Staff has reviewed the alternate proposal and based on the standards for Neighborhood Parks contained in
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a Neighborhood Park internal to the development is preferred to
better serve the Wallis Ranch neighborhood. Regarding the alternate proposal, Staff's main concerns are
with the 4.16 acre parcel :fronting Tassajara Road as follows:
1) This parcel fronts Tassajara Road which is. planned as a six.lane arterial. The standards for
neighborhood parks suggest that parks be sited on collector or residential streets; no major arterials.
2) The parking lot on the northern end of the parcel is sepanrted from the main park area by a street.
Crossing the street to access the park poses safety concerns. Additionally, entrance into this parking
lot from Tassajara Road can only be accomplished by southbound traffic.
3) In order to accommodate active park uses such as softball and soccer as shown in the plan, a tall
perimeter fence would be required in order to keep balls ITOm entering Tassajara Road. This may
prove to be unsightly and may not stop all balls.
4) The long linear nature of the park may preclude some park uses. While the Applicant's preliminary
park plan shows softball, soccer and tennis courts, further study is needed in order to determine if the
site can actually accommodate these uses.
5) While the proximity of the park to the conservation :l;one and creek appear to give the park a pastoral
quality, this will be compromised by the traffic noise generated from Tassajam Road.
6) Increased maintenance costs associated with two separated parcels as opposed to one large park.
e
4 f1() o¡
Staff would also point out that this option doe/l not provide for any active open /lpace intl:!11al to the
development. In addition to the 5.0 acre neighborhood park being eliminated, the clementary school site, ".
which would have provided play fields, also has been eliminated. ~'Db 1> r
. Staff has developed the following potential alternatives for the provision of 8.7 net acres of parkland in
the northern Tassajara area.
Options
Option I
Locations Type of park Acreage
Wallis Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 8.7 acres
Wallis Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres
I Neighborhood Square 2.0 acres
8.7 acres
WaIHs Ranch 1 Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres
Mission Peak or Moller 1 Neighborhood Square 2.0 acres
Ranch 8.7 acres
Wallis Ranch (Dev. Alt) 2 Neighborhood Parks 7.66 acres
Mission Peak or Moller I Neighborhood Square 1.04 acres
Ranch 8.7 acres
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Directionfrof1l City Council on Park Locations:
Consider the discussion and options provided above and provide direction to Staff and the Applicant
regarding the provision of parkland type and acreage of parkland.
. 3. Neighþorhood Commercial Site in the Northern Section of the Citv:
Circulation:
The Tassajara Village Concept Plan (Attachment 16) references 8.6 acres of Neighborhood Commercial
Land Use Designation (NC) to be -located at the intersection of Tassajara and Fallon Roads. The
Neighborhood Commercial node spanned two major arterials, Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The
NeighboJhood Commercial node was also loclited on several properties including Friedrich, Bragg and
Mission Peak.; (located easterly of the intersection see Attachment 5 and 7). As noted in the Section
above regarding Villages, the Tassajara Village Concept was not a walkable village as is currently
envisioned in the City Council's Village Concept Plan.
If the City Council determines that the Wallis Project should be developed as a Village as envisioned by
the Village Concept Policy, then it necessary to direct the Applicant and staff to locate a Neighborhood
Commercial site on the Wallis /lite. However, the City Council, in the alternative, could determine that
the neighborhood commerdaJ site should be in a diff=nt location, perhaps on the eastern side of
Tassajara Road. Either location would be consistent with the intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's
concept of the Tassajara Village Concept Plan; however, the City Council's Village Concept Policy
indicates that in order for the Village to be walkable, the commercial site should not be separated by a 6
lane arteriaL
. In making this decision, the City Council should be aware that there are many factors that affect site
access and circulation to a commercial site in this portion of Dublin. In many instances, traffic design has
sõõ'i
dictated solutions that constrain site access and circulation. The Nielsal property east of Tassajara Road
can be accessed through the Pinn Brothers signalized intersection on Tassajara Road with Wallis Ranch.
Additionally, Wallis Ranch has two signalized intersections, one across fÌ'Om the Pinn Project and another
at TassajaraRoad and Quarry Lane School (see Attacbn1ent 13). ';7 Db -v¡
Staff has evaluated both of the Wallis intersections in relation to the developability of a neighborhood .
convenience center. The northerly intersection, shared with PÎ1U1, provides little developable land on the
Wallis property due to the proximity of Tassajara Creek and the conservation easement. The only
available land at the northetly intersection would be the Nielsen property to the east of Tassajara Road.
The southerly intersection at the Wallis property, sharcd with Quarry Lane Scl1ool, provides a flat area of
sufficient size to develop a neighborhood convenience center.
It should be noted that all of these locations, existing and proposed. have barriers to walkability. The
Nielsen property has Tassajara Road and the width of Tussajara Creek as a possible barrier to walkability
for Wullis residents. The Wallis sites have the width of Tassajara Creek as a possible barrier for Wallis
residents IIIld Tassajara Road as a barrier for residents to the east (Attachment 13).
A third alternative would be to consider an interior-oriented village core on the Wallis site, comprised of a
neighborhood convenience center. public semi.pui)lic site and park somewhere west of Tassajara Creek.
\Vhile this would eliminate the walkability barrier of the other two alternatives; convenient access for
those projects east of Tassajara Road (Moller, Mission Peak and Pinn), would be difficult, if not
impossible.
The Nielsen property is located on the eastern side of Tassajara Road and is designated as Rural
Residential in the EDSP. It is presently developed with an agricultunil operation. Developing this
property with a Neighborhood Commercial project would require extensive grading and would have to be
sensitively accomplished as Tassajara Road is a sceIÙC corridor. However, adequate access from .
Tassajara Road could be provided through the Pinn project (See Attachment 13) enabling a full left turn in
and out through the Pinn property. This site is centrally located and is on the side of the road most suitable
for convenience shoppers returning from work.
Staff suggests that both of these signalized intersec1ions provide the circulation needed to support a
neighborhood commercial center. However. the southern Wallis Ranch property location would be more
cOilSistent with the City's Village Concept PoJicy, while still having a possible barrier to walkability
(Tassajara Creek).
Staff also analyzed locating a commercial center on one of the other remaining properties without
approved development plans (besides Wallis Ranch), incl.ude Moller, Mission Peak, Tipper, Friedrich,
Vargas. Nielsén and Kobold (see Attachment 7). Tipper is at the far reaches of the City and as such would
require residents to drive to access this site for Neighborhood Conunercial uses. Fredrich and Vargas have
COilStrWnts with the Creek, onsite topography and access because of the proximity to the FallonlTassajara
Road intersection which would make access a problem. Mission Peak has a similar constraint with a very
limited frontage. The developable area of the Kobold property is too small and their frontage on Tassajara
Road is also too narrow to safely provide for vehicular access.
Wallis Ranch White Paper (see Attachment 8): .
The EDSP addressed the need for 8.6 acres of Neighborhood Commercial. However, the ultimate need of
Neighborhood Commercial acreage is determined by the market. The Applicant has prepared a "White .
Paper" which addresses the need for neighborhood commercial land uses in this portion of Dublin. This
document specifically lists a series of constraints (see pages 3 thrn 7) which the Applicant contends that
6~q
deveJopment of the Neighborhood, Commercial property in the location originally envisil~~ 31
impractical if not impossible. The Paper further goes on to discuss definitions of the various l~els of
commercial center and concludes that either a Neighborhood Convenience or Neighborhood Center would
be most appropriate for thl: northern portion of the Tassajara corridor. Lastly, the Paper discusses
"Alternative Town Center Location" and "Challenges to Planning a Village Center at Dublin Ranch
West" (page 17).
·
The Applicant's "White Paper" addresses many of the constraints to developing the Neighborhood
Commercial site and specifically references that based on the remoteness ÍÌ'om the larger popuJation base
the site would rely heavily on the residents in the vicinity or by vehicles passing by. The White Paper
recommends. therefore, that a neighborhood convenience center would be the most appropriate type of
center. The size of site necessary to support a neighborhood convenience center using a .30 FAR figure as
referenced inthe Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Tassajara Village would indicate a site no grc:att:r thB1l
90,000 square feet (2.07 acres) would be appropriate.
The Lin "Wmte Paper" describes the factors guiding location of a neighborhood commercial site on the
Lin property. Locating the proposed Neighborhood Commercial site at one of the two signalized access
points on the Wallis Ranch property (the southerly access point would provide the most land area at a
proper grade and with proper maneuvering room) would make a safe transition from the various
surrounding neigbborhoods and Tassaje.ra Road and would locate the neighborhood comrnercialland use
in a more centralized location.
Staff has reviewed the White Paper and finds that many of the points are well-taken in rela.tion to access
and circulation. However, the City has not had an opportunity to retain a consultant to do a ''peer review"
of this Paper in the areas of market accessibility and viability.
· City Council Direction:
1. Should a neighborhood commercial site be located on the Wallis or Nielsen property? and
2. If the City Council determines the site should be on the westerly side of Tassajara Road (Wallis
Ranch), should the site be at the southerly intersection or internal to the project in a village core?
4. Application of Semi Public FacilitiesPolicv:
In accordance with City Council policy direction when considering a Oeneral Plan Amendment,
provisions for Semi~Public Land Uses should be considered (Attachment 18). The Applicant is requesting
a General PIan Amendment and an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the
reconfiguration of land uses on their property. As such, Staffhas considered the appropriateness of Semi-
Public land uses on this site.
Recently, with General Plan and Specific PIan Amendments for Area F (North) and Area B, the Applicant
provided additional Dublin Ranch Public/Semi-Public acreage adjacent to the proposed Middle School
currently under construction to comply with the new Semi· Public Facilities Policy of the City.
The Applicant has provided a letter (See Attachment 12), which addresses the Applicant's request that the
City Council detennine that they have provided all of the Semi-Public land they are required to for all of
·
7~'1
Dublin Ranch including Dub1in Ranch West (Wallis).
acreage requirements for both projects as follows:
The Table below provides a summary of the
~~34'
Project
Estimated Semi-Public Net
Acreage Requirement
0.64
0.85
1.26
0.89
3.64
.
Area F North
Area F West
Area F East
Area B
Total Acreage Required for
Dublin Ranch Areas F & B
Wallis Ranch
Total Acreage Required for
both Dublin Ranch and Wallis
Ranch
;u¡
5.87 net acre¡¡
The Table above illustrates ilia! ilie Lin's have an estimated cumulative requirement of 5.87 acres of
Semi-Public acreage required under the Semi-Public Policy for both the recent Area F & B amendments to
Dublin Ranch and Wallis Ranch. In the Area F & B Amendments th!': Lin's provided 5.8 net acres of
Public/Semi-Public land which is 2.23 acres over what was required by that Amendment pursuant to the
City's Semi-Public Facilities Policy.
Notwitlurtanding the fact that the Applicant contends that they have provided all of the required Semi-
Public land for all of their holdings within in Area F on Dublin Ranch, the City Council may determine .
that each General Plan Amendment Application stands alone. Therefore, the City Council could require
that additional Semi-Public acreage be provided on Wallis Ranch.
If the City Council determines that each General Plan Amendment should stand on its own in relation to
the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, then 2.23 acres or an amount to be detennined by the City Council
would need to be provided on the Wallis Ranch Project. Staff would work with the Applicant to
incorporate a Semi-Public Site into their Plan.
City Council Direction:
The Applicant is requesting that the City Council make a determination that the acreage beyond what was
required in the Semi-Public Facilities Policy (2.23 acres) be applied towards the Wallis Ranch
requirement. The Semi-Public Facî1íties Policy is silent on this issue; therefore, Staff requests direction
from the City Council on this issue.
CONCLUSION:
This Study Session Staff Report requests direction from the City Council in the area of village
development. park sites, neighborhood commercial sites and semi-public facilities sites. ·The Wallis
Project has several issues that require direction from the City Council. These issues have resulted from
new policies adopted by the City Council, refined engineering, identification of endangered species, .
limited allowable creek crossings, and the reprogramming of the elementary school site.
8 coO¡
'AlthOUgh DUSD has released the elementary school site (Attachment 14), it is up to the City C~~31
what aInCilndment(s) to the Gc.mera1 Plan and EDSP Land Use Designation should be applied to the 9.7 acre
property. The City Council coulddeterrnine that the acreage be included in the Applicant's residential
yield.· Or. the City Council could direct Staff to work with the Applicant to use this 9.7 acre additional
. land to create the neighborhood commercial, semi-public and park sites in a configuration as desired by
the City Council.
The Applicant and Staff are fmishing up the design work on the Wallis Project prior to completion of the
enviroDJIlental document aod public hearings. The purpose of this Study Session has been to focus on the
City Council issues that need direction to allow completion of the Wallis entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide Staff direction in the following areas: (1) Application of Village Policy; (2) Provision of parks in
the northern section of the City; (3) Neighborhood commercial site in the northern section of the City;
and, (4) Application of the Semi-Public Policy.
.
.
9ð'/)4
3(;tt> 31
DUBLIN RANCH WEST-JFORMEK\.Y W.AI.I·T!j: RANCH)
9:50 p.m. 8.1 (410-20)
Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and adviBed that Staff was
seeking direction from the City Council regarding land use related to the application of
the Vi11a,ge Policy, provisions of parks and neighborhood commercial sites in the
northern section of the City, and the application of the Pub1ic/Semi~Public Policy on the
project site. Since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, new policies and
other issues have surfaced which also impact the development of Dublin Ranch West,
such as the release of the school site, the Village Policy, and the Public/Semi-Public
Policy. The Council was also reing requested to give direction regarding the release of
the elementary school site by either allowing the Developer to use the land for residential
development or to create neighborhood commercial, parks, semi-public lands uses or
other uses.
Note: testimony relative to this issut: WBs heard by Randy Shumway, Dublin School Bosrd
PresJäcnt, at 7:18 p.m. during Oral CommuniClltions.
Marlin Indcrbitzen, Attorney represertting the Applicant, advised that they had recently
submitted a Village Study whitepaper to the Planning Department, which he felt spoke
for itself. He reviewed the processing history of the project and advised that the
application was actually submitted on July 2, ZOOI; not July 2002 as indicated in the
Staff Report. One year was spent working with Staff and property owners on how to best
move forward with the project, before resubmitting the application. In July 2002, the
Council authorized the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Study. During the
application processing time, the Council implemented several new policies which have
caused delays. They have also worked extensively with the School District to identify
facility needs and impacts that could best be accommodated in conjunction with the
development of Dublin Ranch and other properties in Eastern Dublin, They have worked
collaboratively with Staff and the Council, attempting to find ways to achieve the
maximum number of goals for the City and themselves in a way that leads to a better end
product. The Wallis project is part of the overall Dublin Ranch project, and is linked in
ownership, as well as in the development of resource pians and management of resource
permits. There is a significant mitigation element in this project which links to the rest of
the Dublin Ranch project, including parks, affordable housing, and school needs. The
application of the Public/Semi-Public Policy is a relevant thing to link to both the Dublin
Ranch and Dublin Ranch West projects.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 479
ATTACHMENT I?-
,',.
·
·
·
?1tq) 3.,
Cou.ncilmember McConnick asked what would become of the elementary school site,
which the Applicant was askl118 to be released from its obligation to build.
.Mr. Inderbitzen explained the process of developer-built schools and advised that the
School District's analysis on student generation numbers based on conservative Þu.ild-out
numbers concluded that their Master Plan did not generate a need for an elementary
school on the Wallis property and that, even if there was a need, they did not think that it
was an appropriate location_ The Applicant has advised the School District that. if they
were not able to convert the property to residential use in order to offset costs. it would
be very difficult for them to commit to the construction. of Green Elementary School.
The Council. Staff and Applicant discussed. the Wallis property school site and the
Applicant's request to be released from their obligation to build a school on that site and
build residential instead. .
Mr_ lnderbitzen referred to the Village Policy, which the Council had only adopted a few
months ago and discu.ssed its potential impact to the project as it relates to parks,
Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities, and offered a combination
of uses that seemed to the Applical1t to make sense for the project.
The Council and Staff discussed the Applicant's suggestions regarding the proposal as it
. re.lated to parks, Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities.
. Jay Edgy. Project Manager for the DeSilva Group representing the Moller Ranch,
described possible park opportunities on their property that would serve the east side of
Tassaj.a.ra. Road.
The Council and Staff continued its discussion on parks as it related to the Applicant's
proposal and agreed that it would provide the internal park usage for the Wallis
development and also provides an open space buffer and access for development on the
east of the Fal1on/Tass~ara area.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the Council had four issues before them tonight and
suggested that theyma.lœ decisions individually:
Yi]ls>!e Conceot
The Council discussed Village concept as it related to the Dublin Ranch West project and
agreed that it would not be a feasible concept for this project location.
.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 23
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004
PAGE 480
,. .~
Parks
:æÐt)¥(
The Council, Staff and the Applicant discussed the several park options available for the ...
CounciFs consideration. _
Tracy Anthony, representing Standard Pacific, the developer processing the Mission Peak
property, advised he was reluctant to let the Council vote to take a Z-acre chunk out of
the Mission Peak property for a park that was not required in the Specific Plan. It
seemed to him that they were trying to force park on the east side of Tassajara that could
really be accommodated by the released school site. Rather than bonus the Wallis Ranch
property with 40 more units or 10 acres of developable land, they should put their park
on those 10 acres.
Mayor Lockhart advised that the Council was not suggesting that scenario.
Mr. Anthony advised that it could become an option and he wanted to be on the record
opposed to it. He had submitted a letter to Staff earlier today statin,g as much,
The Council continued its discussion and agreed to accept Park Option 4 because it
would serve the different needs of the community.
~e~hborhood Commercial
The Council agreed that Neighborhood Commercial was not an option.
Public/Semi-Puk] jg
The Council agreed that the remnant parcel on the southern end of the property should
remain flexible for either more park or Public/Semi-Public use.
.
.
RESPONSE TO INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR. 'IHE NOR.THBOUND 1-680 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEmCLE (HOV)
AND AUXIIJARY LANES PROJECT ALONG SUNOL GRADE
II :35 p.m. 8.3 (800-30)
Traffic Engineer Ray Kuzbari presented the Staff Report and advised that Caltraru; was
proposing to adopt a Negative Declaration cooc1uding that a proposed project to install
an HOY lane and auxiliary lanes on northbound 1~680 between Route 237 in Milpitas
and Route 84 in P1easa.nton would have no adverse impact on transportation and traffic
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 13
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 2004 .
PAGE 481
'0'·
I-J.
t1'
8~1
~!ä
<:)
¡::i
~
~
i:t
~
~
rt:
....
o
..,J
...
I
j~&
i~e
I-:i:
'P_
-.11
11;'11
..
~¡
::t
f.)
a:
~
w
II: w
~ =
~I ~
.~. I ~ I ...
't-i.y.¡, =
':,r-, I
;¡ .,. ~ ~
~
...
C):!¡ ..
Claè ~
"
:1'IZIb '?Pf
ATTACHMENT /3'