Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 3 - CC/PC Study Session Mtg 08-19-2008 w/ attachmtsCITY CLERK File # any©-a© qZ0 -30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEETING DATE: August 19, ;2008 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - PA 07-056: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations and Densities. Report prepared by Jeff Bauer, Senior Planner and Laura Karaboghosian, Associate Plann °r ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Refort dated April 3, 2007 with Attachments. 2) City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3, 2007. 3) City Council Staff Report date October 16, 2007 without Attachments. 4) City Council Meeting Minutes from October 16, 2007. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 27, 2007 without Attachments. 6) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 27, 2007. 7) Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council not approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit A) to change the General Plan and Easterr. Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan Properties to New Medium-Low Density and Medium- Mid Density Designations. 8) Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council not adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A) approving a PD- Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan Properties. 9) Map of Medium Density property in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. 0) Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 site Plan RECOMMENDATION: , Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive presentation and direct Staff to proceed with either: A) Alternative A and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid COPY TO: Property Owners File ITEM NO. To Page I of 14 GAPAA2007\07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density\City Council\CC PC Study Session 8.19.08\ccsr S. 19.08 Density Study Session. DocAttachmenf aw" ax I K ed11 -a A .,, 1.. Density Designations and minimum usable rear yard setback requirements; OR B) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private rear yard and common area requirements; OR C) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin and the need for larger private yards. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) and homes with larger private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the EDSP and prepared a Staff Report with different policy alternatives for City Council consideration at the April 3, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 1). The City Council reviewed the Staff Report and again expressed a desire to provide a housing product type that is between a I-Ir stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit (Attachment 2) with a private usable yard. The City Council identified two remaining Medium Density properties (Croak and Jordan) (Map 1) within the EDSP that do not have vested development rights and that do not have a current development application in process with the City. The City Council _l directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/SPA) to equally divide the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties into the following new land use designations: ¦ Medium-Low Density (6.1-14 du/acre); and ¦ Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre). Jordan A - ' Ranch Croak AC ' A` Propcrtv 17 1 1 1 NP 1 MyP A 5.5 AC 1 4 AC FS NP LOR 1 ?p 0 AC:. 97.5 AC 1 MCR 1 IC r ? , . 1y AC`: 1 5<t" TyTy--- ZP- 75A ?k. aR 5 MDR -, NOR- - - ,2AC ?G ¢AC 147t,t', Fallon Village 541 Map I - Vicinity Map 'allon Village 4C - Centel- (3rnnutar? ?t,Co .8 5 AC G<?CC b'9 ac?G.t i4 a nc . . aeSA Staff then reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement, and prepared a Staff Report for the October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 3). At the October 16, 2007 meeting, the City Council expressed a concern over the existing policy to calculate densities based on gross rather than net acreage. The City Council also expressed a desire to include minimum yard requirements for the proposed Medium-Low Density designation (Attachment 4). On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a GPA/SPA and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment as described below with the goal to create private usable yards: Page 2 of 14 1. Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations to replace the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties; 2. Calculate densities for the two new land use designations based on net developable acres; and 3. Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation. Staff prepared amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan to address the direction by the City Council and presented these amendments to the Planning Commission on November 27, 2007 (Attachments 5 and 6). The Planning Commission raised a number of concerns with the proposed amendments as discussed in the Analysis section of this Staff Report. The following is a discussion of the proposed amendments. Proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations Land Use Designations Staff prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations: Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre) Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Residential: Medium-Mid Density 00.1-14 units net residential acre) This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Location of Proposed Land Uses The existing Medium Density sites on each property are proposed to be and Medium-Mid Density as shown on Map 2. The proposed ? $` land uses maintain the transition from the more intense High` Density Residential and Mixed Use at the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense Low Density Residential uses that surround the Village Center. Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same number of units (104 units on Croak and 234 units on Jordan) anticipated for the existing Medium Density that was studied in the Fallon Village SEIR and would continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing balance (Please refer to Attachment 3, Tables 2, 3 and 4 for a unit comparison). The units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium- Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be required. XICO I,' t8 S AC }?l?o4s; Map 2 - Proposed Land Use Designations Densities and the number of units are determined based on the gross acreage of the site. However, if the Council were to adopt a Net Density policy it would reduce the number of units on both the Croak and Jordan properties. Please see the Net Density discussion below for further information. divided into Medium-Low Page 3 of 14 'Wo Conclusion - Land Use Designations The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties. The Medium-Low Density designation would also ensure that the homes have private yards. However, the land use designations do not guarantee the size of these private yards. A policy that requires a minimum rear yard setback, as discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, could define the size of the yard areas. Proposed Net Density Calculation Gross vs. Net Density Densities are typically based on either the gross or net acreage of a project site. The gross or total acreage of a site includes areas where development is not appropriate or feasible such as creeks, steep slopes and streets. By contrast, net acreage excludes those areas where development is not appropriate. The General Plan currently uses gross acreage to determine density. This enables the development of the maximum number of units, clustered in the developable area of the site. The following examples illustrate the difference between using the gross and the net acreage of a project site to determine densities. The 6.51 gross acre site is constrained by a creek and the right-of-way for public streets. As a result, the net or developable portion of the property (which excludes the hills and streets) is 3.99 net acres and is highlighted in orange in the net density example. The following table (Table 1) identifies the permitted number of units and density based on the gross and net acreage of the site. In both examples, the units are located on the same developable portion of the site (i.e. outside the creek area). The gross density example has more units because the density is calculated based on the overall (gross) area of the site. Similarly, the average lot size is smaller using the gross density calculation because more lots are clustered on the developable portion of the property. The smaller lot sizes would impact the size of the private yards unless maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard setback standards are applied to the project. Using gross density allows more units to be clustered on the developable portion of the project site when compared to the project with a net density. Gross Density Example Net Density Example GROSS AREA = 6.51 AC. GROSS AREA ?.?...?r PROJECT BOUNDARY x NET AREA ..........?a. PROJECT BOUNDARY Page 4 of 14 GROSS 9 ROSS NGROSS D.U. /AC. 38 .52 N1ET D.U./AC. NET 9 5.99 GROSS D.U./AC NET AREA 3.99 AC. GROSS AREA = 6.51 AC. Table 1- Gross vs. Net Density Calculations ross Acres Net Acres Units Units Gross Density Net Density 1 Gross Density) et Density) acres 6.51 3.99 acres 62 units 38 units 9.52 units/acre 5.99 units/acre Proposed Net Density Calculation As previously discussed, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a net density policy for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations on the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, Staff prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation: Net Acreage Calculation: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be cListered on one portion of the project site where such development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if the overall project remains within the permitted density range. Conclusion - Density Calculation The proposed net density calculation would reduce the overall density of future projects by reducing the area of the site used to calculate the permitted number of units. However, the natural features that typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other environmentally sensitive areas have already been designated as Open Space on the Croak and Jordan properties. The constrained areas of the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography (i.e. rolling hills) and streets. In addition, the net density calculation would not achieve the goal of providing larger private yards because it would not restrict the size of the home constructed on each lot. However, a minimum rear yard setback requirement, as discussed in the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report, would define the size of the rear yard areas. Private Yard Requirements The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation; permit a variety of attached and detached product types as discussed above. The Medium-Low Dens: ty designation requires each unit to include a private usable yard. The Medium-Mid Density designation would allow either a private usable yard for each unit or shared common areas. The following is a discussion of the proposed development standards for private yards and common areas within the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. Yard Requirements The following are current private yard requirements for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density designations. These requirements are based on the existing Stage 1 PD Development Standards that are currently applicable to the Croak and Jordan properties. However, a minimum "common yard area" requirement has been added for attached projects in the Medium-Mid Density that do not have private usable yards. Typical "common yard areas" include grass are a, playgrounds, and swimming pool facilities. The development standards for the exiting Stage 1 PD for the Croak and Jordan properties are tiered based on the size of the lot as illustrated in Table 2 below. It should be noted that the minimum rear yard setback dimension of 8' is the same for both lot sizes. This existing minimum yard dimension ensures that private yards have a dimension of 8' in at least one direction. These requirements would apply to private yards within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid designations, but may not be a sufficient dimension to provide usable rear yards. Page 5 of 14 X - & F a r0,: v x v a awn .,kr qv ; r3 sr t c r a , isHm x w? ? Aua W&WW Table 2- Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density" Lot Size 1,800+ s.f. 2,500+ s.f. 250 s.f. 300 s.f. Yard area may be provided in Yard area may be provided in Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit more than one location Win a lot: more than one location Win a lot: Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. courtyard area 80 s.f. Min. courtyard area 80 0, Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8' 8' *These are existing standards for the Low and Medium Density Land Use Designations for the Fallon Village PD. "Can substitute common area equal to 150s.f. per unit in lieu of private yard area in the Medium-Mid Density. A yard with a minimum depth or length of 8' would be fairly limited in size. Examples of what could occur in a yard of this size include a small patio and garden, a bistro table and chairs or lounge chairs and a barbeque. However, these amenities would leave very little room for a children's play area or play equipment. Please see the following photos from Roxbury for an example of what can occur in a yard with a depth of 8'. The following plot plan and photos illustrate the type of home and private yard that has been achieved on a 1,800 s.f. lot. The plot plan below depicts a unit is a single-family detached home located in the Roxbury development and includes 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a two car garage. Plot Plan -1,827 s.f. lot (43.5% Lot Coverage) Detached Home at Roxbury Page 6 of 14 F Private Yard at Roxbury (8' depth) Conclusion - Private Yard Requirements The existing minimum 8' yard dimension contained in the existing Stage 1 PD development standards will not provide a large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activities often associated with a rear yard. However, a minimum rear yard setback dimension can be established to ensure larger yards. Please refer to the Policy Alternatives section (Page 12) of this Staff Report for a discussion of rear yard setback requirements. ANALYSIS: Plannine Commission Action On November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan properties (Attachments 5 and 6). During the Public Hearing the Planning Commission expressed a number of concerns with the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed GPA, SPA and Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Attachments 7 and 8). The following is a discussion of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission: Concerns Raised by the Planning Commission Existing Product Type Planning Commission Concern #1: The Planning Commission felt that a product type that is in between a condominium and a larger single- family home already exists and they cited examples of such products in mature Single-Family neighborhoods in the Primary Planning area as well as in Medium Density neighborhoods in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Discussion: Primary Planning Area - The homes referenced by the Planning Commission are generally located in the area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron Horse Trail to the east, the northern City Limits and Dublin Boulevard to the south. The detached homes in this area have a General Plan Land Use designation of Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre). This is a less intense land use designation than Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre). Development on land designated Medium Density in this area primarily consists of apartments and condominiums. The detached homes are located in the Single-Family Residential (R- l) zoning district. The R-1 zoning district has development standards that allow a maximum 35% lot coverage for a 2-story home and 40% lot coverage for a single story home, and a minimum rear yard setback of 20'. The homes within this area were mostly built during the 1960's and 1970's and tend to be smaller homes built on larger lots than homes that are built today. Thus they are generally built below the maximum lot coverage requirement for the R-1 zoning district. Table 4 below provides average development statistics for these single-family homes in this area based on information obtained from the Alameda County Tax Assessor's data and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood. Table 4: Average Development Statkstics Lot Size Houae Size Lot CoveralI? 6,862 s.f. 1,478 s.f. 22% Page 7 of 14 4 " 7 r w k C, w* }Eastern Dublin Specific Plan - Approximately 4,434 Medium Density units are anticipated in the EDSP. Please refer to the map included as Attachment 9 which shows the location of the Medium Density land in the EDSP. Table 5 below provides a breakdown of the number of constructed attached and detached Medium Density units as well as the amount of remaining units to be determined in the EDSP. Table -5 - Medium Densitv Unit Tvne in the EDSP Unit Type Number of Units % of Total Units Detached 1,893 units 36.4% Attached 1,615 units 42.7% To Be Determined 926 units 20.9% Total Number of Units 4,434 units -- Lot sizes for Medium Density detached products average approximately 3,650 s.i'. Examples of projects with lots sizes consistent with this average include Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 and Roxbury. The Tassajara. Meadows Unit l subdivision provides an example of a typical Medium Density detached development. The following table provides average development statistics for the Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 development and is followed by an aerial view of a typical neighborhood. Table 6: Average Development Statistics - Tassaiara Meadows Unit 1 Lot Size House Size Lot Coverage 3,579 s f 1.097 s f. 53'1/ Page 8 of 14 fAl,.,wsM^?*#??3'9 a .At?,CJftUR in the EDSP Staff spoke with a local real estate agent about the market for single-family homes in the portion of the Primary Planning Area bounded by San Ramon Road to the west, the Iron Horse Trail to the east, the northern City Limits and Dublin Boulevard to the south, and in the Medium Density portion of the EDSP. The real estate agent indicated that while the homes in both areas are similar in size and price, the homes in the subject portion of the Primary Planning Area attract a different buyer than the Medium Density homes in the EDSP. The homes in this portion of the Primary Planning Area attract more first time home buyers who want a large yard, while the Medium Density homes in the EDSP tend to attract current condominium owners and buyers that want to downsize their home and do not want to maintain a large yard and an older home. Conclusion: The homes in the Primary Planning Area as described above are not a Medium Density product. These homes in the Primary Planning Area satisfy a different market need than the Medium Density homes located within the EDSP. The detached Medium Density homes that have been constructed in the EDSP tend to cover a large portion of the lot with smaller yard setbacks, therefore resulting in fairly small yard areas. U.sahle Yards Planning Commission Concern #2: The Planning Commission felt that the City can achieve private usable yards within the existing Medium Density Designation. Discussion: Private usable yards could be achieved within the existing Medium Density Designation. However, the EDSP has PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc.) that are tailored to each development. Therefore, there is no minimum rear yard setback requirement to guarantee usable private yards. Rear yard sizes in the Medium Density Designation in the EDSP typically range from 5'-15'. Without a specific rear yard setback requirement Staff cannot ensure a private usable rear yard. Page 9 of 14 Conclusion: Private usable yards can be achieved within the Medium Density Designation. However, the size of the yard can fluctuate within this density range. The required maximum lot coverage and minimum rear yard set back play a significant role in determine the size of the yard. The size of the yard will be the primary driver of what type of amenities can be accommodated in the yard. However, without a specific minimum rear yard setback Staff cannot ensure the homes achieve a usable private rear yard. Net Acreage Calculation Planning Commission Concern #3: The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the use of a net acreage calculation and the potential loss of developable units and the fairness of applying the net acreage calculation to select land uses and properties. Discussion: The owners of the Croak and Jordan properties have not submitted development proposals for review by Staff. Therefore, Staff cannot evaluate the full impact of using a net density calculation on these properties. However, the land use plan (Map 3 below) for Fallon Village (which includes the Croak and Jordan properties) was created using information in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) that was prepared for the project area. The RMP identified environmental constraints within the plan area. These constrained areas were designated as Open Space or Rural Residential/Agriculture in order to limit their development potential. Therefore, the impact of a net density calculation on the Medium Density portion of these properties would generally result from land dedicated to public streets and common areas, as well as slopes to a certain extent. Jordan Croak Ranch Property 1 09 AC 5.6AC Ir- AC jd£G 6NAC4' su, lDN iD 97.5 AC ?„,r;i 104kC ? AL ARk"W1Y. ...y9 ? r M 1 II I AC 1ni R, SSCJ{C - ____.____-_ Designated "` °' A` Open Space Fallon Village Center Boundary A ,a 5 AC GC'C0 GuCG ?P 199V IA,5Ar tl! Map 3 - Fallon Village Land Use Plan State used the Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 development, located at the northwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, to illustrate the potential impacts of a net density calculation (Please refer to Attachment 10 for the land use plan). Tassajara Meadows consists of 109 Medium Density detached units on 13.3-acres. The following table illustrates the Gross and Net Density calculations for the site. Tahle 4 - Tassajara Meadows Unit 1 Density Calculation Gross Acres Net Acres Gross Density Net Density 13.3 9.0 8.2 du/acre 12.11 du/acre * Excludes streets and common areas Page 10 of 14 Similar to Jordan Ranch, the environmentally constrained creek to the west of Tassajara Meadows is designated Open Space and does not impact the net density. However, the Tassajara Meadows site differs from the Croak and Jordan properties in that it is relatively flat while the Croak and Jordan properties have rolling hills. The rolling hills on the Croak and Jordan properties could result in undevelopable areas and reduce the unit count with a net density policy. Conclusion: The natural features that typically constrain development sites such as step slopes, creeks and other environmentally sensitive areas have already been designated as Op m Space on the Croak and Jordan properties. The constrained areas of the Croak and Jordan properties are primarily related to topography (i.e. rolling hills) and streets. The rolling hills and streets on the Crock and Jordan properties would reduce the number of units that could be constructed if the City Council adopts a net density policy. Flexibility of Future Development Planning Commission Concern #4: The Planning Commission expressed an overall concern that the proposed amendments would limit the flexibility to allow development to occur as driven by future market demands. Discussion: The City Council has the ability to set land use policies that will guide future development of the City. A market driven approach is based on the economics of real estate development and current housing trends. Developers will typically choose to develop housing product types that achieve the highest financial returns. Whereas, the City Council can assess the long-term needs of the community, establish a vision for the community, and then set land use policies to help achieve that vision. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations do allow for flexibility in the product types. The Medium-Low would allow single-family detached homes, duets, and townhomes. The Medium-Mid Density would allow single-family detached homes, duets, townhomes, and stacked products such as garden apartments and condominiums. One significant difference between the Medium- Low and the Medium-Mid Density is that the single-family lots would be smaller on the Medium-Mid designation which would potentially result in smaller homes. The proposed land use designations allow for a variety of product types to address future market demands. Conclusion: The proposed amendments would establish land use policies that address the City Council's assessment of the long-term needs and vision for the future of community. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium- Mid Density designations would ensure that a variety of housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties, However, the proposed amendments would limit the flexibility to construct stacked products with shared common areas on land designated Medium-Low Density. Limited Application of Policy Planning Commission Concern #5: The Planning Commission felt that the current policies are working well and that the proposed policies would have a limited impact on the community and result in small gains because the proposal does not cover a large area. Discussion: The City Council directed Staff to study the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties after considering the various properties within the EDSP and the status of vested development rights and current entitlement applications. The proposed land use change would affect approximately 33.8-acres Page 11 of 14 which currently includes 338 units or 7.6% of the anticipated Medium Density units in the EDSP area. However, the total number of units would be reduced if the City Council adopts a policy to use net density policy rather than the current gross density policy. Conclusion: While the area to be impacted by the proposed amendments is a small portion of the overall EDSP area, the proposed amendments would effect entire neighborhoods and ensure that the future development meets the needs of the community. The City Council could also choose to expand certain aspects of the proposed amendments, such as minimum yard requirements, to the Single-Family Designation on the Croak and Jordan properties. Need for Additional Data Planning Commission Concern #6: The Planning Commission would like to see market statistics to verify that there is demand for a certain product type that is not currently met with the existing housing stock and future development potential under current land use policies. Discussion: Dublin could retain an economic consultant to prepare a market analysis of current and future housing demand in the City. However, such an analysis would be costly and time consuming to prepare. The construction and sale of new homes in the EDSP area is ongoing which makes it difficult at any point in time to determine the current availability of homes. Conclusion: The availability of existing detached homes in the Primary Planning Area and the EDSP is fairly constrained. The City could retain the services of an economic consultant to study the current market conditions and future market trends in order to help develop policies to address those needs. Policy Alternatives The City Council expressed an overall goal to provide homes with private usable yards. While the proposal to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, combined with a net density policy and a private yard requirement will help to achieve a variety of housing types, densities, and yards, these policies will not directly achieve the desired outcome for larger private yards. Therefore, Staff has identified the following policy alternatives to help achieve larger private usable rear yards. These policies alternatives include adopting: A) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations and minimum rear yard setback requirements; or B) Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private yard requirements; or C) Other direction as provided :)y the City Council and Planning Commission. The following is a discussion of each policy alternative. A. Medium-Low and Medium Mid Density and Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirement If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) and large private rear yards are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties, the City Council and Planning Commi ision should consider adopting a combination of the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, and minimum rear yard setback requirements. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density designation would include attached and Page 12 of 14 detached units with private usable rear yards. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable common areas. The properties in the EDSP have PD zoning with development standards (i.e. minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc) that are tailored to each development. PD zoning with customized development standards is intended to be more flexible and allow greater creativity than traditional zoning with mandatory development standards. In the past, rear yards were allowed with a minimum 5'-15' setback. The existing PD development standards for Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties require a minimum rear yard dimension of 8' in one direction. The current 8' minimum dimension provides a fairly small yard that can accommodate a small patio and barbeque but does not accommodate a hot tub and may not provide enough room for school age children to play. If the City Council's goal is to establish private usable yards Staff recommends a requirement to provide a minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback. The increased minimum flat usable rear yard setback would apply to detached and attached homes with private yards in the Medium-Low Density designation and would ensure that each home with a private yard has enough space to accommodate family activities. However, the rear yard setback requirement on its own would not guarantee development of homes with private yards unless the City Council adopts the proposed Medium-Low density designation which requires private yards because the existing Medium Density Designation permits stacked products such as apartments and condominiums which do not have private yards. Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designation, and minimum rear yard setback requirements for the Croak and Jordan properties, the City Council would need to: 1) determine the appropriate minimum flat usable rear yard setback requirements; and 2) direct Staff to prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Arr.endments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new land use designations and minimum rear yard setback requirements. B. Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private yard and common area requirements If the intent is to ensure that a variety of housing types with reduced densities and small private yards are constructed on the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties then the City Council and Planning Commission should consider adopting the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations, net density policy and private yard requirements as previously discussed on pages 3-7 of this Staff Report. The proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, as described on page 3 of this Staff Report, would ensure that a variety of different housing types are constructed on the Croak and Jordan properties. The proposed Medium-Low Density designation would include attached and detached units with private usable rear yards. The proposed Medium-Mid Density designation would include either attached or detached units with private yards or usable "common yard areas". The proposed net density calculation as described on page 4 of -his Staff Report would reduce the overall density of future projects by reducing the area of the s:.te used to calculate the permitted number of units. The private yard and common yard area requirements, as described on page 5 of this Staff Report, would ensure that private yards would have a minimum dimension (depth or length) of 8'. The minimum 8' yard dimension contained in the existing PD development standards will not provide a large enough yard to accommodate many common leisurely activiti.-s often associated with a rear yard. Page 13 of 14 Therefore, as part of this alternative Staff recommends an amendment to the existing Stage 1 PD to require a minimum 15'-20' flat usable rear yard setback. Implementation: In order to adopt the Medium-Low and Mec.ium-Mid Density designation, net density policy, and private yard requirements, the City Council would need to direct Staff to prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new land use designations, net density policy, and private yard and common area requirements. C. Other direction as provided by the City Council and Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission receive presentation and direct Staff to proceed with either: D) Alternative A and prepare the appropriate General Plan and EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Designations and minimum usable rear yard setback requirements; or E) Alternative B and prepare the appropriate General Plan arid EDSP Amendments and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD Amendment to create new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations, net density policy, and private rear yard and common area requirements; or F) Alternative C and provide Staff with other direction. Page 14 of 14 P CITY CLERK_ 19 File # N ' 'I AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 3, 2007 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations for properties generally east of Dougherty Road and including the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map. 2) Village Policy Statement. 3) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Categories. 4) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Criteria. 5) Table of Built or Approved Projects with Vested Development Rights. 6) Map of Built or Approved Projects with Vested Development Rights. 7) Map of Land with Stage I Development Plans, bL t without Vested Development Rights. 8) Map of Land without Development Entitlements :und without Vested Development Rights. 9) Table of Land without Vested Development Righ s. 10) Map of Land without Vested Development Right.,, /?? ` ' - RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony, 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to either: a. Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); b. Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimur i usable yard area; c. Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre) and prepare a Specific Plan Amendm-nt to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard area; or COPY TO: Property Owners Fite ITEM NO.1 .8 4ME?'Page 1 of 12 A1TAC T i GAEail m Dublin Density\ c 4-3.07 East Dublin Dmsity.DOC a o,P I o9 Continue to implement the existing General flan and -1' Specific Plan policies. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Stratec Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residentad Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked fbits, etc.) on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density land use designation. Therefore, Staff has prepared this Staff Report to review the densities and the variety of housing types within the EDSP area in order for the City Council to provide Staff with direction regarding current residential land use policies and future residential development in the eastern portion of Dublin. History 1993 General Plan Amendment & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The planning effort for the eastern portion of Dublin was initiated by the City Council in 1987 in response to proposals for development of the Dublin Ranch property within the City's extended plannirg area. The City Council decided that, prior to acting on the applications of various property owners in this area, a comprehensive General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan should be undertaken to evala?te land use options for the area and the implications for the City's growth. A comprehensive General Plan Amendment, for the area known as the Eastern Extended Planning Area, was undertaken in anticipation of eventual development. The Eastern Extended Planning area includes approximately 3,300-acres of land both within the City Limits and beyond its boundary within the City's sphere of influence. Since much of the area involved large land holdings in agricultural us.-, a specific plan was needed to ensure long term comprehensive planning for future development of eas= Dublin. Much of the land in the planning area has been annexed to the City since 1993. The EDSP was prepared and simultaneously adopted with the General Plan amendment providing for a range of residential and commercial uses and establishing consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan. The EDSP envisioned a balanced community comprised of both housi:ig and job opportunities. The General Plan and the EDSP have been amended several times since the 1993 approval to include new properties and allow development consistent with the General Plan. These sanendments included the addition of the Transit Center in 2002 and Fallon Village (aka East Dublin Property Owner's Annexation Area) in 2002. With the addition of these 2 areas, the plan area is now approximately 4,400- acres in size. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a land use map for the EDSP area. Residential Land Use Designations The EDSP contains a variety of residential land uses which are dispersed throughout the EDSP area. Table 1 below illustrates the residential land use designations and densities permitted in the EDSP area. These residential densities allow for a variety of housing types including traditional single-family homes, cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked apartments and condominiums. Page 2 of 12 Table 1: Residential Land Uses and Density in Eastern Dublin 3 q log Residential Land Use Designation Density Rural ResidentiaVA 'culture 1 dwellin unit (du)/l 00 acres Single Family 0.9-6.0 du/acre Medium Density 6.1-14.0 du/acre Medium-Hi Density 14.1-25.0 du/acre Hi Density 25.1+du/acre The EDSP contains Guiding Policies regarding these residential land use designations including Policy 4-2 which states "encourage higher density residential development within convenient walkini• distance of shopping areas, employment centers, transit stations/stops, and other community facilities ". The existing EDSP Land Use Map (Attachment 1) depicts the land use designations withut the EDSP area. As depicted on the land use map, the EDSP generally concentrates commercial development (including retail, office, and industrial uses) near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, Interstate 580 and Dublin Boulevard. The higher density residential land uses (i.e. Medium Density, Medium-H:.gh Density, and High Density) are also concentrated near these commercial uses. The close proximity of the residential uses to the commercial uses allows the residents of these areas to take advantage of services and public transportation in the immediate vicinity. Residential densities generally decrease as you move away from interstate 580 and proceed north through the planning area, with the exception of the Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center as discussed below. The predominant residential land use designations in the northern areas of the Specific Plan are Single Family Residential, and Rural Residential/Agriculture and some medium density development along Tassajara Road. The Rural Residential/Agriculture land use designation has generally been applied to areas with steep slopes in order to protect these areas from development. The Fallon Village Center and the Tassajara Village Center contain a limited amount of lane, designated for commercial use. These two areas have designated commercial uses that are surrounded by land that is designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density residential uses. The Tassajara Village Center is located near the Contra Costa Cowry northerly City Limits boundary. Originally, the EDSP identified the Tassajara Village Center to be a larger, more robust commercial area to serve the needs of local residents surrounded by Medium Density and Medium High Density Almeria Cowry housing. However, the plans for the commercial component of the Tassajara Village Center have been scaled back as a result of the environmentally sensitive habitat in the project area. While it is no longer possible to achieve much commercial development due to site constraints, the Medium Density and Medium High Density land use designations remain in this area. The surrounding properties that are designated for Medium Density and Medium-High Density development include the Fredrich, Vargas, Mission Peak and Silvera properties which are discussed later in this Staff Report. Page 3 of 12 The commercial core of the Fallon Village Center is located south of the future Central Parkway extension and is designated for mixed use development (i.e. commercial and residential). The Fallon Village Center was designed to be consistent with the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement (Attachment 2) which encourages a variety of housing types. This commercial core is surrounded by Medium-High Density residential that transitions to Medium Density residential and then Single Family Residential as you move away from the village core commercial area. The Fallon Village Center includes the Jordan, Chen, and Croak properties. _.a Housing Types in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area Residential land use categories are defined in the EDSP and included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report. The residential land use designations/densities in the EDSP allow for a variety of housing types including single-family detached homes, detached cluster homes, townhouses, and stacked aparments and condominiums. The following is a list of the residential land use designations in the EDSP, and a description of the housing types that are typical for each of the residential land uses, fol owed by a photograph of the various housing types. Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 du/100 acres) Detached single-family: The home typically includes accessory structures also.iated with agricultural uses. Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/acre) Traditional detached single-family home: R? Typically located on lots that range in size 5,000- 10,000 square feet with a backyard. r, - - ?'?iMli?1cx: Medium-Density (6.1-14.0 du/acre) ¦ Small lot detached single family home: Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e. rear yard depth of 10'). Page 4 of 12 yq 109 • Detached cluster homes: Typically built around a motor court area with a small usable yard area with a depth of approximately 10'. 9 ¦ Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height with garage parking on the first floor and a small yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60-100 square feet of private usable space). t :.S LlY . °tt ? A ANNM, ¦ Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3 story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one another) with a small patio or balcony. Medium-High Density (14.1-25.0 da/acre) Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 3-5 story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one another) with a small patio or balcony. Page 5 of 12 • Townhouses: Typically 3-4 stories in height with garage parking on the first floor and a small yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60- 100 square feet of private usable space. High Density (25.1+ du/acre) Apartments/Condominiums': Typically a 4-6 story podium building (i.e. underground parking structure) with stacked flats (i.e. units on top of one another) that have small patios or balconies. Apartments and condominiums are similar to each other except that apartments are otfc-ed for rent and condominiums are offered for sale. Status of Entitlements for Land Designated for Residential Use A series of entitlements are needed in order to develop a residential project in the EDSP area The typical entitlements for residential projects include Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Dwelopment Review, Tentative Sub-Division Map (neighborhood of detached homes) and a Development Agreement (DA). The EDSP requires the adoption of Planned Development Zoning Districts (PD) for ill property within the EDSP area. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) requires adoption of a PD in a two stage process which includes a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 Development Plan as described in Attachment 4. While there are a variety of permits/agreements required for development, there are only two specific types that vest an Applicant's right to develop, which are a DA and a Vesting Tentative Map (\'TM). It should be noted that these development rights do expire based on the terms of the DA or VTM. Property owners with vested development rights have two choices if the development regulations change prior to expiration of the vested development rights. The property owner can complete th-: project in accordance with the vested development rights prior to the expiration of those rights, or eimstruct the project in accordance with current development regulations. Much of the residential land in the EDSP area has been constructed. However, there are a number of properties that have received all of the required crmtitlements and have a vested right to develop through a DA or VTM or both, but have not commenced construction or have not yet completed omstruction. There are also a number of properties in the EDSP area that have some of the necessary entitlements (such as a Stage 1 Development Plan) but do not have vested development rights (i.e. DA or VTM). There are also a limited number of properties that do not have any entitlements and therefore do not !nave vested development rights. Page 6 of 12 y I? Land that has been Constructed and Land with Development Entitlements and Vested Development Righu Since the EDSP was adopted in 1993, a number of property owners with residential land have vested their rights to develop their properties. In some cases these projects have already been constructed while others have not yet started construction. A list and map of the properties that have been constructed or have vested development rights are included as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. These derelopments include a variety of housing types as noted above. Apartments/condominiums are focused new transit and commercial centers as well as detached cluster homes and townhomes with small yard areas alang Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. Traditional single-family homes with larger backyards are located in the northern portions of the EDSP area, away from the commercial shopping areas and transit centers. Land with a Stage I Development Plan, but without Vested Development Rights There are seven properties that have an approved Stage 1 Development Plan that establishes the maximum number of dwelling units that may be developed. Table 2 includes a list of the properties within the EDSP that have obtained approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage I Development Plan is required as a condition of annexation. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village area, which includes the Jordan, Chen, Croak, Anderson, Branaugh, and Righetti properties, was revised subsequent to annexation to further refine the Development Plan for the project area. However, the owners of these properties have not yet vested their development rights. A map identifying the location of these properties is included as Attachment 7. Table 2: Land with a Stage 1 Development Plan, but without Vested Development Rights Project Residential Land Use Designation Acreage Maximum Dwelling Units Mission Peak (currently Single Family 19.5 103 under review for a Stage 2 PD and SDR) Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture 44.1 0 Jordan Single Family 48-acres 192 Medium Density 23.4-acres 234 Medium-High Density 19.8-acres 542 Mixed Use 6.4-acres 96 Chen Medium-Hi Density 4.0-acres 130 Croak Single-Family 115.4-acres 469 Medium Density 10.4-acres 104 Rural Residential/Agriculture 19.4-acres 0 Anderson Medium Density 7.0-acres ''0 Ri etti Medium Density 9.6-acres 96 Branau Medium Density 9.7-acres 97 Maximum Dwelling Units: 2-1133 These adopted Stage 1 Development Plans allow for development of a combined maximum of 2,133 units. The City is currently processing applications for additional entitlements for the Mission Peak property as noted in Table 2. There are no applications under review for the remaining six properties at this time. Land without Development Entitlements and/or without Vested Development Rights There are four properties within the eastern portion of Dublin that have General Plan designations for residential development but that do not have entitlements or vested development rights. (See Table 3). Page 7 of 12 The Vargas, Moller, and Tipper properties are currently located outside of the City Limits but ocatdd/o? within the City's sphere of influence. The City is currently processing an application to annex these three properties into the City of Dublin. The Tipper property is only proposed for annexation and is not proposed for development at this time. It should be noted that the Fredrich, Tipper and Vargas properties are within the EDSP area. The Applicant for the Moller property has requested annexation into the EDSP. The City is also processing applications for Stage 1 Development Plans for the Vargas, Moller, and Fredrick properties (Please refer to Attachment 8 for a map depicting these sites). Table 3: Land without Entitlements and without Vested Development Rights Potential Unite Property Owner Residential General Plan/ Land Based on Land Acreage Use Designation Use Desi atioa Fredrich 3.4 Medium-High 48-85 Dense Residential Moller*+ 226.0 Low Density & 0-413 Rural/Residential/ Agriculture Tipper* 8.2 Medium Density 50-115 Residential Vargas* 4.4 Medium Density & 59-110 Medium-High Dense Cam Parks 0 Public Lands** * Located outside of the City Limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence + Located outside of the EDSP area ** Property is zoned Agriculture Fredrich Prot) The Fredrich property currently has General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Medium-High Density Residential. The City is currently processing a request by the property owner for a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Development Plan to reduce the density on the site from Medium-High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family to allow F. maximum of 47 dwelling units. The request would reduce the maximum development potential of the property from 85 total dwelling units to a maximum of 47. The Applicant currently proposes to construct 37 detached single-family homes which range from 1,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet in size with smal i. backyards and tandem parking. The request to initiate the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment will to reviewed by the City Council as a separate item on this evening's agenda. Vary a typ?y The Vargas property currently has a General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designations of both Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. On June 6, 2006, the City Council authorized Staff to study a request for a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 Development Plan to reduce the density of the entire site to Medium Density Residential which reduces the maximum number of dwelling units from 110 dwelling units to a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The proposed housing product would be the same as that noted above for the Fredrich property (i.e. small lot detached single- family dwelling units) with tandem parking. The Planning Commission held a Study Session on January 23, 2007 to review the development proposal for the Vargas property and raised concern: about the proposed tandem parking for the project. Page 8 of 12 Moller Property 9 q N The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the Moller property is Low Density Res.dential and Rural Residential/Agriculture. On March 21, 2006, the City Council authorized Staff to study a request for a General Plan Amendment to increase the density of the site and a Stage 1 Development Plan to reduce the development envelope on the site as it result of environmental constraints. While this request would increase the overall density of the project, the developable area of the site would 1)e reduced, resulting in an overall decrease in the number of proposed units. The current proposal would result in a maximum development potential of 298 dwelling units, reduced from the current maximum of 413 dwelling units. The Applicant's development proposal consists of small lot single-family detached units with rear yards, and attached townhouses with usable private yards. Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Rcserve Forces Training The City is currently working with representatives of the United States Army regarding fmure private development of approximately 187 acres at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The 187- acre Camp Parks site is located to the north of Transit Center. The City has not yet received a formal application for development of this property and the exact number of units and frtur: land use designations for the site have not been determined (the site has a current General Plan Land Use designation of Public Lands). However, the City has completed a community visioning process for development of this property. The preferred development alternative identified through this visioning process includes a combination of single-family residential, medium-high density residential and high density residential land use designations. There are it variety of residential land use designation/densities for the land located east of Dougherty Road and within the EDSP area. These land use residential designations /densities have resulted in a variety of housing types as discussed above. These land use designations/densities and hosing types provide context for evaluating the variety of housing types available in Dublin and policy alte:matives to address future housing needs. ANALYSIS: During the Strategic Planning Session the City Council raised concern regarding densities and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) within the community. The City Council expressed an interest in alternatives that would achieve single-family housing types that are detached and provide a usable yard area. The City Council has the authority to modify existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations (which includes a density increase or decrease) and/or create new development standards at any time. It is important to note, however, that state law (Government Code § 65863(b)) prohibits a city from reducing the residential density for any parcel or allowing development of any parcel at a lower residential density than called out in the General Plan Housing Element without making additional findings. However, the properties without vested development rights (Attachment 9) were not identified in the Housing Element to meet the City's share of the regional housing needs allocation. Therefore, such findings would not be necessary if the densities for these properties were modified. Issues such as the net and gross acreage calculations as defined in the General Plan and development regulations such as parking standards will also have to be fully analyzed if the City Council chooses to direct Staff to review land use designations and/or create new development standards. In a(:dition, the City Council should consider the impact that a change in development regulations could have 6)r property owners. The following is a discussion of the impact to property owners if the City Council were to adopt new development regulations. Page 9 of 12 Impact of New Policies O q 'D Existing Residential Development: A change to the development regulations would only apply in the event that the development is replaced with new construction which required new entitlements. A change to the development regulations for an existing development would effectively render the development a legal non-conforming use. The legal non-conforming status could affect a property owner's ability to reconstruct a demolished unit. Land with Vested Development Rights: DAs and VTMs vest a property owner's development rights based on the rules in place at the time of vesting. Although certain properties do have vested development rights, those rights can terminate with the expiration of the DA or VTM. Therefore, a change to the development regulations would not affect land with vested development rights unless the vested rights were to expire. The City Council may authorize changes to the development regulations for property with vested development rights. If the City Council authorizes changes to the development regulations for properties with vested development rights, the property owner may develop the property in accordance with the vested rights (before the development rights expire), or develop the property in acco -dance with the new development regulations. Land without Vested Development Rights: There are a total of 12 residential properties that do not have vested development rights and could therefore be subject to new regulations established by the City Council (Attachments 9 & 10). Developers typically spend large sums of money to obtain ent tlements to develop their property. For example, a Stage 1 Development Plan outlines the basic development parameters including maximum densities and permitted uses. However, a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review Permit require design work, plans, and drawings that illustrate the proposed development (Attachment 4). Therefore, a developer invests a considerable amount of time and money to obtain a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review permit. All development applications are required to be consistent with the EDSP. If the City Council modifies the EDSP, then all applications would be required to be consistent with the new regulations. Application of New Policies: Therefore, the City Council should consider at what point new development regulations should apply to land with existing entitlements. The City Council should decade if new development regulations should apply to: 1) existing residential development; 2) properties that have achieved full entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; 3) properties that hale achieved partial entitlements, but have not vested their development rights; and 4) properties that ale currently processing an application for entitlements with the City. Policy Alternatives Staff' has identified four policy alternatives for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densities and the variety of housing stock available in the City of Dublin. These alternatives include: A:, adopt new land use designations; B) adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; C) adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP ihat require minimum yard sizes; or D) continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies. A. Adopt New Land Use Categories The Medium Density Land Use Designation permits 6.1-14 du/acre. The lower end of his density range (i.e. 6.1-10 du/acre) results in a lot size that ranges from approximately 4,356 to 7.140 square feet. Lots within this density range can readily accommodate a detached single-family housing type that includes a usable rear yard area. Densities between 10.1-14 du/acre result in lot size:; that range from approximately 3,110 to 4,310 square feet in size. These are relatively small lot si:ses and are more difficult to develop a detached housing type with a usable yard area while maintaining a Page 10 of 12 - ___ -- I I I oq minimum distance between buildings. Deutched units with usable yards in this density range Are typically small lot cluster developments such as the "Courtyards" development. The City Council could divide the existing Medium Density Land Use Designation imo two new categories (i.e. Medium-Low 6.1-10 du/acre, and Medium 10.1-14 du/acre). The new Medium-Low designation would encourage development of housing types including detached single-family homes with private yard areas. The new Medium designation would encourage development of more compact medium density housing types such as detached cluster homes and townhomes. Implementation: In order to adopt new land use categories, the City Council would need io: 1) direct Staff to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to create two new designations chat include Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); and 2) identify which properties with the Medium Density Residential designation should be re-designated as Medium-Low and which properties should be re-designated as Medium. B. Adopt New Development Standards The EDSP requires the adoption of PD zoning districts for all property with the EDSP area. PD zoning is more flexible and allows for greater creativity to develop property than allowed under traditional zoning which has mandatory development regulations such as required setback: and height restrictions. Further, the EDSP land use designations provide for a variety of housing types (i.e. the Single Family Land Use Designation permits single-family detached housing while the Medium Density designation allows development that includes small lot detached housing, and townhouses, etc.) Development standards can be used in a similar fashion to traditional zoning to require a developer to incorporate certain design aspects into developments that the City Council deems as desirable to the community, such as a minimum sized usable private yard area. Therefore, the City Council could adopt development standards in the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes for property with a Medium Density Land Use Designation. All Medium Density development that is subject to the new development standards would be required to provide this minimum private yard area. There currently are no required minimum private yard standards in the EDSP. Implementation: In order to adopt new development standards the City Council would need to: 1) direct Staff to prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to create development standards; 2) determine the appropriate usable private yard area to include in the development standards; and 3) detennine which land use designations would be subject to the development standards. C. Continue to Implement Existing General Plan/Specific Plan Policies After reviewing the status of existing and proposed development as noted in this Staff Report and the development policies contained in the EDSP, the City Council may be satisfied with thy: variety of housing that is being constructed within the EDSP area; in which case, the City Council could elect not to modify the existing land use designations or adopt new development standards at thi: time. Implementation: Accept this Staff Report and direct staff to continue implementing the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies. Page 11 of 12 CONCLUSION: P?f The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations (i.e. increase/decrease densities) and adopt development standards. Staff has identified four policy alternatives for the City Council to consider when reviewing the densities and the variety of housing stock available in the City of Dublin. These alternatives include adopting new land use categories (i.e. Medium-Low Density and Medium Density) to encourage medium density detached housing with usable yams, adopting new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum private yard sizes, adopting new land use categories and new development standards, or continuing to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies. If the City Council decides to pursue changes to the land use designation or development standards, Staff will conduct the appropriate review and analysis prior to returning to the City Council for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to either: a) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre); b) Prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard area; c) Prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre) and prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to adopt development standards that require a minimum usable yard area; or d) Continue to implement the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies. Page 12 of 12 ?k?,?a?"t ..,. .,:.. .-. r: ,. ., .,. i.? r.,;? ?M? ? air'' , ` 'w?e?' e.. s:?,?, .. , ?? e d E t u A Q CITY OF DUBLIN VILLAGE POLICY STATEMENT s w!ff L.!v?ffOx xonx ntrenex SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Attachment 2 150A VILLAGE POLICY Introduction The Policy described below is not a Planning legal requirement for new development Th is Policy Statement is a definition of a Village used to refine and enhance special areas in the comtr.unity 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. AcnlicabAity 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 becc me a legal requirement. The Villafe Policy s s 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 orated in Villages. An emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design should be required. Villages should have these characteristics: I A Village location should be compatible with the local environment including surr3unding 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; 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 pedestrian walkability, permits a sufficient mixture of residential and public/private uses and convenient commercial areas. 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 locatiors in Dublin shall be prepared by Staff for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council. GAPANUOD U-025MI[ago Poticy Statement Revisims from CC mt&doc 1-1 '' Program 4P: The City shall work with East Bay Regional Parks District regarding the provision of staging areas in the Specific Plan area. 4.8 LAND USE CATEGORIES This section describes each of the land use classifications used in the Land Use h1ap in Figure 4.1. Chapter 6 on Resource Management and the Open Space Framework Map (Figure 6.1) provide supplementary information on open space uses. Appendix:! includes more detailed description of the specific land uses that are considered appropriate for each Specific Plan land use designation. Table 4.1 summarizes land use acreages in the planning area by the designations described below. 4.8.1 RESIDENTIAL Rural Residential/Agriculture (.01 units per gross residential acre). Accommoda tes agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management, consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed house! cold size is 3.2 persons per unit. Singe Family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). Accommodates the majority plan for Parks and Open Space, or Public/Semi-Public uses. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. Medium Density (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for a mix if single family detached and attached units and multi-family units. The density range allows for detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development. It is intended that within areas with this designation, that dwelling unit types and densities would be varied to accommodate a range of housing needs. Assumed householc size is 2.0 persons per unit. Medium High ncity (14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre). Provides for apartment, condominium, and townhouse development. Projects at the upper er d of this range may require some under-structure parking and may need three or more stories in order to meet zoning ordnance open space requirements. Assumed household size is 2.0 persons per unit. High Density (25.1 or more units per gross residential acre). Provides for apartn' ent and condominium development in the Town Canter. Development at these densities must meet the majority of their parking requirements with under-structure parking. With careful design, densities of up to 100 units per acre can be achieved without exce !ding four stories. Assumed household size is 2.0 persons per unit. 46 Attachment 3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT Chapter 8.32 CHAPTER 8.32 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT 8.32.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to: A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site. B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property. C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and applicable Specific Plans. D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the City. E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas sucl. as open space areas and topographic features. F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site. G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the area. H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those expected in conventional developments. 8.32.020 Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environme it than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. 8.32.030 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to property .rnly upon designation of the site as a Planned Development Zoning District pursuant to procedures set forth in Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment. A Planned Development Zoning District shall be established by the adoption of; in Ordinance reclassifying the property to such district and adopting a Developrr ent Plan. A Development Plan shall constitute a District Planned Development Plan as required by Chapter 1 1.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Development Plan shall establish regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property within the requested Planned Development Zoning District, and may be adopted in stages, as follows: A. Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage I Development Plan shall be adopted for the er tire Planned Development District site with the reclassification of the property to the Planned City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-1 September, 1997 Attachment 4 101 q PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTFUCT Chapter 8.32 Development Zoning District. The plan shall establish the permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 1 site plan, site area and proposed densities, maximum number of residential units and non residential square footages, a phasing plan and a Master Landscaping Plan; statements regarding consistency with General Plan and Specific Plans, and consistency with 1nclusionary Zoning regulations, an aerial photo, other information necessary for the review of the proposed project and any provisioi is as further described in the Application section below. B. Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan for all or a portion of the entire Planned Development District site may be adopted with the Stage I Development Plan at the time of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or may be adopted at a subsec uent time as a separate Zoning Ordinance Amendment(s) pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoni ig Ordinance Amendment. A Stage 2 Development Plan shall establish permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 2 site plan, site area and maximum proposed densities, maximum numbers of residential units by type and non residentid square footages for each use, development regulations, architectural standards, preliminary landscape plan, other information necessary for the review of the propose project; and any provisions as further described in the Application section below. All Subdivision Maps, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Development Reviews within r. Stage 2 development area shall be consistent with that Stage 2 Development Plan. Where phased development of the Planned Development Zoning District is proposed, Stage 2 Development Plans may be requested by the developer for portions of the property within the Planned Development Zoning District. Ministerial and discretionary permits may be issued only for those portions of a Planned Development District for which a Stage 2 Development Plan has been adopted. 8.32.040 Application. The Planned Development Zoning District may be requested pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and Chapter 8.12', Applications, Fees, and Deposits, in the form specified by the City of Dublin. The application shall be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Dublir General Plan and applicable Specific Plans, and shall (subject to modification by the Director of Community Development and or the Planning Commission) include the following: A. Stage I Development Plan. The Stage I Development Plan shall include all of the following information and materials for the entire Planned Development Zoning District site: Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, includi:mg permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. Stage 1 Site Plan. A Stage 1 Site Plan showing the location and arrangement of existing and proposed land uses, and proposed development stages for the entire Planned Development Zoning District, and uses and structures within 300 fee City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-2 September, 1997 "2n% PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT Chapter S.32 beyond the district boundary; location of public uses including but not limited t parks, schools, and trails; proposed entry monuments; existing and proposed locations of freeways, arterials and collector streets. 3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of site, maximum densities for residential and non-residential development, minimum densities where applicable for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or applicable specific plans; and maximum number of residential units and or maximum non-residential square footage. 4. Phasing Plan. A phasing plan shall show the boundaries, timing and sequencing, gross and net areas and densities, and non-residential square footages, for development within the entire Planned Development Zoning District. It shall ilso include existing and proposed land uses; major features of the circulation system including any existing and proposed freeways, arterials, and collector streets; other infrastructure requirements including water supply, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, and drainage systems. 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Provide a Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan showing parks, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and hardscape proposed at the neighborhood level. 6. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. A written statement addressing consistency with all elements of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. 7. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. A written statement addressing compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the provision of affordable housing. This statement should supplement any statement regarding compliance with th e Housing Element of the General Plan. 8. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo of the proposed district and 300 feet beyond its boundary showing sufficient topographic data to indicate clearly the character of the terrain; the type, location, and condition of mature trees, and other natural vegetation; and the location of existing development. 9. Other Information. Other information as required by the Department of Community Development as necessary for the substantive and environmental review of the proposed project. B. Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan shall include the followit ig detailed information and materials for all or a portion of the site, as applicable under any proposed or adopted phasing plan: City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-3 September, 1997 C;21 oP , PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT Chapter 8.32 1. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. A written statement demonstrating compatibility of the Stage 2 Development Plan with he Stage I Development Plan. 2. Statement of proposed uses. A written Statement of Proposed Uses, includu ig permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. A detailed site plan for all or a portion of the Planned Development Zoning District showing the location and arrangement of existing and proposed land uses on the site and within 100 feet beyond its boundary; existing and proposed circulation system; existing structures and proposed general building areas; contours; parking areas, driveways and loading areas in general; limits of grading; and phasing boundaries per the Stage 1 Developme it Plan. 4. Site area, proposed densities. Gross and net area of the Stage 2 site; maximt m densities for residential and non-residential development by type, minimum densities where applicable for compliance with the Dublin General Plan or applicable Specific Plans; and maximum numbers of residential units by type ;md or maximum non-residential square footage for each use. 5. Development Regulations. Development regulations for lot areas, lot square footage per dwelling unit, lot width and frontage, lot depth, setbacks, distance!; between residences, maximum lot coverage, common useable outdoor space, Iloor area ratios, height limits, parking, driveways, loading areas, signage, grading standards, and trash enclosures, accompanied by any necessary diagrams. 6. Architectural Standards. Area-wide and project-wide architectural standards, concepts, and themes. 7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. A Preliminary Landscaping Plan implementing the Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and complying with Chapter 8.7;, Landscaping and Fencing Regulations. 8. Other Information. Other information as required by the Department of Community Development as necessary for the substantive and environmental review of the proposed project. 8.32.050 Permitted Uses. No use other than an existing use is permitted in a Planned Development Zoning District except in accordance with a Development Plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 32-4 September, 1997 "I -) _w 4 `c v C L u _.: .? . ?.,,.,? ? ?#,a+w? .#?£.,??;k. , ?. ?!«w ?.:?s-asda.?? ° ' -?YSa?d? ? ?;?". ;?aw?a? • ?? a?? G s u .. y Q AndA#??4v?e+s n1wMa..N?,/7 rw ?? ewe.ti: ?vw, -?i,; :.. ? ,... , .. ., ? -.- . a, ._ .? ,, _., c v ® C> i III ? x?? I i t I $ k I ? A b i I tt (l 5 3+ F z c a •ir fig, ..t ? v, ?E N I ss Cl. al 77 ? Y dt E ?' ? i yyyy qq}` A @ ? 3 Ss 77.. ? i E gg s f3 L3_? [loFi 'R51 mINums OF TnE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN R$BMAR 1EME S - APPJ I. S, 8007 Y?! V -*S1 10)ZI A closed session was held at 6:48 p.m., regarding: I. CONFERENCE *7THREAL PROPERTYNEGOTL4TORS (Government code section 54936.8) Property: 11759 Dublin Blvd. (Dublin Square Shopping Center) City Negotiator: City Manager Negotiating parties: City of Dublin; Berkeley Land Company, Inc., a California Corporation Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None -40? PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. i DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MI NMS VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 118 Attachment 2 30? Linda Mandolin, Executive Director of Eden Housing, thanked the Council and Staff for efforts in negotiations. The Housing Authority was going to select Overland Pacific and Cutler as the relocation specialists for this project. Eden Housing had worked with them on previous projects, including one in which they relocated 150 seniors, and had done a wonderful job. There would be two meetings with the residents and smroundmg residents on April 24 to discuss the development of Arroyo Vista. Mayor Lockhart stated that outreach to the surrounding neighbors was very important since they would be curious about the project, as well as the fact that there would be an increase in units. Assistant City Manager Pattillo stated that during the RFQ process, Eden Housing, as well as Citation, noted the importance of viewing this as a community project and involving the surrounding neighbors. Eden had been involved in tough projects where at the end; everyone in the community was celebrating the project. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vcte, the City Council 1) Authorized the Mayor to sign the ENRA on behalf of the City of Dublin; 2) Directed Staff to include a reserve in the Inclusionary Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund for a future loan of $1,500,000 as a low interest loan to Eden Housing for the affordable rental units; and 3) Directed Staff to include an appropriation from the Ilclusionary Zoning In Lieu Fee Fund in the amount of $250,000 for Transactional Cost in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget. NEW BUSINESS Review of General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations for Properties Generally 7:53 p.m. 8.1 (410-20) Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider providing Staff with direction regarding current residential land use policies and future residential development for the properties generally la:ated to the east of Dougherty Road and included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area . DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 126 iI Council and Staff discussed the. number of residents, 60,000 to 70,000, estimated in the city's original environmental plan and whether changing the number of residents now would affect financial prognostications for the City. With unexpected dwreases and increases in number of units of developments, the numbers had stayed pretty much on target. The City was very close to mid-point resident numbers, taking into account developable land and environmental constraints, and tracking pretty close to medium density. Mr. Milton Righenti, Dublin land owner/developer, commented on working with the City and the need for cooperation of neighboring land owners. Aside from City regulations, he had difficulty in coming to any agreement with the neighboring property owner with respect to access to the property in a place where the City would like the access located. He was unable to get secondary access to his property. H. urged the Council to stick with the present PD-2 process. Mayor Lockhart commented that the Council needed to consider the infrastructure needs of the City in relation to funding provided by development, and with less development, the City would need to come up with more money for infrastructure. She understood how this issue had come out of a previous Council workshop in talking about density levels, but she did not believe there was a tremendous amount of support at the time of the workshop for this issue. She did not want to change the rules if people had been working on plans with the City and had spent money already. Thy: City had a commitment to follow-through with them based on what the rules were no vv and what they had already brought to the City. Vm. Hildenbrand stated she had brought the density issue forward at the Council workshop because, on a consistent basis, she had heard from residents t1u.t there was only a limited amount of housing stock that allowed them to grow. They had a choice to purchase a condominium or townhome or they could move some place eLie, and they chose to move elsewhere. The City was missing a balance of housing. The commitment to the residents was to have less density housing as you moved away from the freeways, but the development community consistently brought dense housing before the Council. Mayor Lockhart asked how many Dublin residents, that could afford a townhome, would be able to afford single-family housing. Vm. Hildenbrand stated that there were a variety of single-family homes, sw;h as cluster or row homes that compared and were just as interesting to people that were in the same price range as condominiums. The City was not providing an opportunity for people to grow. When this issue was brought up at the Council workshop, there was a consensus DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL M MUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING Apr113, 2007 PAGE 127 3? %, to look at the issue of density. The Council had a commitment to its resident.; to balance the housing. The developers came before the Council with condominiums and townhomes and would say that was all they could provide in the project in order to make ends meet. The City did not have the next-step homes for resident:. looking to move. Cm. Sbranti commented that the City had provided a good balance of horsing. What was coming on-line was single-family or medium density housing. But what has been built now was near the freeway because there were not as many environmental constraints. A lot of what was zoned for higher density had been built, bit now, the projects further out were going to be built and help balance it out. He was willing to look at the concept of medium low density. He did not want to change the entire City development standards. Because the City had a Medium-High density category, he was willing to look at where it might be appropriate to create a Medium-Low density category, just for the level of consistency. There were not that many properties left in Dublin that would be affected by any changes made by Council. Vm. Hildenbrand reiterated that even with Medium density, the Council would still see condominiums and townhomes where they were expecting to see single-family dwelling units. A Planning Commissioner had relayed to her that the Commission f.-It the train was out of the station so they felt that was the way the Council wanted to move forward. She stated that may have been how the Council wanted to move forward vi 1993, but not now. Cm. Scholz asked if what Vm. Hildenbrand was supporting was not in conflict with what the Mayor had suggested could happen with infrastructure not getting built. Vm. Hildenbrand stated that if the Council went with Option B as outlined in the Staff Report, it would not be modifying the infrastructure so severely that Dublia Boulevard could not be built out as far as it needed to go. They could build cluster or row homes, or alley loaded homes. Cm. Oravetz stated he did not see the plan as being broken so he did not want to change it. Every Councilmember had a vote, and if Vm. Hildenbrand did not like a project that came before Council, she could vote no and say she did not like it. If three Councilmembers voted no, the developer would have to revise that project. She did have a vote. The City had a long term financial plan, and if it was changed now, how would it affect that financial plan. If he had a choice, he would like to see single-story homes built in Dublin, but condominiums were what sold these days. If that was what sold in east Dublin, then that was what should be built. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 128 33 Vm. HAdenbrand commented why should the City let a developer make a huge financial investment, then come before the Council and not have plans approved and have to have them revised. Why not make those changes before that developer made that huge investment. Two years ago the Planning Commission came before the Cnmcd at a workshop and asked why not take this opportunity to maybe change the setback and make some yards and at that time, she was the only one that supported the issue and it was voted down. City Attorney Silver clarified that that if a project came before the Council that needed a General Plan Amendment or a Specific Plan, the Council had total discretion to turn it down. But if the project was for a Stage 2 PD, for example, the Council had to have some reason for turning it down. If it was not within the density ranges or the zoning for the land use densities in the General Plan, then the Council could turn it clown. But it was not going to get to the Council not being within the ranges. It might lx: at the low end or the high end, but when the Council adopted the City's General Plan end Specific Plan, the Council said the developers could come in at the low end or the hii;h end. The point at which the Council had total discretion was at the General Plan and Specific Plan level. When you were below that, the Council could not arbitrarily turn someone down. The Council and Staff discussed what number of properties in Dublin were totally unplanned and which developers had not been working within the structure of the City's General Plan for eastern Dublin. Council was directed to a list in the Staff Report that detailed properties and acreage. There were four properties that were totally unplanned now, Croak, Jordan, Camp Parks and Chen. In looking at the Medium density category acreage of these properties, it totaled approximately 57 acres of land that would be affected if changes were made by the Council. Camp Parks had other restrictions that would also affect its development. Cm. Sbranti stated that it was misleading to say that all the City had done was High density or Medium-High because the City had done a variety, leaning toward, Medium, Medium-High and High only because in order to build, it was being done closer to the freeway. He was willing to look at the Medium-Low density category concept of getting more variety of Medium designations. He would ask Staff where they might recommend some of the Medium-Low designation. The economic models of the future of the City were based on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There had been changes in the plan due to environmental constraints that had sometimes increased density and sometimes lowered densities. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 129 Vm. Hildenbrand stated that she was not saying the City was only building Medium- High. But what the Council was consistently seeing in Medium density designations was a majority of condominiums and townhomes. Focusing in on Medium where the City had an opportunity to provide small yards for activity, was not being offered as often as the City was offering condominiums and townhomes in Medium density housing. She was not saying change the land designations, but look at the possibility of Silting more, small homes with yards so residents could move out of their apartments, townhomes or condominiums, and have a home of their own with a yard. Cm. Sbranti commented that a Medium-Low density category would achl-ve, at least conceptually, what Vm. Hildenbrand was suggesting. Mayor Lockhart stated that there were single-family homes in the City of Dublin that had big back yards. Vm. Hildenbrand stated that those older homes might need remodeling aid with the money you had spent on purchasing the home, and then the money you would use to remodel, you could afford to buy a new single-family home outside of Dublin. The Council discussed the high number of condominiums on the market not only in Dublin, but in the State of California, due to the economy. Cm. Sbrand reiterated that looking at a density category of Medium-Low would achieve some of the detached housing options being suggested. By having a Medium, Medium- High and Medium-Low density it would achieve that. But there wem not many properties that this would affect. Mayor Lockhart suggested looking at the few properties that were left in Dublin that were not in a planning process and ask if it made sense on that particular project, to zone it that way, when they first came in to speak to the City. Vm. Hildenbrand asked if the Council should give Staff direction to encourage more homes that were detached, single or cluster. Right now Staff was letting those developers come through and if it met the range, they were seeing more townhomes and apartments. Cm. Scholz asked if any of the options outlined in the Staff Report reflected what Vm. Hildenbrand was advocating. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL NRNUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 130 (0 to v City Attorney Silver stated that in the City's General Plan, there was a description of the different types of residential densities, Single-Family, Medium, Medium-High, etc. The discussion had in part focused on creating a Medium-Low density category, taking a Medium density, which was 6.1 - 14 du/acre, and splitting it up into two different categories. In the City's General Plan, the language said that the current range allowed detached, zero-lot line, duplex, townhomes and garden apartment developments suitable for family living and the Specific Plan contained similar language. So if the Council directed Staff to consider a new land use designation of Mediwn-Low, the Council could specify then the types of units allowable in that land use category and could achieve the same goal that Vm. Hildenbrand was suggesting. It could indicate that the homes had to be detached, for example. The Council had a lot of flexibility. The Council would have to amend the City's General Plan to create the new land use category and it now described what type of units were allowable, so you o3uld do the same thing in the Medium-Low density category if the Council created it. Mayor Lockhart asked Staff how extensive a process it would be to amend the City's General Plan to add a category and a description of a category. City Attorney Silver replied that if the City amended the General Plan it would also have to amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Specific Plan had to be consistent with the General Plan. It would require compliance with CEQA. Jeff Baker stated that both the General Plan and Specific Plan would have to be amended and would have to take a look at the Environmental Review. City Attorney Silver stated that the EIR for Eastern Dublin assumed the mid-point for its analysis and if the Council took the Medium density category and split it into two categories; you would basically be at the midpoint. Right now, half of the development could come in at the lower range and half at the higher half. So if you split the category in two, that is what would also happen. Cm. Sbranti stated that the City had a Medium-High density category, there was a Medium density category, but there was not a Medium-Low, so that would achieve getting more of the housing types and it would not change things too dramatically, and it would be worth looking at. City Manager Ambrose stated that the environmental review that the City had today was based on Medium anyway, so there would not be any more traffic impacts h=use there was Medium density, the Council would just be splitting the Medium density in two. It DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 131 3 6 op ?I would still fall within the range of the number of units that had beers originally evaluated as part of the environmental document. Mayor Lockhart reiterated her concern for not changing the rules on people that were already in the process of developing, at some stage. If there were properties that could be affected by a Medium-Low density category that the City could look at, if and when they ever did decide to plan, then she was fine with taking a look at it then. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to accept Option D, continue to implement -:he existing General Plan and Specific Plan. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Cm. Sbranti made a motion to accept Option A, Prepare General Plan/S]xcific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-L 3w 96.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acre). City Manager Ambrose asked for clarification from the Council as to what properties would be affected by this item. The Council and Staff discussed at what point of interaction with the City, and what properties, would be affected by this item. Narrowing down the properties would make it easier for developers to know what was expected before they come before the Council so the Council would not have to vote them down. Cm. Oravetz stated that he could vote no on any issue. City Attorney Silver stated that Cm. Oravetz could vote no, and if there was a. majority of the Council that denied an application that was consistent with the General Flan and the Specific Plan, the City Attorney would urge the Council to include findings as to why the Council was denying it. For example, it might be consistent with the density ranges in the General Plan and Specific Plan, but if there was some other General Plan policy with which it was not consistent, that would provide a basis for denying it. The Council concurred that Staff would go back and look at a category of medium-Low for the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties, where there was currently a Medium designation. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 132 ...310 On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz opposed), the City Council directed Staff to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to include two new land use designations including Medium-Low (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium (10.1-14 du/acres) in relation to three properties, Croak, Jordan and Chen. Request to Initiate a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to Modify the Existing Land 9:08 pan. 8.2 (410-55/420-30) Senior Planner Erica Fraser presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Study request. Cm. Sbranti asked Staff if there was any other property with a neighborhood commercial designation once it was taken away from this property. Community Development Director Jeri Ram stated that there was some agricultural zoned land along Tassajara Road that might come in for a change at some point and time, south of Silvera Ranch. It included a signalized intersection. The Council discussed the convenience of having a small store in that are a because it would be a good opportunity. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 39 - 07 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO REDUCE THE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND REMOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOS: ATED AT 6960 TASS JARA ROAD (APN 986-0004-002-03) PA 07-004 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2007 PAGE 133 y 19 1 CITY CLERK File #[:]E:,--- '3201 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2007 SUBJECT: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations for the portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties with an existing Medium Density land use desi ;nation. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: I ) City Council Staff Report date April 3, 2007 w/ attachments 2) City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3, 2007 3) Table of Built or Approved Projects 4) Map of Built or Approved Projects RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony, 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to: A) Prepare a General Plan/Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as defined in this Staff Report; B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Stage I PD Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties to: 1) Amend the existing Medium Density site to create two equal sized sites that include Medium -Low Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations shown in this Staff Report; or 2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12; 2007. During this Strateloc Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) with private COPY TO: Property Owners File ITEM NO. _ Page 1 of 10 ' GAE&nwn Dublin Dauiry1cm 10. 16.07 Em Dublin Dmity.DOC b Attachment 3 yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and prepared a Staff Report for the April 3, 2007, City Council meeting (Attachment 1). The Staff Report included the following four policy alternatives to address densities and the variety of housing stock available within the City of Dublin: A) Adopt new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing Medium Density designation; or B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or C) Adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or D) Continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specific Plan policies. On April 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use policies for the EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land use policies and future development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of housing types that include smaller detached single-family homes with usable yards on undeveloped land with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the April 3, 2007 meeting included as Attachment 2) to provide a housing type that is in between an stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and Chen) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 development plans as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1- Land without Current Planning Proposals property Land Uss on Danaity Ran A"" Croak SI am 0.9$ Woe 115A ac Medium Density 6.1-14 dulac 10.4 ac Jordan Sirde-Family 0.9.6 dulac 48 ac Medium Density 6.1-14 Wag 23.4 ac Medium-H 14.1-25 dulec 19.8 ac Chen Modium-Hlah Density 1 14.1-25 dulacre 6.5 The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ikinendment (GPA/SPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/scre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Medium Density land use designation (6.1-14 du/acre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. The entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5-acres with a Medium-High Density land use designation (please see Table t). Therefore, the Chen property is not included in the analysis contained in this Staff Report. Similarly, the Jordan properly includes 21.8-acres of land with a Medium- High Density designation that has not been included in this analysis. However, the City Council may direct Staff to study Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations on the existing Medium-High Density land on the Chen and Jordan properties if the Council feels it is apxt)priate at these locations. Page 2 of 10 1 e Existing Land Use Designations The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties are located within the Fallon Village project area which includes a variety of residential land uses. The existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use designations for these properties were adopted by the City Council with the GPA/SPA for Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-05). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SE1R) was prepared for the Fallon Village GPA/SPA and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-05). The SEIR studied development at the approximate midpoint of the residential density range for the Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties (with the exception of the site designated Medium-High Density on the Jordan property which anticipated development at the maximum density of 25 du/acre). Please refer to Table 2 below for details regarding the residential densities of property 'included in this GPA/SPA study. A Fiscal Analysis was also completed to ensure a jobslhousing balance in the EDSP and to ensure that new development paid for itself without relying on the General Fund. Table 2 - Existing Land Use Designations ^ The Fallon Village SEIR studied development at the maximum density (25 du/acre) on the Medium-High Density portion of the Jordan property. • The residential portion of the Chen property consists entirely of 6.5-acres with an existing General PlaniSpecific Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density. The Chen property has an obligation to provide a 2.5-acre site with a Semi-Public (SP) land use designation within a portion of the 6.5-acres designated as Medium-High Density. The SP site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acres. The SEIR studied development at the midpoint of the density range for the full 6.5-acre parcel allowing up to 130 units as shown in Table 2 above. However, the density range on the net 4-acre site permits a maximum of 100 units (4 acres X 25 units/acre = 100 units). Property Land Use Designation Density Ran a Midpoint Density _ Acres Dwelling Units Croak Single-Family 0.9-6 du/ac 4 dulac 115.4 ac 462 units Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 units Jordan Single-Family 0.9-6 du/ac 4 du/ac 48 ac 192 units Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 units Medium-High Density 14.1-25 du/ac 25 du/ac" 19.8 ac 495 units" Chen Medium-High Densi 14.1-25 dulacre 20 du/ac 6.5' 130 units' ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak and Jordan properties and surrounding properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement (included as a part of Attachment l) in order to prepare this Study. Staff has prepared a description of the proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential housing types that could be developed within Page 3 of 10 it 6Z these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location for these proposed designations. Proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations Staff has prepared the following definitions for the newly proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium- Mid Density land use designations: Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per gross residential acre). Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private usable outdoor yard areas. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units per gross residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable for family living. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Potential Housing Types Several developments with the existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/acre) designation within the EDSP were approved at the lower end of the density range and are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low (6.1-10 da/acre) designation. A table and a map of these approved projects are included as Attachments 3 and 4 to this Staff Report. Projects that are consistent with the proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) designation are highlighted in Attachment 3. The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations would permit a variety of different housing types within each designation as described above. The following is an illustrated list of potential residential unit types to help illustrate the type of units that could be constructed on land within each land use designation. Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) • Small lot detached single family home: Typically with a small usable rear yard area (i.e. rear yard depth of 10 feet). • Detached cluster homes: Typically built around a motor court area with a small usable yard area with a depth of approximately 10 feet. Page 4 of 10 tea ¦ Duplex: Typically two units built side by side with a shared common wall and a small usable yard area (i.e. rear depth of approximately 10 feet). Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) ¦ Alley loaded single family detached homes: Typically built with a detached garage that is separated from the house by a private yard area with depth of approximately 10 feet. ¦ Detached cluster homes: Typically built around a motor court area with a small usable yard area with a depth of approximately 10 feet. a • Townhouses: Typically 2-3 stories in height " with garage parking on the first floor and a small RAM W I yard, patio or deck (decks typically provide 60- 100 square feet of private usable space). Page 5 of 10 1,13 • Apartments/Condominiums*: Typically a 2-3 story stacked product (i.e. units on top of one another) with a small patio or balcony. Emmil " Apartments and condominiums are similar to each other except that apartments are offered for rent and condominiums are offered for sale. Within the Medium-Low density land use category there are greater opportunities for detached housing types with usable yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached cluster and duplexes. The Medium-Mid density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. However, the Medium-Mid Density also allows townhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category will be at the discretion of the developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range. creation of the Fallon Village Center which serves as the social and economic center for the project area (The Fallon Village Center is outlined in blue on the maps, included in this Staff Report). The Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties are located within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon Village project area includes a variety of residential land use designations with higher residential densities focused primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to . : activate the Village Center and promote a pedestrian oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village Center is a Neighborhood Square that is surrounded by Mixed Use, which includes ground floor retail and residential units above, and Medium-High Density residential units. The densities reduce to Medium Density as you move away from the Village Center and transition to Low Density residential uses to the north and east. Application of Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and Jordan Properties The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the ?;E Page 6 of 10 ?, , Croak Property The existing 10.4-acre Medium Density site on the Croak property forms the eastern boundary of the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a transition from the more intense Mixed Use and Medium-High Density Residential uses in the Village core and the less intense Low Density Residential use located to the north and east of the Village Center. Proposed Density The existing Medium Density site on the Croak property is proposed to be divided into two 5.2- acre sites with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations. Table 3 (below) shows the density range for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Croak property. Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same number of units (104 units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (sce Table 3) and continue to ensure the existing jobsihousing fiscal balance. These units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be required. TAhie 3e Croak Prnnerty - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density Units at Impact on Land Use Designation Density Range Midpoint Density Acres Mid-Point Total Units at Midpoint Density Density Medium-Low Densi 6,1-10 du/ac 8 dulac 5.2 ac 42 units - Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 62 units - Total 10.4 ac 104 units None Page 7 of 10 ySI Proposed Land Use Map In order to maintain the transition in intensity of land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less intense single-family uses to the north and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium- Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) site immediately to the east of the existing Medium-High Density site and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The proposed Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) site would be located to the east of the proposed Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition from the higher density of the Village Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east. Jordan Ranch The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium Density land use on the Jordan Ranch forms the northern boundary of the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a transition from the more intense Medium- High Density Residential use located to the south and the less intense Low Density Residential use located to the ay>' north of the Village Center. , Jordan Proposed Density The Medium Density site on the Jordan property would be divided into two 11.7-acre sites designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density. Table 4 (below) shows the density range for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan property. Like the Croak property, development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the same number of units (234 units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 4) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balance. 'T'hese units would simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be required. Page 8 of 10 Units at Impact on Land Use Designation Density MidPoint Acres Mid-Point Total Units Range Density Density at Midpoint Density Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 du/ac 8 du/ac 11.7 ac 94 units - Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 11.7 ac 140 units - Total 23.4 ac 234 units None Table 4: Jordan Ranch - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density" Proposed Land Use Map In order to maintain the gradual transition in land uses from the higher densities in the core of the Village Center to the less intense Single-Family uses to the north, Staff recommends locating the proposed Medium-Mid Density site (1.1-14 du/acre) adjacent to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) land use would be located further to the north to provide for a transition from the higher density of the Village Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east. By creating the Medium-Low land use designation and applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan properties, there is an opportunity for the development of detached housing and other unit types with usable private yard areas. Fallon Village Stage I Planned Development The Croak and Jordan properties are all located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PD) zoning district. A Stage I Development Plan (Stage 1 PD) was adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-05). The Stage i PD has a number of different elements including a site plan and proposed densities for each property within the PD district. The Stage 1 PD is required to be consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, a Stage 1 PD Amendment will be required to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Staff will prepare a Stage I PD Amendment along with the proposed GPA/SPA for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date. Communication with Property Owners A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within the EDSP area that do not have vested development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting on April 3, 2007 and the meeting on October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties to discuss the direction from the City Council at the April 3, 2007 meeting. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On April 3, 2007, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a General Plan/Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create two new land use designations including Medium-Low Density Page 9 of 10 v., T, 11 1 1WT1 101, N :11 !1! m (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) for the existing Medium Densi po?bn of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with usable yards. Accordingly, Staff has prepared a GPA/SPA Study for consideration by the City Council. Since the Chen property has no lands that are designated Medium Density, the Chen property was not included in this GPA/SPA Study. Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Star with further direction regarding the proposed land use designations for the Croak, Jordan and Chen prc•perties. If the City Council elects to proceed with this GPA/SPA and Stage 1 PD Amendment, Staff will prepare the appropriate documents for review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive public testimony; 3) Deliberate; and 4) Direct Staff to: A) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations as defined in this Staff Report; B) Prepare a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 PD Amendment for the Croak and Jordan properties to: 1) Amend the existing Medium Density site to create two equal sized sites that include Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density at the locations shown in this Staff Report; or 2) Provide Staff with Alternative direction. Page 10 of 10 MURMES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 2007 CLOSED SESSION Silent Roll Call: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart present. A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Government Code section 54956.8 Property: APN 941-1560-007-01 City Negotiator: City Manager Richard Ambrose; Economic Development Director Chris Foss Negotiating parties: Advanced Computer Technologies, Inc., dba All Video Repair (William Barnett or Tricia Leckler); Finishmaster, Inc. (Tom Eastland or Greg Calhoun); Ultimate Home Solutions (Andrew Hunter or Joe Bolin); Consignment & More (Simin or Hermin Lalefar); Chefs Touch Catering (Stephen Orgain); I.S. Bank (Julie Schmidt) Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision c (5 potential cases) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision a City of Dublin v. Ralph Gil, et al, Alameda Superior Court No. VG05241773 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivi:ion c (one potential case) - Dropped from Agenda DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 423 Attachment 4 ? Cm. Sbranti stated he found the information interesting, citing the low use o1' Section 8 Vouchers in the City of Dublin. Mayor Lockhart spoke in support of the information. The City Council received the report. Review of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to Create Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Land Use Designations for the Portion of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties with an Existing Medium Density Land Use Designation 7:40 p.m. 7.4 (410-20) Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that during a previous Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City regarding densities and the need for a variety of housing types. He included the follow-up direction f :)r Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to create new medium-low density and medium-mid density residential land use designations for land with an existing medium density land use designation, citing the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties, located within the Fallon Village Center. Senior Planner Baker clarified that the entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5 acres with medium- high density land use designation and the Jordan property includes 21.8 acres of land with a medium-high density designation that have not been included in the analysis. He concluded his presentation with existing land use designations, the proposec land use designations and an analysis of the proposed densities, including potential hou! ing types, stating that the proposed density would not require additional EIR review. Cm. Sbranti asked if a developer designated a part of the property as open space, would all of the units then be built on the remaining property? DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16,2007 PAGE 431 r, Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded on ratio entitlements, citing the method of calculating development density is on the gross area of the parcel, so that would exclude things like open space requirements or a creek and creates a smaller building area, so the product type is actually constructed at a higher density. He stated projects are developed at the density according to the entire acreage of the site. The gross acreage calculation is really intended to help facilitate and encourage preservation of protected o- sensitive areas. City Manager Richard Ambrose asked how density would be calculated if a developer wanted more open or common space? Senior Planner Jeff Baker responded it would be analyzed, but would still fall under the gross density and the developable area would be where the units are going to be so you could potentially end up with a slightly more dense product then if you didn' : have any open or common space on site. Cm. Sbranti stated he understands the density is factored using the gross acreage:. Mayor Lockhart requested clarification of potentially calculating density on not acreage, using an example of developing 20 units on ten acres (gross density) versus 20 acres on five acres (net density). She asked why the density is not calculated using the developable land instead of the entire property? City Attorney Elizabeth Silver responded that at the level the General Plan and Specific Plan were done in 1993 that information was not available, as you get down to the more refined planning levels, you have that information. Mayor Lockhart asked if the General Plan could be changed now? City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that if he understands Council cottunents, the question is could you change the General Plan so that you have a policy that specifies that density is based on the net developable acreage? Mayor Lockhart responded yes. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 432 /1 Vm. Hildenbrand responded that is how some developers get around tE.e density requirements; they build up because they have some areas they cannot build on. Common space is provided, but building up defeats the purposes of establishing density ranges. City Manager Ambrose asked if the goal of the Council is to create homes wth private yard space? Senior Planner Baker responded that in the proposed definition for medium-low density, a requirement is included to provide usable open space or private yard space. He stated language defining yard area could be included in the Specific Plan to help address the issue of private yard spaces. Mayor Lockhart asked if the density would be denser to accommodate private yard space? Senior Planner Baker responded that could happen but the developer would still be restricted by density range? City Manager Ambrose asked about townhome density ratios and Senior Planner Baker responded townhomes are in the medium-mid density, the higher end of thu medium density range. City Manager Ambrose asked if the 6 - 10 density range absolutely precludes imy multi- family attached housing. Senior Planner Baker responded you could have an attached product, as long its it has a private yard, but not a stacked product. City Manager Ambrose responded that ii the goal of the Council is to make curtain that development within that density has a private yard, that Staff would have to put together a General Plan Amendment that accomplishes that. Vm. Hildenbrand responded that it is her understanding that is what the medium-low density is providing, but would have to be specified if that is made a requirement in the medium-mid density range. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 433 5.21 City Manager Ambrose stated he still thinks there is a gross versus net issue, depending on how the developer approaches that. He indicated they might provide more common space that is not required to be open space and asked Council to keep in mind that a lot of the open space the City has, is environmentally sensitive areas that developers cannot use anyway and if you want to make certain you will end up with the product you hope you're going to get, I think we need to look at that more closely and make sure that i:> what we bring back to you in the General Plan Amendment. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver recommended that level of detail be included in the Specific Plan but not in the General Plan. Mayor Lockhart stated this might be the last opportunity to offer more units with back yards. She spoke on concerns regarding giving developers development credit for land they cannot build on and allowing them to take that number and transpose it on a smaller space. She used the example of six units per acre being six units on''/2 acre if lialf of the acreage is not usable. Cm. Sbranti commented on the importance of calculating gross versus net density, particularly in the medium-low density. Councilmembers discussed density ranges and transition from the more intense mixed use and medium-high density residential uses to medium-low density uses. City Manager recapped that Council supports the medium-mid and medium-low land use designations as proposed by Staff and prefers net density calculation to drive lower density in both categories and require a yard in the medium low density range. Mr. Croak spoke on concerns relating to the development of the Croak prope.-ty, citing complexity of planning the 42 units that would be included in the med-love density, requested an exemption, and requested Stage 2 Planning Process for the Croak property be considered. Vm. Hildenbrand clarified the Croak property proposed medium-low density and medium-mid density total 104 units and referred to correspondence received from Jordan property owners in support. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 434 53 oP Cm. Oravetz commented on considering Mr. Croak's request for an exemption and Stage 2 Planning, citing the topography of his property. Mayor Lockhart spoke on the priority of planning the entire community and providing residents backyards and a range of housing. She spoke in opposition to exempting the Croak Property. Vm. Hildenbrand spoke in opposition to exempting the Croak Property. City Manager Ambrose recommended making density ranges part of the General Plan and commented on providing the development community direction. On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by a majority vote with Cm. Oravetz voting no, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with preparation of a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would split the current medium density designation into medium-mid and medium-low; and for both de.aignations of the properties identified in the Staff Report, that the densities be based on the net acreage and that yards would be required for the medium-low category. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 and 8.2 heard concurrently. Approval of First Amendment to Recreational Use License Agreement with the Alameda Countv Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) 8:35p.m. 8.1 (600-40) Approval of First Amendment to Access and Maintenance Agreement with Tassajara Creek Maintenance Association for Landscape Maintenance of Creek Parcels Owned by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7 8:35 p.m. 8.2 (600-30) DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2007 PAGE 435 .54q AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 27, 2007 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Legislative Action) - PA 07-056 Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallor Village PD - Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and 1Qedium-Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium Densi: portion of the Croak and Jordan properties. Report prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan/Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to: 1) change the existing Meditun Density Land Use Designation on 1 V?yV the Croak and Jordan properties to new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Designations and 2) define Medilan-Low and Medium-Mid Density as two new land use designations with the draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties Aith the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 3) City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007 with Attac vnents 4) City Council Meeting Minutes from April 3, 2007 5) City Council Staff Report date October 16, 20)7 without Attachments 6) City Council Meeting Minutes f-om October 16, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: I) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolution!.: a. Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to new Medium-Low C-ensity (6.1- 10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1.14 du/acre) designations; and COPY TO: Property Owners File ITEM NO. Page I of 12 CAPAM2007\07-056 0ook and Jordan Medium Density\Planning Comminionlpcsr 1127.07 East Dublin Density.DOC Attachment 5 b. Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending ThZ? City Council approve a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The City Council held a Strategic Planning Session on January 12, 2007. During this Strategic Planning Session the City Council discussed the existing General Plan and Specific Plan Residential Land Use Designations within the City of Dublin. Concerns were raised during this discussion regarding densities and the need for a variety of housing types (i.e. detached units, row homes, stacked flats, etc.) with private yards on undeveloped land within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area that has a Medium Density land use designation. Staff studied the densities, residential land use policies, and the status of entitlements for the land designated for residential development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and prepared a Staff' Report for the April 3, 2007, City Council meeting (Attachmen: 3 - City Council Staff Report dated April 3, 2007). The Staff Report included the following four policy alternatives to address densities and the variety of housing stock available within the City of Dublin: A) Adopt new Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for property with an existing Medium Density designation; or B) Adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or C) Adopt new land use designations and adopt new development standards to the EDSP that require minimum yard sizes; or D) Continue to implement the existing General Plan/Specifrc Plan policies. City Council Direction On April 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the residential land use po icies for the EDSP area in order to provide Staff with direction regarding the current residential land use policies and future development within the EDSP. The City Council expressed a desire to encourage a variety of housing types that include smaller detached single-family homes wiI usable yards on undeveloped land with a Medium Density land use designation (please see City Council Minutes of the Aril 3, 2007 meeting included as Attachment 4) to provide a housing product type that is between a stacked product and a larger single-family detached unit. The City Council identified three properties (Croak, Jordan and Chen) within the EDSP that have no entitlements beyond Stage 1 development plans as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 - Land without Current Planning Proposals Property Land Use Designation Density Range Acres Croak Single-Famil 0.9-6 dWac 115.4 ac Medium Dens' 6.1-14 d 10.4 ac Jordan Single-Family 0.9-6 du/ac 48 ac Medium Density 6.1-14 du/a 23.4 ac Medium-High Dens' 14.1-25 du/ac 19.8 ac Chen Medium-Hi Densi 14.1-25 dWar:re 6.5 The City Council directed Staff to study a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/SPA) to create new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Dens ty (10.1-14 du/acre) residential land use designations for land with an existing Medium Density land use designation (6.1-14 du/acre) on the Croak, Jordan and Chen properties. Page 2 of 12 Existing Land Use Designations The Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties are located within the Fallon Village project area which includes a variety of residential land uses. The existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use designations for these properties were adopted by the City Council with the GPA/SPA for Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-05). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village GPA/SPA and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222- 05). The SEIR studied development at the approximate midpoint of the residential density range for the Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties (with the exception of the site designated Medium-High Density on the Jordan property which anticipated development at the maximum density of 25 du/acre). Please refer to Table 2 below for details regarding the residential densities of these three properties. A Fiscal Analysis was also completed to ensure a jobs/housing balance in the EDSP and to ensure that new development paid for itself without relying on the General Fund. Table 2 - Existing Land Use Designations 5-1 q Prop" Land Us* Designation Density Rang* Midpoint Dens Acres Dwellir y Units Croak Si le-Faml 0.9.6 du/ac 4 du/ac 115.49c 462 unis Medium Density 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 10.4 ac 104 unis Jordan Single-Family 0." dulac 4 du/ac 48 ac 192 uni s Medium Dens' 6.1-14 du/ac 10 du/ac 23.4 ac 234 uni s Medium-H' h Density 14.1-25 du/ac 25 dulwl 19.6 ac 495 units" Chen Medium-High Density 14.1-25 du/acre 20 du/ac 6.5' 130 units' " The Fallon Village SEIR studied development at the maximum density (25 du/acre) on the Medium-High Density portion of the Jordan property. The residential portion of the Chen property consists entirely of 6.5-acres with an existing General Plan/', pecific Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density. The Chen property has an )bligation to provide a 2.5-acne site with a Semi-Public (SP) land use designation within a portion of the 6.5-acres dcs ignated as Medium-High Density. The SP site effectively reduces the residential development to approximately 4-acrts. The SEIR studied develorment at the midpoint of the density range for the full 6.5-acre parcel allowing up to 1341 units as shown in Table 2 abave. However, the density range on the net 4-scre site permits a maximum of K0 0 units (4 acres X 25 units/ac) e = 100 units). Staff reviewed the existing land use patterns for the Croak, Jordan, and Chen properties, surrounding properties, the concept for the Fallon Village Center, and the City of Dublin Village Policy Statement and prepared a second report for the City Council's consideration. At the October 16, 2007 City Council Meeting (Attachment 5 - City Council Staff Report dated October Ili, 2007) Staff presented i description of the proposed land use designations and descriptions of potential hausing types that could be developed within these designations; an analysis of the proposed densities; and maps showing the proposed location for these proposed designations. Page 3 of 12 Map 1- Existing Land Use Designations The entire residential portion of the Chen property consists of 6.5-acres with a Medium-High Density land use designation (please see Table 1). Therefore, the Chen property was not included in the analysis contained in the Staff Report for the City Council Meeting on Octcber 16, 2007. Similarly, the Jordan property includes 21.8-acres of land with a Medium-High Density designation that was not included in the analysis. On October 16, 2007, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report and the GPA/SPA Study in order to provide Staff with further direction regarding the proposed land use policies for the Croak and Jordan properties. The City Council expressed a concern over the policy to calculate densities based on gross rather than net acreage. The City Council also expressed a desire to include minimum yard requirements for the proposed Medium-Low Density designation. On a motion, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a GPA/SPA and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to: 1) Create Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties; 2) Calculate densities for the proposed land use designations based on net developable acres; and 3) Require usable yards for development within the Medium-Low Density designation. ANALYSIS: The following is a discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment to address the direction by the City Council. General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 1: ¦ Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations ¦ Definition for density calculations based on net acreage ¦ Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties ¦ Amendments to the text and tables within the General Plan The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments include the following as described in Exhibit A of Attachment 1: • Definitions for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations ¦ Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map for the Croak and Jordan properties • Amendments to the text and various tables within the Eastern D,iblin Specific Plan 1) Proposed Land Use Designations Staff has prepared the following definitions fbr the proposed Mciiium-Low Density and IWledium-Mid Density land use designations which address the direction by the City Council to include private usable yard areas for development within the proposed Medium-Low Density designation: Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yari areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or gander apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable cutdoor yard auras that accommodate Page 4 of 12 leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that acas.1e recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities nay be similar or varied. Ass ed household size is two persons per unit. In addition to the definitions for the two new land use designations, the term "net density" that is used in these land use designations needs to be defined in the General Plan and the EDSP. 2) Definition of Net Density The General Plan land use designations for residential properties identify minimum and maximum densities. These densities are based on gross acreage calculations (i.e. gross acreage includes streets, open space, and environmentally constrained areas where development is not appropriate:, etc). As a result, development may be clustered on a smaller area of the overall project site. The :histering of development can result in exceeding the density for the developable area but remaining within the density range for the overall project site. The following tatle (Table 3) illustrates the density calculation for a 10 acre project site using the gross and the net acreage of the site. The resulting project would appear much more dense than the same number of Units on a non-constrainel parcel. Table 3 - Gross vs. Net Density Calculation Example Parcel Developable Land Ilse Mid-point !Size Constraints she Deal radon Dena) Jnlts Gross Density Not Density 10 acres Creek: 3 acres 5 acres Medium Density t 10 dWac - 100 units (1C acres x 10 dulac Streets: 2 acres (ti.1-14 dWac) - - 10 units (100 unas/10 ac) ) At the City Council meeting on October 16, 2007, the City Council directed the use of a net acreage calculation to determine the density of development on land with the proposed Medium-).ow Density and Medium-Mid Density designations. The net acreage calculation excludes public/private streets, parks, open space, and common areas, as well as geologically and environmentally constrained areas. Therefore, the proposed GPA/SPA includes a requirement to calculate density based on net acreage for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations only. These bvo new land use designations will apply to a portion of the Croak and Jordan properties (Exhibit A ?o Attachment 1). Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage cak:ulation to address the City Council's direction: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium Mid Density land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmental ly constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 3000. Development shall not be clie-tered on one portion of*the project where the development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if the overall project remains within the density range when the density is calculated for the entire project area. The policy to exclude common areas from the density calculation functions as a disincentive for developers to provide common areas within developments. Therefore, the definition of tie proposed Medium-Mid Density designation includes a requirement to provide either a usable common area or private yard area. Staff has also proposed an amendment to the existing Stage I Devel(pment Plan (discussed below) to establish development standards that implement the General Plan policy regarding private yards and common areas which would apply to the new land use designat ons. Page 5 of 12 Potential Housing Types The proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations wculd permit a variety of different housing types within each designation. An illustrated list of potenti,d residential product types to help illustrate the type of units that could be ccnstructed on land within each of the newly created land use designation is included on page 4 of Attachment 3. Within the n:w Medium- Low density land use category there are greater opportunities for detached housing types with usable yards, including small lot detached single-family, detached cluster and duplexes. The Medium-Mid density also allows detached alley loaded homes and cluster homes with yards. However, the Medium-Mid Density also allows townhomes and apartments/condominiums which typically do not have usable yard space. The actual product type that is proposed within each land use category will be at the discretion of the developer provided that the product is consistent with the density range. 3. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Map Changes Application of two new Proposed Land Use Designations to the Croak and Jordan Proper lies The land plan for Fallon Village was formed around the creation of the Fallon Village Center which serves as the social and economic center for the project area (The Fallon Village Center is outlined in blue on the maps included in this Staff Report). The Medium Density portion of the Croac and Jordan properties are located within the Fallon Village Center. The overall Fallon Village project area includes a variety of residential land use designations with higher residential densities focused primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to activatt: the Village Center and promote a pedestrian oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village Center is a Neighboriood Square that is surrounded by Mixed Use, which includes ground floor n:tail and residential unit, above, and Medium-High Density residential units. The densities reduce to Medium Density as you move away from the Village Center and transition to Low Density residential uses to the north and easi. a. Croak Property The existing 10.4-acre Medium Density site on the Croak property forms the eastern boundary of the Fallon Village Center. This site provides a transition from the more intense Mixed Use and Medium-High Density Residential uses in the Village core and the less intense Low Density Residential use located to the north and east of the Village Center. ---J ty ; ']I Proposed Density ..I The existing Medium Density site on the Croak property is proposed to be divided into two 5.2- acre sites with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations. 'Table 4 Fallon Villag (below) shows the density range for the proposed l Center Bounds Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density sites on the Croak property. Development at the midpoint of the proposed density range would result in the Map 2- Existing Land Use IAaigoations same number of units (104 units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see'fable 4) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balame. These units woulc simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would be required. Page 6 of 12 Table 4: Croak Property - Proposed Medium-Low Density Sir Medium-Mid Derisity Impact at Land Use Designation Density Midpoint D it Aeros Units at 11 Mi n Total Units at Midpoint Range ens y e e Density W Medium-Low Dens' 6.1-10 du/ac B du/ac 5.2 ac 42 units - Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 du/ac 5.2 ac 62 units - Total 10.4 ac 104 units None Mp 19.4 1C i t t t ?- t :rr 1 kc ; Proposed Land Use Map In order to maintain the transition in intensity of land uses from the core of the Fallon Village Center to the less inti-rise single-family uses to the north and east, Staff proposes to locate the new Medium- Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) site irrmediately to the east of the existing Medium-High Density site and adjacent to the future Central Parkway. The proposed Mecium-Low Density (6.1-]0 du/acre) site would be located to the east of be proposed Medium-Mid Density site to provide a transition from the higher density of the Village Center to the Low Density n•:ighborhoods to the north and east. b. Jordan Ranch _ The existing 23.4-acre site of the Medium P' Density land use on the Jordan Ranch t'orms the northern boundary of the Fallon Village Center. , Jonlan MI AC This site provides a transition from the more Ranch o.1:", intense Medium-High Density Residential use 1 Ranch located to the south and the less intense Low t 97A o Density Residential use located to the north of the sv K Village Center. Proposed Density The Medium Density site on the Jordan property would be divided into two 11.7-acre sites designated Medium-Low Density and Medium- Fallon Village Mid Density. Table 5 (below) shows the density enter Boundary range for the proposed Medium-Low and WCl4 eo Medium-Mid Density sites on the Jordan property. Like the Croak property, development ! at the midpoint of the proposed density range Map 4 - Existing Land Use Designations would result in the same number of units (234 units) that were studied in the Fallon Village SEIR for the existing Medium Density designation (see Table 5) and continue to ensure the existing jobs/housing fiscal balance. These units would Page 7 of 12 Map 3 - Proposed Land Use Designations (Croak Property) simply be redistributed across the proposed Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations and no additional environmental review would b: required. 6' Table 5: Jordan Ranch - Proposed Medium-Low Density & Medium-Mid Density Units at impact I; Land Use Designation Density Ramie Midpoint Density Acres Mid-Point Total Units at Mldpa Int Density Denslt Medium-Low Density 6.1-10 dulac 8 dulac 11.7m, 94 units Medium-Mid Density 10.1-14 du/ac 12 dulac 11.7s. 140 units - Total 23.4 a. 234 units None Proposed Medium-Mid Density 1? FOR . 0.9 m A.4 C Proposed Land Lse Map in order to maintain the gradual transition in land uses from the higher densities in the core of the Village Center to the less intense Single-Family uses to the north, Staff recommends locating tl.e proposed Medium-Mid Dcisity site (10.1-14 du/axe) adjacent to the existing Medium-High Density land use. The Medium-Low De isity (6.1-10 du/acre) land use would be located further to the north to provide for a transition from the higher density of the Village Center to the Low Demity neighborhoods to the north and east. Proposed Medium-Mid Density L0R v7s Ac Fallon Village Center Boundary Map 5 - Proposed Irnd Use Designations (Jordan Property) By creating the Medium-Low land use de:.ignation and applying the land use to the Croak and Jordan properties, there is an opportunity for the development of detached housing and other unit types with usable private yard areas. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP 1) define die propose Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations, 2) define net acreage, and 3) amend the General Plan and EDSP Land Use Maps to incorporate the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density land use designations on the Croak and Jordan properties; and 4) amend the text and various tabl!s in the General Plan and the EDSP as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Furthermore, the Croak and Jordan properties are part of an approved Stage 1 Development Plan which also requires amendments as discussed below. Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan The Croak and Jordan properties are located within the Fallon Village Planned Development (PD) zoning district (PA 04-040). The PD zoning with Stage I Development Plan were adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005 (Ordinance 32-05). The Development Plan has a number of diffen:nt elements including a site plan, statement of proposed uses, and development standards. The Development Plan implements, and is therefore required to be consistent with, both the General Plan and EDSP policies. It is necessary to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan in order to ensu -e consistency with the General Plan and the EDSP. The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan include a revised Stage I Site Plan for the new land use categories, a modified list of permitted uses, and revised development standards for the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land tses as described in Exhibit A of Attachment 2. Page 8 of 12 Usable Private Yard Requirement The proposed General Plan Amendment includes a requirement z provide private usable for development within the Medium-Low Density designation. Similarly, the Medium-Mid Density designation includes a requirement to provide either private usable yards or common areas as described above and in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment implements the General Plan policies for private yards and common areas for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. The Iviedium-Mid Density designation allows for a variety of different product types which include attached mntd detached units that could provide either common areas or usable private yards depending on the product design. Therefore, the Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment establishes minimum standards for the private usable yards for the Medium-Low Density, and private yards and -ommon areas for the Medium-Mid Density as required by the General Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes the following as described below and in Exhibit A to Attachment 2. ¦ Usable yard requirements for detached units in the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density using the existing requirements for units with Low Density and Medium Density designations. • Usable yard requirements for attached units in the Medium-Lcw and Medium-Mid Density • Common area requirements and usable yard requirements for Medium-Mid Density Detached Units with Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density Design itions The existing Stage 1 Development Plan includes a matrix with development standards, including usable yard requirements, for detached housing within the Low Density and Medium Density land use designations. These development standards establish criteria for detached housing based on lot size and include criteria for lots that would be typical within the proposed Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. Therefore, the development standards have been modified to include the Medi un-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. The standards included in Table 6 (below) are existing standards for the Medium Density land use designation. The two newly created land uses will also be require to be consistent with these existing standards because all three categories (Medium-Low, Median-Mid, and Medium) allow for detached housing types. Table 6 - Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Detached Units Lot Size 1,1300+ 31 2,500+ s T 250 s.f. 300 s.i. Yard area may be provided lot Yard area may be provided in more than one location wren it lot more than one local ion Win a lot Private Yard Minimum Area Per Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Min. rear yard area: 170 s.f. Unit' Min. courtyard area 80 s.f. Min. courtyard area 80 s.f. Private Yard Minimum Dimension' i 8' 'These are existing standards for the Low and Medium Density Land Use Desq;nanons Attached Units with Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density Designations The development standards provide minimum usable yard requirements for attached housing (i.e. row- home, etc.) within the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Deru;ity designations. The following is a summary of the proposed private yard requirements within the two new land use designations. Units within the Medium-Mid Density designation have the option of pr.3viding private usable yard areas as described in Table 7 or common areas as described in Table 8 Below. The proposed development standards, as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2, will ensure th2t all residential development on land designated Medium-Low Density and Medium-'Mid Density is consistent with the General flan policies regarding usable yards. Page 9 of 12 Table 7 - Private Yard Requirements - Medium-Low & Medium-Mid Density Attached Mills Private Yard Minimum Area Per Unit i50 s.f. Private Yard Minimum Dimension 8' Common Area Requirements for Medium-Mid Density The Medium-Mid Density will allow a variety of product types whit -i include attached and d!tached units that could include either private yards or common areas based on the product design. Therefore, the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment includes minimum requirements for both private yards as described in Table 7 above and common areas as described in Table 8 below. This requirement would ensure consistency with the General Plan and implement the proposed General Plan poley requiring usable common areas for all development on land with a Medium-Mid Density designation where the design does not allow private usable yards. Table 8 - Common Area Requirements - Medium-Micl Density Attached Unlis Common Area _ Minimum Area Per unit i So s.f. The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan includ.: 1) a revised Stage 1 Site Plan with the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations for the Croak and Jordan properties, 2) a list of permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses for these two rew designations, and 3) development standards for private usable yards and common areas within the Molium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations as described in Exhibit A to Attachment 2. Communication with Property Owners A Public Meeting notice was sent to all property owners within thc+ EDSP arcs that do not have vested development rights, notifying them of the City Council Meeting of April 3, 2007 and the meeting on October 16, 2007. Staff also contacted representatives of the Croak, Jordan and Chen properti es to discuss the direction from the City Council at the April 3nd and October 16`t meetings. In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding the hearing on November 27, 2007, was mailed to all propergr owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project area. A public notice was also published n the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has not received :omments or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On Deeernbcr 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (S CH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for n:view in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density ieyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore nc additional environmen al review is required. CONCLUSION: The City Council has the authority to modify General Plan and Spccific Plan Land Use Designations at any time. On April 3, 2007, and with further direction on October 16, 2007, the City Council directed Page 10 of 12 use designations including Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties and to amend the existing Stage I Development Plan in order to encourage an additional variety of housing stock with usable yards. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, EDSP, and Stage 1 Development Plan implement the direction by the City Council and would encouragc the construction of :angle-family detached homes and other product types with private usable yards on land with a Medium-:row Density Designation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Receive public testimony, 4) Close the Public Hearirg and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following resolutions: a) Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use desigration for the Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties to new Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 du/acre) designations; and b) Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending the City Council approve a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan propertie Page 11 of 12 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 651 City of Dublin Francis Croak 1262 Gabriel Court San Leandro, CA 94577 Tony Varni Varni, Fraiser, Hartwell & Rodgers 650 A Street Hayward, CA 94543 APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 90:1-0002-002 PD - Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) The project has lxcn reviewed under th, California Environmental Qut.lity Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines. On December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are avai.able for review in the Community Development Depaitment. The proposes project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area became the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the su>>ject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. Page 12 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes 4 T CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held an Tuesday, November 27, 2007, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Schaub, Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Tomlinson, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of November 13, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 07-049 Fallon Village Community Theme Wall: Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development Zoning District, Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village (PA 04-040) and the Stage 2 Development Plan for Positano (PA 05-038). Martha Aja, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there were other walls of this type in Dublin. Ms. Aja answered that there are similar walls within Dublin Ranch. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the durability of the walls. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager answered that there were no problems with the walls that the City was aware of. Chair Schaub asked if there was foam on top or the walls or will they be topped with concrete. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner answered that they are capped with concrete or stone, not foam. Aannmg ('ommission 128 Mmem6rr77, 2(W q(ggr14"Ifrrtinq Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 60 (? A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FALLON VILLAGE (PA 04-040) AND THE STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR POSITANO (PA 05-038) PA 07-049 8.2 PA 07-056 (Legislative Action) Croak and Jordan Medium Density: General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment to create Medium-Low Density and Medium- Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties. Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to look at a request by the City Council and what they were looking for was, a variety of housing types as a broad subject, with two areas specifically which are usable yards and using net acreage as a designator. He thought the question was, will the Planning Commission be able to accomplish that Cm. Biddle asked Mr. Baker to review how the list of projects used in this Staff Report came about. Mr. Baker answered that there was an analysis done of the different properties in the eastern part of Dublin and what the current status of entitlements were. Out of that analysis there were a small number of properties that currently did not have a Stage 1 development pl,m. The City Council decided that, based on the status of the existing entitlements on some of the properties, they should not be subject to changes because they were already in the process. But there were certain properties that were not in the process at that point, which are the Croak. Jordan and Chen properties and Camp Parks in the future. Chair Schaub mentioned the previous Study Session on the Vargas and Frederick properties and at the time the Planning Commission thought it was the densest project but actually came out at a gross density of 6.0 but the net density was 14.9 which is more dense then Roxbury, which is the City's densest project. He stated that on a 100 acre project the calculation is not nearly as visible as on the smaller 5-10 acre projects. Chair Schaub was concerned about calculating the lot coverage if the lot is 1800 squi ire feet, then deduct 250 square feet for a yard, then 5 ft off both sides for the length of the yzrd and then there must be a driveway and some kind of front yard set back that leaves a very small house footprint. He thought the footprint would be less than 1200 square feet. ,P(nnnrna{';m;mirsi?r 132'uczmbrr? °(Al> 'I fMv4ar Ifeetinq Mr. Baker continued with the Staff Report. 6(,1% Chair Schaub was still concerned about the practicality of the new standards. They referred to the diagrams in the Ordinance - Exhibit A, and discussed how they could put a €;arage, living room, kitchen, and bathroom on the first floor. Chair Schaub thought the hou ;es might be unbuildable. Mr. Baker stated that the diagrams the Commission was referring to are not to sole and were provided only to show examples of where the yards need to occur but not representative of what would be the end product. Additionally, these standards already exist as a part of Fallon Village Stage 1. Chair Schaub stated his concern is that on an 1800 square foot lot it would not be possible to have a downstairs if all the rooms that are required are built. Ms. Wilson sta:ed that it is possible but they have not done the calculations. Chair Schaub stated that Staff s:lould do the calculations because his concern was that the houses might be unbuildable. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Chair Schaub that the yards would be unusable. He felt the yards were not practical and the drawings showed odd shaped yards. He stated that most people don't use their yards up to the wall but usually have a shrub border of a foot and air conditioner unit must have clearance also. He felt the drawings should be to scale because they are the center of the issue. He was very concerned about mandating "usable yards" in this configuration or a house that cannot be built. Ms. Wilson suggested that Staff could do some exercises to plot out the rooms in the houses, on the lot with yards, etc. She stated that through her experience working on this kild of project the Applicant could get the house on a lot like this one. She stated that the graphics do not depict it. She asked the Commission to consider that the 1800 square foot lot size i:; a minimum standard that is a part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD and the developer would have to be creative in design in order to build on a lot of that size. She continued that the developer would have to be creative in their design in order to have the yard area and still achieve the lot density. Chair Schaub stated that they were discussing a minimum lot size that might not be able to be sold. Ms. Wilson indicated the development could occur on the minimum lot size. She felt that the developer could include all the amenities and a typical home would have smaller room sizes than what is available today. That it would be a trade-off to have the yards with no required minimum lot size or have a larger square footage of the home. Chair Schaub did not think you could build a house on an 1800 square feet lot. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned that the Commission is mandating a yard concept, where the goal is to provide recreational activities for children, etc. He felt that the proposed yards are as useless as the current situation. He felt that to solve the problem there should be common areas, open space and park areas within a development instead and that would be it usable area for children. Mvin,ng ('omnumon 133 XLrrmbrr27, 2OU:" 'glgnL.,Vfrrrinq Cm. Biddle stated that this is an existing standard for Medium Mid Density as a paarrt the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. Mr. Baker stated that was correct. Chair Schaub asked for the definition of net acreage calculation as stated on Page 5 of 12 of the Staff Report. Staff has prepared the following definition for the net acreage calculation to address the City Council's direction: Based on discussions with the Commission and Staff, Mr. Baker stated that Staff had made a modification to the definition to further refine the definition as shown in the Stuff Report as follows: Residential densities for the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations shall be calculated based on the total developable area of the site excluding pubic and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, c nd areas with slopes that exceed 30016. Development shall not be clustered on one portion of the project site where such development would exceed the maximum densityfor that portion oft he site, even if the overall project remains within the permitted density range. Chair Schaub agreed that the modification worked better than the original definition in the Staff Report. Cm. Tomlinson asked if Staff was proposing to apply the new net vs. gross definitions to these particular properties. Mr. Baker answered that was correct it would only apply to these properties and only to the proposed medium-mid and medium-low designations. Cm. Tomlinson asked if citywide all residential sites are evaluated on a gross basis and is Staff proposing to change all other designations citywide. He was concerned that it seen is unfair that these property owners are being singled out for the new definition that Hill probably significantly reduce their ability to develop those sites. Mr. Baker answered that City Council's direction was only to look at these particular sites therefore they had not evaluated applying it to other sites. He stated that them are limited properties that the definition could be applied to because many properties already have entitlements. Chair Schaub stated that he would like to discuss suggesting to the Council that they look applying this definition to all properties and not just these two. Cm. Biddle stated that he agreed with Chair Schaub and felt that using net rather than gross would be a better approach and asked if the City should use it on everything nicluding the different categories, not just the medium (tensity. Chair Schaub stated that the Commission would have to suggest it to the Council and they would have to direct Staff to look at it and bring it back to the Commission. He felt that it would be important for the Camp Pi irks project. Chair Schaub opened the Public Hearing. '114mm:ag ('ommusion 134 ;Vw em&,r 27, 2(x15 ,NgArr afe King Pat Croak, Property Owner, 4617 James Ave., Castro Valley, CA., spoke on behalf offt ?roak property. He was concerned about how this proposal will affect his property and his ability to develop the land as he had originally planned. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak to go through the number of units that were approved by the City Council previously for his property. He stated that there were 566 total units for the Croak property in Table 2 in the Staff Report and that was the number he would be allowed to build regardless of the outcome of this item. Mr. Croak stated that this was the first time he had seen that number - he stated that the number in the Stage 1 PD and the number that the City Council approved for his property was 573 units. He stated that the 7 unit difference between the 573 and 566 pertained to the land he gave up for the semi-public land use. Chair Schaub asked Mr. Croak if he was asking the Commission, in the definition I net for his property, that the Commission include that land in the density even though it is no : usable. He stated that for that property the net density formula would include the land that ,vas given up for semi-public land use where we have asked it to be excluded as streets, etc. Fle asked Mr. Croak if that was what he is asking the Commission to do. Mr. Croak answered yes Chair Schaub suggested that this is one way of looking at the land that was given up. Mr. Baker stated that the EIR for Fallon Village studied 573 units on the Croak Pi operty. The public/semi-public requirement is a designation of 2 acres somewhere on the Crcak property. He stated that the public/semi-public designation is showing on the low density site so that would reduce their low density by those two acres, but the 573 units are at the midpoint of the density range so they could build above the density range, but they could build above the density range to recapture the lost units and still be consistent with the EIR. He cc ntinued that the current proposal would not change their situation. The 104 units shown on Table 2 are at the midpoint of the density range but they could still build above the midpoint as long as they stay within the density range and they are consistent with the EIR or conduct further environmental review for a greater number of total units if so desired. Mr. Croak stated that the public/semi public site could go anywhere on the property but in actuality it will probably be located where the medium density is located close to the village area. He stated that he hadn't thought it through but he didn t want to loose units because of this proposal. Cm. Biddle stated that the Commission is only considering mid density and nothing else is affected. The Commission is not considering public/semi public or other desig-iations. He stated that the math works out to be exactly the same number of units. He stated that this proposal does not change the number of units. Chair Schaub stated that what it does change is the fact that it might be imposs.ble to build houses at that higher density, given other restrictions. He was concerned that in order to get the number of units back and include a garage and a usable yard, the footprint of the douse would be so small that the developer would have to build up. =Ffimmwg C'nmmiswn 135 varrmFe,'`, T?iJAI, Wrriimg ?? t Ms. Wilson suggested looking at the table in the attached Ordinance on page 6 of which shows that all the criteria already exist for all of the 3,000+ dwelling units in the Stage 1 PD for Fallon Village. She stated that it designates such things as minimum lot cover<<ge, building heights and minimum rear yard setbacks, including usable yards. She continued that when a developer submits for a Stage 2 SDR they must meet the current existing standards for any proposed development and this proposal would further define those designations by calling out the medium-low and medium-mid designations within the medium density SFR detached small lots designation and the SFR detached small lots/court homes designations with bvo new land use designations. So the standards already exist but are just further defined by the new land use categories. Chair Schaub suggested looking at the far right column on the table which is labeled "Medium- Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density Single Family Detached Small Lots/Court Home". He was concerned about what the footprint would be of a house on an 1800 square foot lot. Ms. Wilson answered that it would be based on the development standards on the table that had been discussed. She stated that Staff does not know the particular design of the products that will be submitted, however, all of the development standards were approved and proposed to the City by Braddock and Logan who led the proposal for all the property owners for the entire Fallon Village area. She continued that based on standards of development all of these development standards are required to be met and can be met for these particular developments. Chair Schaub suggested that the City has added 250 square f eet to those standards. Ms. Wilson answered that they had not added 250 square feet but that the standard already exists. All the City is proposing is that the new land use designations not only appl Y to medium density land use designation of 6.1 to 14 DU/acre but that the standards also apply to the medium-low, 6.1 to 10 DU/acres and the medium-mid 10.1 to 14. Chair Schaub stated that all the items in the table, until the "usable yard" section were already agreed to. Ms. Wilson stated that everything in the table already existed in the Stage 1 PD for the entire Fallon Village area, which includes Croak and Jordan properties. Mr. Baker stated that the only thing on the table that changed was the top box where the Medhim-Low and Medium-Mid were added. Cm. Biddle stated that if you break down the 1800 square foot lot it would be a 30' by 60' lot or 25' by 72" lot, which is not very large. Chair Schaub was concerned that Mr. Croak had not spent enough time on the pi oposal. He stated that the proposal only affects two property owners and he wanted to make sure that the Commission is recommending something to the City Council that is practical. Cm. Tomlinson wanted to understand exactly what the Commission is creating. Ht felt that by splitting the density from one into two densities they would be effectively forcing 6 em to build two different product types on different portions of the property rather than building one product type on the overall property. aPt-n 9g (bmrnivAm 136 Y+nemficr'%, 30o; 'RTguG+r.`Keding Ms. Wilson added that there could be the potential for only one product type. C r tl}+ the developer must build two separate product types creating the new mid-low and -rid-medium land use designation. Cm. Tomlinson was concerned about the Commission making a market and making the standards too restrictive and possibly creating a situation that is not feasible or practical for what the property owner/developer would like to build. Chair Schaub stated that if the Commission was considering 200 to 1,000 acres he can understand studying the issue but with such few acres it doesn't see feasible. He was concerned about creating a change for such few acres and the unforeseen consequences of that change. Cm. Tomlinson agreed with Councilmember Oravetz when he stated in the minutes from the 4- 3-07 meeting that the current plan is not broken. He then asked Mr. Croak his thoughts on the Net vs. gross issue. Mr. Croak stated that he thought it takes away flexibility from the property owner. He asked if the term "maximum density allowable" is in regards to the EIR and the midpoint density or is the maximum allowable density of 14 units/ acre for medium density or 9 units/ acre for low density. Ms. Wilson answered that the EIR is a different subject and this issue deals with defining the General Plan language as whatever the allowance is at the maximum. She mentioned the Wallis Ranch development which shows a parcel that had a lot of constraints, i.e., creek Erea, wetland habitat, etc. Those areas were not designated by the General Plan as open space which would have been taken out of the parcel. Then going back to the Fallon Village area the net vs. gross may not have a significant consequence since areas such as the creek area are c esignated as Open Space and is currently on the General Plan Map designated as Open Space iLnd therefore not a part of a developable parcel. Mr. Croak stated he was concerned about topography on his property and if he looses units with the net process in the medium density categories - would he be allowed to ab<orb the units into the low density area where they are slotted at the midpoint density range. He asked if he lost units in the medium density and planned 4 units/ acre in the low density category, could he transfer those units to the low density category. Cm. King asked if he meant to increase density in the other area. Mr. Croak answ ered yes but keep the entire project wide density consistent with what's already been approved. Cm. Tomlinson thought that theoretically, as long as Mr. Croak did not go above the limit of the section he could transfer the units to the low density area. His concern was that there will be multiple constraints and the property owner will lose the flexibility to balance the c evelopment. He continued that once the developer starts to look at the project they will find tha,: they cannot build as many units as, originally anticipated and still meet the various restrictions. 910nvirt,4 C onttfusi",. 137 ;Yen, enber 2r, 2(4); Welqub, Ve ft q Ms. Wilson stated that there is the potential for that to happen. She stated that ?ca 1 the EIR's are done at the midpoint because there will be many issues that must be addressed and at times the developer may not get to the midpoint of development. Chair Schaub was concerned that there are so few acres and thought that Mr. Crack should go through the information in the Staff Report and decide if it is doable or that he can lot build the project as anticipated. Cm. Biddle stated that much of issue is worked out at Stage 2. Chair Schaub stated that he would like an idea of what might happen on the properties in question. Ms. Wilson stated that it is similar to the other land use designations, the proposal to add the medium-low and medium-mid results in a few more detached homes. Chair Schaub stated that the Planning Comnssion has been dealing with this type 3f issue for a long time and the intention of the City Council that the City wants more house.,; with yards sounds like an easy thing to do but in reality it has been a difficult process for the Commission and Staff. Mr. Croak asked if the net acreage does not apply to low density and will it stay tha t way. Ms. Wilson answered yes that it does not apply to low density. She stated that the City Council has the authority to modify any of their policy documents and this discussion was at the direction of the City Council to Staff to look at this land use designation and zeroed in on a very particular land use designation. The City Council can at any time make other changes but have not given that direction but they could ask to see net density used for all land use designation. Chair Schaub thought it was less of a problem in low density but where it gets har3er is on the larger parcels. Mr. Croak suggested that the Commission consider the two densities together, t1at if the net concept will apply to the medium density then there should be flexibility allowe(i in the low density. Chair Schaub answered that the Commission could do that because they are only talking about the Croak and Jordan properties. Ms. Wilson stated that there was some correspondence from the Jordon property indicating that they had no problem with this proposal. Chair Schaub closed the public hearing. Cm. Biddle commented that as far as vested right to develop, the developer would need a development agreement and a vesting tentative map at Stage 2, and there can be changes up through Stage 2. He agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that there really isn't much change and we're only talking about 33.8 acres. Cm. Tomlinson stated that it means a lot to the tvo property owners involved. Cm. Biddle continued that if using the midpoint calculation tha number of units does not change. ;Ylonnr,rg f'ommtienon 138 YrcaSar ?; ?cw, wgfA,r veetinq 7# ep?, Ms. Wilson stated that there would be no net change to either property owners or the number of dwelling units would not change. She stated that basically this decision would drive the market to allow for more of one type of product. She stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this does not go far enough they have the ability to further discuss the issue. She stated that this is what the Council had directed but if the Commission feels that it needs to apply to additional properties it is appropriate for the Commission to further discuss the issue. Chair Schaub wanted to clarify what Ms. Wilson was saying and stated that the Commission could come back and say this is interesting but if it applies to these two properties then why doesn't it apply to any property that does not have some very strict legal documentation such as a Stage 2. Mr. Baker stated that the developers would need either a Development Agreement or Vesting Tentative Map which could be done at Stage 2 or separately. Chair Schaub continued that the Commission could recommend that this change should be applied to everybody that does not have any vested right to develop which is approximately 10 properties, i.e., Jordan, Croak, Chen, Branaugh, Righetti and Anderson and then Vargas, Tipper, Frederick and Moller. Ms. Wilson stated that Moller, Frederick, Vargas and Tipper only have annexations. Stage 1 PDs and are included in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Chair Schaub asked about the density designations for those properties. Ms. Wilson answered that the density for the properties is mid density. Chair Schaub asked if the Commission could recommend including those propertie Ms. Wilson stated that the Commission could do that but they would need to indicate why they think ifs appropriate to include the additional properties. She stated that the City Council talked about all of those properties and concluded that if they were already moving through the process and working on entitlements they did not want to stop them even though they do not have the legal right to develop but had already spent funds on permits, etc. Chair Schaub asked if the Planning Commission must have certain findings to reo:)mmend the resolutions to the City Council. Ms. Wilson answered that the Commission is only making recommendations to the City Council to make amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and then the Stage 1 for Fallon Village which are all considered legislative. She referred to Attachment 1, page 2 in the "further be it resolved" sections which are broad based and not as apecific as in SDR findings that they see more frequently and it would also apply to the EDSP. Cm. King asked if the recommendation is legislative and requires findings. Ms. Wilson stated yes that the policy must find external consistency within documents. ; `PInnnuly (' mmu m 139 l ember 2,, 2;4) 14e?f?r(ar Mecttnq - Of, Cm. King asked how the directive from the City Council came about and how dens ty5becAme the issue. Mr. Baker answered that it was framed within the medium density designation tha: allows for a range of attached product types but that the Council was looking for a variety of product types that included private usable yards. He stated that there was a perception that they were seeing mostly stacked product types in the medium density range with only balconies and the Council wanted to ensure that there were units within the medium density range that were smaller type homes with private usable yards. Cm. King stated that the Council's concernvas from statements of residents who thought there is a need for the middle product but they were also hearing the contrary, that the density is too high in the new developments. He asked if the Commission is trying to create a middle product without decreasing density. Chair Schaub stated that they are trying to build a product with a yard and keep th e density the same with the same number of houses. He thought the answer was to make the footprint smaller on the lot. Cm. King was concerned that the current plan allows for too much density and thought that they should try to reduce density by creating that middle product but it would r --quire fewer units. He was unsure why the City Council limited the question to these two properties. Chair Schaub answered that the Council looked at how far through the process 1:o their final entitlements those 10 properties were and found that these two properties had enough flexibility. He added that they did not include Camp Parks which has not been submitted yet. Ms. Wilson stated that currently Camp Parks' land use designation is Agriculture. land but as the Military goes forward the City would look at entitlements, (i.e. Specific Plan and development standards) and the discussion of net vs. gross could also be reviewed for the property at that time. She added that most of Fallon Village does not have entitlements and the City Council could have asked for only single family homes to include large yards in that area directing Staff to move in that direction but they did not. Instead they limited it to these two properties and only a small portion of these properties. Cm. King stated that he understands the Council's concern that plans should not be changed for property owners and developers who have begun the process but if there is a need in the community it is the Commissions responsibility to meet that need. He agreed with Councilmember Hildebrand's concern that young people cannot buy a home with room to grow in Dublin. He was concerned that the small lots and small houses would not redly meet the need but just create an odd product. Chair Schaub stated that the problem is there is the perception that the City is too dense and that young people cant buy a house but there are older homes with large lots ave.ilable in the City. He stated that those young people want a home similar to their parent's home and they cannot have it so they go to Tracy or somewhere else. He felt that until they had th a facts about the housing opportunities in Dublin he could not believe the statements about housing and that a casual conversation about housing needs doesn't help plan the City. He stated that the <V(nnneng (bmmi?'stm. 140 h4> emrer?: 'w Negri(a r'Keeting Commission doesn t really know what the need is and therefore cannot plan anyt>?g past the last General Plan update. Ms. Wilson commented that from strictly a land use standpoint the Commission would want to plan the City to look the way we want it to look and feel. She stated, for example the City of Dublin wanted to have a Village concept that we would assume the market will eventually build over time. She referred to the list of all built and approved projects which is one of the attachments to the Staff Report. She pointed out that there are many projects vi the eastern Dublin area which have been built at the low end of medium density with , ingle family detached homes with private yards. Chair Schaub commented that most of the houses west of Tassajara Road all have yards. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he disagreed with the comment by Cm. Biddle's regarding no change in the number of units. He stated by changing and splitting the site into two designations you are reducing the flexibility on half of the parcel therefore he may think he has 104 units but the reality is it may be less once the layout of the site takes place. he stated that one of the things that you have to look at is how housing has changed. He felt that apartments are now used as permanent housing and are larger with more amenities, etc. He said that interior square footage is what people look for in a home, the yard is second. He stated that when Councilmember Hildebrand indicated that the residents have complained that houses are stacked on top of each other it is because houses are larger now and the develo 3er wants to provide as large a home as possible which means smaller yards and houses closer together. He stated that the zoning code, when it states units/acre, does not make a distinction between whether there is a 1,500 square foot house on the lot or a 6,000 square foot house and he continued that if the Council wants to provide larger yards, the issue is not density or units per acre but the discussion should be about FAWs, setbacks, and lot coverage and :;tart limiting those. He stated that he is concerned about this proposal and its potential to limit the flexibility of developments. He stated that the Commission has many opportunities to mince a project more appropriate for a site. He was more concerned about the net vs. gross calcula ion and that with all the deductions the only thing left would be the footprint of the house and a small front yard which amounts to is a significant downsizing of the project. He concluc.ed that this proposal will reduce the number of units, which will make projects less financially feasible, create markets and then by requiring them to deduct the common areas and then 'orcing them to add a common element before the project is approved just won't work. Chair Schaub commented that his intent in mentioning net calculation originally was to understand net density not to set zoning. fie only asked for net calculations to be included in Staff Reports so that he could visualize the project. He stated that he never thoc.ght through zoning it and the more they talked about it the more he is concerned with the unforeseen circumstances that can happen. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she could not support this proposal without under standing the cause and effect to it. Chair Schaub stated that he could not support the proposal. QfanniogComynisaivn 141 A<nem6e, 30,K ?X?vgA,r -Herring - Cm. Biddle agreed with Cm. Tomlinson that the potential will change the flexibility of prOjkts and if the City uses net calculations in one project then it should be used for every F roject. Chair Schaub stated that as long as we know the difference between the net units and the gross units then they can make a decision. Cm. Biddle stated that his comment regarding a usable yard of 250 square feint is what is required currently therefore standard that is not changing. Cm. Tomlinson stated that having recreational opportunities for kids where they don't have to drive anywhere has been important to him. He stated that he would be supportive of compressing the houses and creating small pocket parks close by that would serve as a place to congregate as well as a play area. Chair Schaub agreed that more common areas for this density would be preferable as opposed to requiring the individual 250 square foot private usable yard. Cm. Biddle stated that the change in housing types and the number of bathrooms Ier home has increased. Cm. King commented on the minutes of the City Council meeting of 4-3-07 stating that there was an observation that residents had complained that there was only a limited amount of housing stock that allows them to grow within Dublin. He then asked Chair Schaub if he agreed with that statement. Chair Schaub answered that until he sees the inventory of the housing available n Dublin he did not agree with that observation. Cm. King stated that the Planning Commission needed to have the answer to that question otherwise he felt they could not make a decision to recommend the proposal. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the Commission could obtain the information from real estate brokers or realtor.com. Chair Schaub added that the City's GIS system can provic a the square footage information as well. Ms. Wilson stated that it would be time consuming to obtain the information. She stated that Staff has looked at some of the density ranges but it comes down to land use because you build for the longevity of the community while providing a variety of land use types which is the premise of General Plan. She added that land use decisions don t necessarily equate to the market. Cm. King was concerned that the market i.5sue is essential to what the Council's concern was regarding there being a limited amount of housing stock that would allow residents to grow within Dublin. He stated that if that is true the Commission needs to address it. Ms. Wilson stated that the 5 members of the Council struggled with this information as well. She continued that the information was anecdotal, personal experience, etc. but no actual statistics were used. 4'(onnwg (bmmusinn 142 S1m mber 2 _V01 ;l'ygnLrr'itertinq -/S g Chair Schaub stated that until the Commission has the facts it would be difficul+: for them to change Mr. Croak's property designation based on anecdotal evidence. He felt thi.t adding 250 square feet of yard area would not change the conversation about density. Ms. Wilson asked to clarify that the Commission is unified in their thoughts on this proposal. She stated that she thought the Commission felt that this was not appropriate and that the Commission would recommend not approving the resolutions and state the reason. Chair Schaub asked the Commission if they were in agreement that they would not recommend approving the resolutions as they are not appropriate for the community. Cm. King stated that he would rather not take any action on the resolutions then recommend them either for or against. He stated that a planning decision involves the market otherwise the Commission cannot determine the land use. Cm. Tomlinson answered that there are two issues before the Commission which are: 1) is it appropriate to split the medium density into two sub-categories and 2) the net v; . gross issue which he doesn't recommend a change. He felt it was selective and will have many unintended consequences. He stated that he agreed with Councilmember Oravetz who believes that the system is not broken and that we shouldn't change it. Cm. King stated that it may be broken but he wanted to know what is meant by "housing stock that allows them to grow". He felt that the Commission should not try to create it market but thought there might be a demand that is not being met. Cm. Tomlinson stated that there is the flexibility to do that now because the medium density is broad range and what were are proposing is to take half the property and restrict it to the lower half of the range and the other half would be restricted to the other half of the range. Cm. King stated that he felt from reading the City Council minutes that there is a demand that is not being met for a medium range product and if the developers are left to decide what density they will build they will opt for the high density homes. He agreed that the information was anecdotal and he also hears comments from parents that their children cant <fford to live in Dublin. Chair Schaub stated that the discussion regarding the product need that is not being met is an entirely different discussion. He stated that he would need to have the facts about t 1e inventory in Dublin to make a decision and not base it on anecdotal evidence. Cm. Tomlinson commented that as Ms. Wilson pointed out many of the developments that have been built have been built in lower density range of the medium land use. He continued that when talking about the number of units/acre it doesn't take into consideration the square footage of the house. Chair Schaub stated that in order for the Commission to make decisions in the future they will be based on what we believe to be a need in our community which is not being met then we will base our decision on facts not anecdotal evidence. 'Iyanwag (,O-um- 143 N••i erchcr 27, -'WIT ?tfguiar f4trCin? -79% Cm. Biddle stated that he thought that the comment referred to new homes only i:1 one area of the City and didn't refer to planning the whole city. Cm. King stated that there may be, as the Chair thought, plenty of housing inventory in the city. Chair Schaub stated that he didn't support the idea of making markets and that he believed that the developers would not build a house they couldn't sell and if the market perceives the need then it will be built. Chair Schaub stated that he didn't think the resolution would create the solution that the Council wants. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought this was not the correct way to go about what the Council wanted and that there would be unforeseen detrimental consequences at a later date and he was prepared to make a motion to recommend that the Council not recommend this ordinance. Ms. Wilson suggested that they go over their reasons for not recommending the proposed changes which are: 1) The Commission was worried about the possibility that they would be creating inflexibility and felt that they would be driving the market where the market should be picking up these types of products that are needed becaus a the current land use of medium density allows for different product types. 2) The Commission was concerned about starting to define net vs. gross in the General Plan for only specific land use designations for a few prope^ties without looking at land use designations for the General Plan. Additionally the Planning Commission was concerned about modifying an existing policy regal ding the use of net density rather than gross density as we have and continue to us 3) The Commission felt that they can achieve usable yards currently in the low density range or the lower portion of the mid that is existing in the 6.1 to 10 range and in the zoning that exists today. 4) The Commission felt that there are a variety of product types that alr eady exist as noted in the table in the Staff Report that are already built and sold. 5) The Commission felt that the plan is working well and to change :;uch a small portion of it doesn't seem that it will yield great change for the co:nmunity for usable yards. 6) The Commission felt that if they really believe there is a shortfall in a certain market then we need facts (formal study) to help them understand the total inventory that is available to buy. fKInRtng ("'Mmusi'm 144 Ain r .fcr 2f, _'OO: xpprtr ?V,,tnnq Ms. Wilson asked if there was anything else that the Commission would like to articulate to,-City Council. She asked the Commission if they felt that if there were more properlies that were put into the proposal, would they be more comfortable with modifications. Cm. Tomlinson stated that the key for him was that Councilmember Hildebrand felt that the City was too dense and if the question is to broach the concept with the Council regarding Floor Area Ratios (FAR) vs. units per acre or Lot Area Coverage (LAC). Cm. Tomlinson asked for clarification of Lot Coverage Ratio - would a single story and a two story house compute to the same Lot Coverage Ratio. Ms. Wilson answered that lot coverage is actually the footprint of the building. Cm. Tomlinson stated that he thought that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was more appropriate because FAR takes into consideration the differences between a one and two story house and a high rise building. On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, and by a vote o: 5-0-0, the Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of either: RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-0027-007,9054W2-M, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007,905-0002-M, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 'f'lanniny (amroissirn 145 i"oeem6e?2: 70n" RquLis Meeting NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Cm. Tomlinson wanted to complement he stary and the Commission on the Lowes project. He felt that it turned out fantastic and it was a great job. Ms. Wilson promised to pass on the comment to Erica Fraser, the project Planner. Chair Schaub wanted to add a discussion item on the agenda regarding covering up windows with signs. He stated that he did not like what Video Only has done to black out the windows or Bed Bath and Beyond who has covered up a portion of the their window space with ad signs, shelving and product. He indicated that he wanted to discuss the signage rules ah o to help the code enforcement officers. Ms. Wilson stated the item would be agendized. She reminded the Commission about the study session on 12-11-07 which begins at 5:00 pm on zoning ordinance modifications. ADiOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: ? MINUTES I2007k Planting Commission ? 11.27.07.4ac wfannwy C'ammzssien 146 Vmemfi.:-2%. 'tout 'Rey &- Veettr.,q &?I RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND LSE DESIGNATION FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSITY DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007,905-0002-001) AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension and east of Croak Road ar.d within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-0)2); and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, tnd has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordwice with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General P.an Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994, both plans have been amended a number of Imes since that date, to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. Bt connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EI2') pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064) that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives aid area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), requested annexation and prezoning of the EDPO Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City c f Dublin. In connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City Council certified a Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the 2002 project approval, the City Cotmcil adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statemer.t of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the project area; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jordan ;)roperties on December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-05 that is available for review in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference; and Attachment 7 83 i WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22241 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) which is available for review in the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities, pc licies related to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) that shows the location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the Medium Density land use designation and on April 3, 2007, and October 16, 2007, authorized a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing Medium Density land use designation on the Croak imd Jordan properties to new Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density h nd use designations; anc WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the Slate CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density be;rond what was previously studied for the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmc vital review is necessary: and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission CTlanning Commission') held a public hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended tha: the City Council not approve the proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for tha Croak and Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: 1) the proposal created inflexibility; 2) selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than boss acreage calculations; 3) current policies enable projects to achieve usable yards on land with an exising Medium Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes witf. usable yards already .xist; 5) the housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the community, and 6) concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding lo-: coverage, setbacks and design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the find mgs listed above, could not recommend the findings in the attached draft City Council Resolution and therefore recommends that the City Council not adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the existing; Medium Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which includes the following as described in the attached Resolution: 1) Definition of the propose Medium-Low Density ar.d Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 2) Definition of net acreage and the associated density calculation based on net acreage for Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations; 3) Amends to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1 a) and Eastern Dublin ? pecific Plan Land Use Maps (Figure 4.1); and 4) Amends to the text and various tables in the General Flan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27'h day of November 2007 by the fol owing vote: AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and King NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: P anning GAPAM WMI-0S6 Croak andJordm Medim DmirylPWnning CmmuionIPC Raw GPA EDSPA DwooLDOC ?> RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES TO NEW MED IUM-LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM-MID DENSI7 Y DESIGNATIONS (APN 985-0027-007,905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-002) PA 07-056 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Craak and Jordan properties which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension and east of Croak Road aid within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-0)2); and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopter on February It, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accords ice with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on January 7, 1994. Both plans have been amended a number of times since that date, :o provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program Elk") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15163 (SCH No. 91103064) that is available for review in she Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives aid area-wide mitigation measures for development within eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), requested annexation and rezoning of the EDPO Annexation Area, which includes the Croak and Jordan properties, into the City of Dublin. In connection with the annexation and prezoning request the City Council certified a Suppl.-mental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the 2002 projeist approval, the City Council adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statemert of overriding consideration and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the project area; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which include: the Croak and Jordan Froperties, on December 6, 2005 by Resolution 223-05 which is available for review in the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-0`; certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #200506:?010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and Exhibit A 24?( the Supplemental EIR for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners which is available for review in the Community Development Department and is herein incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use dcsignations, densities, po icies related to density calculations, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure I - Ia) that shows the location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.1) that shows the location of land uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; anJ WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CE(IA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines requireAhat certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is within the scope of the Fallon Village SEIR because the project does not result in an increased number of units or density beyond what was previously studied for the Croak and Jordan properties. Therefore, no additional environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") teld a public hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; ,snd WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 27, 2007, was submitted and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendrr ent; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-XX incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the (leneral Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated _ , and incorporated herein ty reference, described and analyzed the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments fir the Croak and Jordan properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at a noticed public hearing on at which time all interested parties had the opporlunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. Section 1. General Plan Amendments. Subsection 1. Replace the first paragraph after the section heading "Density Measurements" in Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Clzssifications) with the following: "Residential densities are based on gross residential acreage for all properties, except the Medium-Low and Medium-Mid density sites on the Jordan and Croak properties, and the density is calculated as follows:" Subsection ii. Add the following paragraphs to Sect on 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications) after the Ponderosa Village Example: "Residential densities for the portion of the Jordan and Croak properties with Medium-Low Density Residential and Medium-Mid Density Residential land use designation are based upon net acreage that is imlculated as follows: Residential densities shall be calculated based on the total developabl-- area of the site excluding public and private streets, parks, open space, common areas, environmentally constrained areas, and areas with slopes that exceed 30%. Development shall not be clustered on onc: portion of the project where the development would exceed the maximum density for that portion of the site even if the overall project remains within the density range when the density is calculated for the entire project area." Subsection iil.Add the following residential land use designations to Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications) under the subsection "Eastern Extended Panning Area (East of Camp Parks -- see Figure I-la)'" after "Residential" Single-Family": Residential: Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 u nits per net residential acre). Units in this (tensity range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence . Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Residential: Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre,. This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit." AS Of Subsection ic. RcplBCL Figure I-I it. Gell cral Plau Lend l:;e %Iap wit Ii the re,, ked General Plan Land F ;e \qan undated throw h Decemher 3 F. 200" below. D i! R I. 11i G 1 ` 1' R 1, 1. ' 1. A a. _ 1-igurc 1-I? A 11 11ild 111111001 DC-mlxr 3 L 1007 f x is- Stibsection v. Replace table 2.1 (Land F'sc Suminar%t 6adem Dublin ( eneral Plan Amendment Area) with tl?c follo\einu re%i,ed rah le I i : -- IABLI. I" st 11\!:\R1 I:..\; I ER\ -A.BLI\ ilF.\F21, \t. I'1. \\ \\II-\D\II{\ r:\I(tf \ \ m::ndcd: R.., d W io i 22;-()>. 3-11 'I Cla:;illc0i,,,1 ,\o':: 11ff mite+• 1 cif, I r.r.n \ lid IDL\ I IAI I D 's aer t Du._. I r t t::'.__. 1! e!.p i„r__ I1 (1111. 1 buJ i; t?' ___-. _- 1 iililr -.1Dian _. lie tl l -) 10.1,2S V ! iAIIID. l?* Iril!; I .'' I o 11i I (,:,5 i 1 t Jig) ? ,._ i L i,•r 111 !!1 ' ' _ IT -r.\i Syu rrl 1y v tc; ('U'.I \If R(1 \I A.-`c:. I .ai Urall 1) I h l t cc I I„h: Zee r r1 1 mo i,l 2: ( .d 4 1 11 ? 1', General Commercial/campus Offiee•••• 72.7 .28 .887 385 2,303 Mixed Use 6.4 .3/1.0 .083 490 171 Neighborhood Commercial 57.5 .35/30 .819 490 1,671 Campus Office 189.36 .7505 3.052 260 11,739 Industrial Park***** 114.7 7251,28 1.329 590 2,253 TOTAL: 788.6 9.816 26,427 PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION City Park 56.3 1 park Communi Park 97.0 2 parks Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks Net b,,,l,? Squarc 16.6 6 parks R ional Park 11.7 I park TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks OPEN SPACE 649.6 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 11899 Semi Public 13.1 .25 Schools Elementary School 63.2 5 schools Junior High School 25.2 1 school High School 0 0 school School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools TOTAL: 202.5 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Campus Office includin ancilla retail 38.3 - High-Density Residential 31.5 Park 12.2 • Public/Semi-Public Transit-Rdated 8.7 GRAND TOTAL 4,295.9 Table 2.1 appears as Table "2A" in the Eastern Dublin GIsA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes. "Numbers represent a mid-range considered reasonable given the permitted densiq range. "'Numbers represent a mid-range but may vary because density based on net devel )pable acreage calculation. ,."The Sq FvEmployees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average of the figure used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. ****For the purpose of this table. Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Com ercial, not residential, to avt.id duplication in tabulation of overall total acres. *****The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village. ******The locations of Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, Croak and Chen properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of PD-2 approval. The site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center, the site on Croak, 2.0 ret acres; and the site on Chen, 2.5 net acres. For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres of Medium High Density Residential lamI on Jordan wai changed to Semi-Public, 2.0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak vas changed to Semi-Public t nd 2.5 acres of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. TI.esc assumptions may change at the time of PD-2 approval. Subsection A. Revise "Implementing Policy C" under Section 2.1.3 (Residential compatibility) as follows: Require a planned development zoning process for all development pntposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. Section U. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. 0/o1 Subsection I. Revise the first sentence of the first pzragraph of Section 3.3.:1 (Land Use Categories) to read as follows: "The Residential land uses category has seven classifications: High Density (HDR), Medium-High Density (MHDR), Medium De.isity (MDR), Medium-Mid Density (MMDR), Medium-Low Density (MLDR). Single-Family (SF), and Rural Residential/Agriculture (RRA)." Subsection li. Replace Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) with the following revised Table 4.1: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 664M 47-K 223.0% 58417. u-M Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMM ERC IAI/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.3:• FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 72.7 acres .28 VAR .887 MSF Industrial Park- 61.3 acres .25-.2f; FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.3`• FAR .871 MSF Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF Campus Office 192.66 acres .35-.7' FAR 3.730 MSF Subtotal 7513 acres 10.44 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 68.2 acres 35 d 7/ac 2,387 du _ Medium High Density 137.5 acres 20 da/ac 2,750 du . Medium Density 484.5 acres 10 da/ac 4,845 du Medium-Mid Density 16.9 acres 12 du/ac 203 du Medium-Low Density 16.9 acres 8 du/ac 135 du Single Family 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du Rural ResidenttaUA ric. 697.4 acres .01 du/ac 7du Mixed Use 6.4 acres" 15d.i7ac 96 du Subtotal 2,300 acres 13,913 du PUBLIC/SENI PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 98.2 acres .24 FAR 1.027 MSF Semi-Public 1 acres .25 FAR Subtotal .5 acres 1.027 MSI SCHOOLS E Elements School acres 66.5 5 schools unior Hi h School 3 acres I school Subtotal 87.8 acres 9/1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 563 acres 1 ark Community Park 97.0 acres 3 arks Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 arks Subtotal 219 acres 17 arks Open Space 607.5 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres 'Me.28 FAR for Industrial Part: refers to the Inaustnat rarK areas in ration v wage. -The 6.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square -eet of commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential uses. Subsection ill.Replace Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Pop.1lation and Employment Summary) with the following revised Table 4.2: TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY !Amended Per Resolution No. 47-K 223-03, xx-07) Land Use Designation Development S Ft/Employees Persons/du Population Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1.266 General Commercial/Campus Office A87 MSF 385 2.303 General Commercial 4 122 MSF 510 8.082 Neighborhood Commercial :385 MSF 490 1.806 Mixed Use'" 083 MSF 490 171 Campus Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346 Public/Semi Public 1027 MSF 590 1.740 Semi-Public 590 TOTAL: 11.481 MSF 19,714 Residential High Density 2,387 2.0 4,774 Medium High Density 2,750 2.0 5,500 Medium Density 4,845 2.0 9,690 Medium-Mid Density 203 2.0 406 Medium-Low Density 135 2.0 270 Single Family 3,490 3.2 11,169 Mixed Use'" 96 2.0 192 Rural Residential/A ric. 4 3.2 22 TOTAL: 13,913 32,023 Updated 12/2007 $17. % 'The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average )f the figures used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. "Includes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and 96 du) within Fallon Village Center.83,635 square leet of commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed U! a is the maximum area for all development (i.e. total of residential and commercial) on designated sties. Subsection Iv. Add the following residential land use designations to Section 4.8.1 (Residential) after "Single-Family" "Medium-Low Density (6.1-10 units per net residential acre). Units in this density range will be detached, zero-lot line, duplex, and/or townhouse developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas thlt accommodate leisuely activities typically associated with a residence . Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit. Medium-Mid Density (10.1-14 units net residential acre). This density range allows detached, zero-lot line, duplex townhouse, and/or garden apartment developments suitable for family living with private flat usable outdoor yard areas that accommodate leisurely activities typically associated with a residence or usable common areas that accommodate recreational and leisurely activities. Unit types and densities may be similar or varied. Assumed household size is two persons per unit." Subsection v. Replace Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Poter tial) with the following revised Table 4.9: TABLE 4.9 FALLON VILLAGE CENTER SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution No. xx-M Designation Acres Density Development Potential Mixed Use 6.4 .30 FAR 83,635 sf. Commercial Subtotal 6.4 20 du/ac 83,635 sf Mixed Use - Residential Units' 15 du/ac 96 du Medium-Low Density 16.9 8 du/ac 135 du Medium-Mid Density 16.9 12 du/ac 203 du Medium High Residential 23.8 20 du/ac 542 du Residential Subtotal 64 976 du Nei hborhood Park 2.7 Community Park 18.3 Open Space 3.6 Park/Open Space Subtotal 24.6 - 1 community park 1 neighborhood square Semi-public 4.5 Total 93.1 - 83,365 sf commercial 1,000 du 1 community park d neighborhood square 13 1 Subsection A. Replace Figure -I.l (l.an?l l sc '\I,,p) with the re-, ised FilUrc 4.I (I :ut. li,e %lap) updated through December ; I. 2007 bclotc. anc Use Map i -9,- Ra>e,.e F,ce_ Triinin.g Area ?a • - Subsection yii. Resi,r Fallon Village Colter portion of Appendi\ ? (Fastern Dublin S.ttcilic flan Land 1.'Se Summary b% Planning SUbareaX) kith the fo°ll(m i?n :: Planning Subareas I? Land Usc Category Area i Density Square feet i Units r- Fallon Village Center R .L 1 \I+t d L c ? 6.4 ? 15 du. at ;p 11K ' h t 6 ,; 06 \Irdium High Pen it kesi ie.ntial +' 20 42 I \Icdn.nn \1 d Pen it Rr idcnbal I in 12 ?- --__ _- 203 I \IIdu.un 1. 8 DC!VIIt% RVJdcntial I,' Semi-I'ubl+_.----- 4? __ \c t hborhood Sx]u aro =•7 t C ntnundh Park IK.3 occ , 93.1 83,635 976 ?----- 9 !5Y 11 Subsection viii. Replace the information for #20 Jordan and #30 Croak n Appendix 4 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners) with the following: owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #20 JORDAN Mixed Use 6.4 15/30 83,635 96 Medium Hi Density Residential 19.8 20 542 Medium-Mid Density 11.7 12 140 Medium-Low Density 11.7 8 94 Single Family Residential 48.0 4 192 Elementary School 10.0 Neighborhood Park 5•8 Neighborhood Square 17 Community Park 11.1 Semi-Public' 2.0 Open Space _ Total 60.5 189.7 83,635 1,064 Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units 930 CROAK Medium-Mid Density 5.2 12 62 Medium-Low Density 5.2 8 42 Single Family Residential 115.4 4 469 Rural Residential/Agricultural 19.4 Nei hborhood Park 11.5 Semi-Public" 2.0 n S ace 6.8 Total 165.5 573 Section Ill. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan tot amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed map and text amendments to the Seneral Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment shall be effective 30 days after the date of approval. 10 vote: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of by the following AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G TAW 2007W-056 Cmak and brdan Medium Density;City Coum&CC R SO GPA SPAAOC qd I RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 985-002740'7, 905-0002-001, AND 9(15-0002-002) PA 07-056 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendmert (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to create Medium-Low and Medium-Mid Density land use designations for the existing Medium-Density portion of the Croak and Jordan properties which are generally located north of the future Central Parkway extension aid east of Croak Road and within the 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area (APN 985-0027-007, 905-0002-001, AND 905-0002-0)2); and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Croak and Jord:un properties (PA 04-040), Ordinance 32-05, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistcrit with all elements od the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.120) the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and make a written recommendation to the City Council regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Following the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the S ate CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmenA impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCFI#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department and herein incorporated by reference. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is re quires; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning Commission') held a public hearing on said project on November 27, 2007; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and Attachment 8 ?1I WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and E:hstem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan Arr endment for Fallon Village; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including the prior EIRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not approve the proposed Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan for th. Croak and Jordan properties because the Planning Commission found that: 1) the proposal created inflexibility; 2) selectively modified Citywide policies regarding density calculations using net rather than Fxoss acreage calculations; 3) currant policies enable projects to achieve usable yards on land with an exis ing Medium Density designation; 4) small single-family detached homes with usable yards already .xist; 5) the housing market will dictate housing needs and the type of housing built within the commlnrity; and 6) concerns about density could be addressed with policies regarding lot coverage, setbacks and design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission could not recommend the findings in the attached draft Ordinance and therefore recommends that the City Council not approve the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance would approve a PD rezoning including the following related amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Croak and Jordan properties as described in the attached Ordinarwe: 1) A revised Stage I Site Plan with the Medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations for the Croak and Jordan properties; 2) A list of permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses for the new medium-Low Density and Medium-Mid Density designations; and 3) Development standards for private usable yards and common areas within the h[odium-Low and Medium-Mid Density designations. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November 2007 by the fol owing vote: AYES: Schaub, Wehrenberg, Tomlinson, Biddle and Fang NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Comm: ssion Chair ATTEST: ^? h Plann g aver - G:IPANU00710 , -1, L. D-ity0ing C"-ni"L-CRv Stags/ PDA wd I)MMI.DOC (313 ? ORDINANCE NO. 07- XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN w,t,tr?r.t,r#ftr• APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY PORTION OF THE CROAK AND JORDAN PROPERTIES (APN 905-0002-001,905-0002-002, AND 985-0027-00") PA 07-056 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 32-05 the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area generally located north of 1-580 and east of Fallol Road to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 04-044) and adopted a Stage I Development Plan for the entire project area which includes the Croak and Jordan properties (APN 905-0002-001, 905-0002-002, AND 985-0027.007). B. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage I Development Plan approved in Ordinance No. 32-05 by the City Council on December 20, 2005. Section 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, (PA 07-056) meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because: it will mcourage a variety of different product types with usable private yard nreas while providing flexibility. As amended the PD will continue to provide a comprehensive ar d coordinated development plan for a larger area with multiple ownerships that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by making efficient use of development areas so as to allow sensitive ridgelines and biological areas to be undeveloped. 2 The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding arecs because: 1) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon Village Center to the Lcw Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are insistent with the higher intensity of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active, pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center. B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with existing and /azure dec elopment in the surrounding area: because: 1) the land use; and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed residential uses will provide a transition from the high density neighborhoods located in the Fallon V Ilage Center to the Low Density neighborhoods to the north and east; and 3) the uses are consistent with the higher intensity Page I of 10 Exhibit A G,9 of uses anticipated for the Fallon Village Center and will continue to promote an active, pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: 1) the amended land uses and site plan are consistent with the amended General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations of Medium- Low Density Residential (6.1-10 du/acre) and Medium-Mid Density Residential (10.1-14 du/acre); 2) the Fallon Village site is flatter towards the south with rolling hills generally north, and development is concentrated in less constrained areas; 3) the flexibility of the PD allows future development to be tailored to onsite conditions. 3. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, will not adversely affect th? health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be de trimental to the public health, safety or welfare because: the Stage 1 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan and the EDSP, and future development will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement al I adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage I Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed uses on tie site are consistent with the amended General Plan and EDSP land use designations; 2) the amended uses will not result in an increase in the total number of residential dwellings anticipated for the subject properties by the General Plan and EDSP; 3) the anticipated development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the EDSP. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact R.port (SEIR) (SCH #200-'062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certifier. by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 2001052114) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available fcr review in the Community Development Department. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEIR for the Fallon Village project area because the project does not result in increased units or density beyond what was previously studied for the subject properties, and therefore no additional environmental review is required. Section 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property (`the Property") to a PD-Planned Development distr ct: 10.4+ net acres located in an area bounded by Croak Road to the east, the future extension of Central Parkway to the south, land designated Neighborhood Park and Medium-High Density to the north and west, and Low Density to the north (APN 905-0002-001, and 905-0002-002); and 23.4± net acres located in art area bounded by open space to the northwest, a future elementary school to the southeast, future Medium-High Density development to the south, and nature Low Density development to the east. (APN 985-0027-007). Page 2 of 10 Pro q 109 \ location ma), of the rezoning area i, sltoNn hclvw: Section -1. MENDED STAGL. I DEVELOPMENT PLAN FhC regulations (i)r the use, development, itnpa-ventent, and maintenance of the uhject prof erties is set Ii-rth in the F;:-Ilan Village Stage I Developmeru Plan adopted through Ordinance 32-0; and a, amended below, \%hich amendments are hereby nppro%ed. Any amendment, to (lie De\ clopment Plan: shall he in r e\)ltlance %%dh Section 8?2.0$0, Planned Dev_loprnent 7onin_ District, oftho Dublin MUricipal Code .t7 is succeS,or'i. PD-Planned Development Zoning District :Amended Stage I Development Plan Fallon Village (P:1 05-038, PA 07-056) 1-his is 1111 atneMled Stage I De\elopmenl Plan pursuant to Chapter 5.3-'. Planned Dc?clopmenl Zoning, District. of the Dublin Conine Ordinance ti)r the portions of the Croak and JOILIMt prope'tie, k4lth a Medium Low Dcnsity and Mccliuni-Mid Dcnsi y designation (AIIN 905-0002-001, 90i.-0002-002, and 4'si-0021-00-). fhe Croak and Jordan properties consist of 10.1 acres and 23.4 acres re5peeti, el,,. %mended Stu,-,e 1 Develonment Plan. 'The Stae I Development Plan remains us appro, ed througl; Ordinance 32-05. except as specified bcloo. 1. Statement of Proposed Uses. the Stage 1 Development Plan is amended to inelade the tollo\ving permitted, conditionally permitted. and temporary land usc4 Ihr the Melin n-I.O\\ and "k(lium-Mid Dcnsity desiytations: PI) - Nfedium-Low Density Residential Intent. The Nlcdiurn-Low Density land isc designation is estahlished to: a) reserve appropriateh located areas for tintaily livin i in a variety of types of d\vellingp at a rca,onab c ranee of Page 3 Of 10 /Oil /09 populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one family residential district while permitting higher populations densities; c) accommodate a variety of housing types including detached and attached housing with usable private yard areas; d) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit; and e) provide necessary space for off-stree: parking of automobiles. Permitted Uses Accessory structures and usei in accordance with Section 8.4(.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Animal keeping - residential Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional t se) Garage/yard sale Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Small family day care home Single family dwelling Row houses Private recreation facility (for homeowner' association and/or tenant use only) Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditionally Permitted Uses Bed and breakfast inn Boarding house Community clubhouse Community facility Day care center Large family day care home Mobile home/manufactured home park Parking lot - residential Semi-public facilities Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to "Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses aid permit procedures. PD - Medium-Mid Density Residential Intent. The Medium-Mid Density land use designation is established to: a) reserve arpropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at a reasonabl. range of populations densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) )reserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one family residential di!trict while permitting higher populations densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy and opei space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of ,itilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles, and where appropriate, for off-street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties frorr the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. Page 4of 10 Permitted Uses Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Animal keeping - residential Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Garage/yard sale Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Small family day care home Single family dwelling Multi-family dwelling Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only) Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditionally Permitted Uses Bed and breakfast inn . Boarding house Community clubhouse Community facility Day care center Large family day care home Mobile home/manufactured home park Parking lot - residential Semi-public facilities Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 fora list of permitted temporary uses acid permit procedures. Development Standards. The Development Standards are amended to include standards for attached and detached housing within the Medium-Low and N.edium-Mid Density desifnations. a. Multi-family attached housing with a Medium-Mid Density designation shall provide one of the following: i. Each unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f. flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in any one direction of 8'; or ii. Each development shall provide a minimum of 150 ::.f per unit of usable common area that will accommodate recreation and leisure activities b. Row homes with a Medium-Low Density designation: Ea.-h unit shall include a minimum 250 s.f flat usable private yard with a minimum dimension in any one direction of 8'. c. Single-family detached housing with a Low, Mediurr.-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density designation: The following table shows residential development standards and plotting concepts for Low, Medium-Low, Medium-Mid and Medium Density single-family detached housing: Page 5 of 10 1034? I Dq h h Q h st r b .n A ?l SES tgh th $ 3' 0 0 o I CC ? r ii ? U V ? ? ? 3 ? ? ,°n £ yj? X py b _ e YY e it $ d y xx v M n ? ? A ? ? ? ? ^ L ? e n h , i F ? li g zEEE e ? t 3 ? ? ? <E ?I e? a s t E E ? ? ?? 3 i r F 0 W O A )Oti 1. 1°9 Typical Plotting Concepts Traffic Visibility Area - NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY. 300 SF total flat yard area (Typ) with a min. 8' dimension. Yard area may be provided In more than one location within a lot. Min. rear yard area - 220 SF. Min. courtyard area - 80 51'. Traffic Visibility LEGEND 1 st Story Elements LOT COVERAGE: 55% Max Q 2nd Story Massing (No One-Story Requirement) Usable Rear Yard Min. Area NEIGHBORHOODS OF LOTS 2500 SF AND GREATER LOW, MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FA141LY DETACHED SMALL LOT Page 7 of 10 TWO-STORY TWO-STORY TWO-STORY TWO-STORY CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT IQ-r2 Ioq Typical Plotting Concepts RECIPROCAL. USE EASEN NTS 250 SF total flat yard area (Typ) with a min. I'dImenslon. Yard area may br provided in more than one la:ation within a lot Min. rear ya'd - 170 SF Min. courtyiA - 80 SF COURT rER HOMES 250 SF total flat yard area (Typ) with a min e' dimension. Yard area maybe provides in more than one location within a lot. Min. rear yard - 170 S Min. courtyard - 80 SI LEGEND 0 1 st Story Elements LOT COVERASE: 55% Max Q 2nd and 3rd Story Massing (No One-Story Requir-!anent) Usable Yard Min. Area NEIGHBORHOODS OF 1800 SF AND GREATER MEDIUM-LOW, MEDIUM-MID AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SMALL LOTS/COURT HOMES Page 8 of 10 NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS ONLY. X06 tog 3. Static I Site Plan. Hi; atmmled Sta-se I Site Plan invorporates the Xledium-Low Ucnsi,y :uxl \IediUtn-Mid Demity land VW desi_mtl6011s in p;ac. JI AIrdiutn Density designalion k, t th,; Croak and Jordan properties. a 53.69 At Fallon Village Stage I PD Amendment Site Plan 4 -AC u0 tfPa , Y[;a rqP. ... .q •u?5 STAGE l si rF PLAN Par.C 9 of 10 ?-? 10 4. Site Area, proposed densities. As follows: Land Use Acreage Density Single Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 unitslacre Medium-Low Density Residential 16.9 acres 6.1-10 units/acre Medium-Mid Density Residential 16.9 acres 10.1-14 units/acn: Medium Density Residential 26.3 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acr.- Medium High Density Residential 23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/aci-e Rural Residential/A culture 142.9 acres l unit/ 100 acres Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR General Commercial/Cam tts Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR Industrial Park/Cam us Office 61.3 aches 0.25-0.80 FAR Community Park 18.3 acres - Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres Open Space 211.2 acres - Elementary School 21.1 -acres - Semi Public 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take erfect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36533 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of __ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G:TAM2007`07-0.% Cmak and hndan Medium Dmsity,City CouwiVC(' Onlim VD.DOC Page 10 of 10 I- i U C,4 0 Q ci Q